In an unprecedentedly swingeing attack (at least for the last 300 years or so!) on what he perceives to be the government's encroachment on judicial independence, Lord Woolf used what is described as 'militant' language to expose the major flaws in our Home Secretary's latest attempt at what is nothing less than a flagrant attempt to re-write the rule of law in the UK and to turn us into some sort of elective (and for how long would that last, if he achieves his objectives?) dictatorship:
|the plan "would be a blot on the reputation of the government and undermine its attempts to be a champion of the rule of law overseas"
"I am not over-dramatising the position if I indicate that, if this clause were to become law, it would be so inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect between the different arms of government that it could be the catalyst for a campaign for a written constitution. Immigration and asylum involve basic human rights. What areas of government decision making would be next to be removed from the scrutiny of the courts? What is the use of courts, if you cannot access them?"
Throughout his career, David Blunkett has shown himself not be the campaigner for the ordinary person, as he as a labour Party devotee would have us believe, but a believer in central 'diktat' from those who think they know better - and are none-too-subtly intent on putting in place the legal framework to allow them to trample on rights which have taken centuries to achieve. Unfortunately, with its huge majority, it is highly likely that this legislation will be rammed through what is left of our parliamentary democracy by bought-off Labour back-benchers. Chilling.