Re: Are we turning into a fascist state?
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:18 pm
What absolute nonsense. There was a positive explosion of it after the first A50 proceedings. Iain Duncan Smith led the way questioning the impartiality of the judges. He wrote a long article in the Daily Mail which accused the judges in its headline of being the "Enemies of the People".i'm spartacus wrote:There is no disrespect of the judiciary other than in your mind.
Smiths points were subsequently demolished by various people including barristers but he wasn't the only one. The chair and vice chair of the supreme court were accused of bias and and Michael Howard was one of several who mentioned they were unelected. Smith himself seemed to be under the delusion if they were vetted by the likes of him this would make them less partial!
All in all it ought to take you less than five minutes to find the evidence of disrespect for the judiciary. IDS, Howard and others were not questioning the legal points of a judgment but the integrity of the judges.
What is that if not disrespect?
I am not on about the mechanism of appeal. I am not sure how anyone could assume I was complaining about the normal workings of the court. Surely it was obvious to what I was referring.Challenging decisions is an important part of our judicial process and more importantly here, it is constitutionally important and perfectly legitimate that the highest court in the land rules upon it. Conversely, had the initial judgment gone the other way, I would have fully expected Gina Miller to have appealed it. I personally thought the initial court judgment was the wrong decision. Tomorrow we will find out one way or the other
Go on, show me the evidence then. It is not an "alleged" increase and even it was down to increased reporting it is still going on isn' it! So how exactly does that mean we do not qualify as meeting criteria no 3? There is scapegoating as I described.There were EU and other immigrants who suffered discrimination before the Brexit vote and there are counter arguments which say that the alleged increase can be put down to increased reporting, or incorrectly presented figures.
Your apparent disdain for Britt ignores the fact that his points are discussed widely in discussions about fascism and have been ever since he first wrote an article which was published in the Free Inquirer magazine in 2003, a publication edited by the late Paul Kutz, who himself was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Then of course there is your presentation on the indicators of fascism written by 'Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt who recently wrote an article about fascism'
The main problem with that is that he himself says “For your information I never made a claim that I was a “Dr.” Someone on the internet made that assumption when they passed on the article. I am a retired businessman with a life long interest in history and current events"
So the article is an unqualified opinion which you happen to agree with. It isn't actually an authorative academic work worthy of a reasoned response much beyond the response it got, which was 'pure unadulterated hyperbolic nonsense'
So if he was prepared to publish these points in his magazine I think it is safe to assume he thought the article written by Britt had some merit and I will take someone as eminent as Kutz's decision to publish it as enough qualification thank you very much.
In any case even if you disagree with his points as an indicator of fascism we tick far too many of the unpleasant boxes in that list.