This is a silly, if all too common, framing. Freedom, whether of speech or of anything else, is precisely freedom from certain kinds of consequences; in particular, from punishment by the state or those to whom the state has delegate coercive power.
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts. Learn more
For all these reasons, I don't think that the convention that requires the Senate to give way to the Commons' wishes is applicable. If there's ever a moment that calls for sober, second thought, this is it. 2/2
Quick thoughts, following @DwightNewmanLaw's lead:
1) Invoking the Emergencies Act isn't ordinary legislation;
2) There's an obvious and strong constitutional/minority rights dimension to it;
3) The Commons debate was distorted by PM's confidence tricks. 1/2
There are no rights and liberties without secure property rights. Nice church you've got there―we'll protest there instead. Nice newspaper―we'll occupy it. Nice club―we'll take it over. That a self-styled civil liberties organization cannot see this is a disgrace.
This is wrong and should be an embarrassment to anyone who considers him- or herself a scholar or a scientist. Individuals who are not involved with or even publicly supporting the regime, who may well be victims too, cannot be made to answer for its evils.
This makes me nervous. I don't think courts should be describing their own decisions as "landmark" or otherwise highlighting them for special approval. Courts, like individual judges, should stick to the reasons (and fair, impartial summaries), and avoid commentary. 1/4
Do you remember the last Uber you took? Uber drivers brought a case to the Supreme Court arguing they were entitled to a minimum wage & paid leave. In 2021, the Court made a landmark decision for UK labour law. Discover more here: futurelearn.com/courses/inside…
Quite a story this: defence lawyer seeks postponement to get a psychiatrist's report; judge berates him, invokes victim; lawyer says he'll cease representing client to protect his interests; judge refuses; lawyer resigns from the Québec bar―while in court.
Some personal news I can finally share: I shall soon be joining the Reading Law School (@UniRDG_Law) as Associate Professor. I am very excited about this, of course, and am looking forward to joining the Reading faculty and the public law community in the UK.
There's also something odd, and sad, about thinking that "activism" is *the* way an academic can make the world a better place. Being curious, creating knowledge, and transmitting knowledge and curiosity to students (and public) all make the world a better place.
New article, forthcoming in @PL_PublicLaw sometime next year. Judges in the UK, New Zealand, and Canada frequently defer to administrative decisions that limit rights. I suggest that this is because they regard rights as political commitments rather than legal constraints. 1/5
🗓This week in 1927 the first transatlantic telephone service was available to the public. One member of British parliament had already declared it a failure.
