al-Qaida Cherie

The US has their Hanoi (now Baghdad) Jane, we have our Carolyn Parrish -- but they have nothing on Cherie Blair, wife of British PM Tony.

Cherie Blair says that courts have to "act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics". This statement, this sentiment, in and of itself is not a bad thing -- but when this kind of statement is made with terrorism as a backdrop, it implies that the government has not shown due diligence when drafting, implementing and acting upon legislation. It is the sort of cautionary statement made when a society impinges on the rights of its citizens for no other reason than because it can.
Cherie made clear that judges must resist pressure to convict on the proposed new laws -- inciting or glorifying terrorism -- in order to preserve British civil liberties. "The important task of reviewing executive action against the benchmark of human rights. . . In our troubled times where terrorism, division and suspicion of others are the order of the day, this role for judges is perhaps more vital than ever before."

While Cherie's assertions are perfectly reasonable when a country is not at war, or there is no threat of imminent attack from within, these comments were made yesterday in Malaysia. All the while her husband is on the homefront fighting for stronger powers to detain, convict and deport the terrorist suspects in their midst.

So far, Britain has tried 20 cases with people charged under their terrorism laws. Nineteen of those cases have been unsuccessful because judges are so reluctant to convict. This has resulted in international condemnation of Britain, with Tony Blair trying to defend against critics who call the nation's capital 'Londonistan' because of its reputation as Europe's centre of Islamic extremism.

Tony Blair says when trying to remove suspected terrorists the government has been prevented by judges .

"We have been trying to get rid of these people," he said at his monthly press conference. "Now I am afraid occasionally what has happened is we have tried to get rid of them, and we have been blocked."
When asked how he was blocked, he said only: "You can go back over the court cases and read them."

How does that square with what Cherie is saying?

Jane Fonda spoke for Jane Fonda. Carolyn Parrish speaks for herself and her constituents. Who does Cherie Blair speak for? I realise the woman is a 'respected human rights lawyer' -- but beyond her last name -- what else about her compels anyone to listen?

The Scotsman (linked in title) has the article, at the end of which is this interesting little piece:

DISCORD at DOWNING STREET

She says
An independent judiciary has the important task of executive action against the benchmark of human rights
He says
The independence of the judiciary is a principle of our democracy, but I hope that recent events have created a situation where people understand that it is important that we do protect ourselves

She says
It is all too easy for us to respond to such terror in a way which undermines our commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions
He says
I think it perfectly reasonable for us in circumstances of great difficulty to have a greater detention, in order that there can be the interrogation of people who are suspected of doing this

She says
Courts have to act as guardians of the weakest, poorest and most marginalised members of society against the hurly-burly of majoritarian politics
He says
I think when the main political parties present a united front then you send an important signal to the terrorists of our strength, our determination, our unity to defeat them

She says
As long as young people feel they have got no hope but to blow themselves up, you are never going to make progress - Speaking about a suicide attack in Israel where a Palestinian bomber killed 40 people -- JUNE 2002
He says
It is just a lie when they say that people have got no option but to engage in terrorism. They do have an option

Blair is publically defending his wife's comments again -- as I suppose he must to keep peace in the house -- but when you read the Scotsman article, you'll see where he directly contradicts what she's said.
Their dinnertable conversation must be electric.

canadianna