fbpx

THE LEGISLATURE VS THE COURTS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on reddit
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

buy viagra times;”>You gotta love this judge who put this injunction in place to stop Members of Parliament from speaking to the issues of Save Da Bays. She continued her course of action when the Attorney General’s office tried but failed to have the injunction set aside on Friday 29 April. Her wrong legal reasoning was that the status quo should remain until she heard full arguments on the matter.

viagra canada times;”>That is foolish on its face. The law is quite clear, even if the MPs violated her so called injunction, there is no remedy because the law is clear that no action can be taken against any Member of Parliament for anything that he or she says in Parliament. That is the end of the story.

It is remarkable that you can have someone start with a false premise then build on that false premise which continues to create havoc. You wonder about the legal reasoning of someone who sits in our courts some time.

This is an especially good time to make the point not only because of this foolish decision by this Judge but given the remarkable outburst by former President of the Court of Appeal Dame Joan Sawyer that although she had not read the bills to amend the constitution, they were nonsense. She also said that she would vote no and that she has always been equal to a man.

Dear Dame, we are sure that you have always been equal to a man but unfortunately as smart and equal as you are, you sound like a fool. How can you pronounce on something that you have not read? The issue is whether or not men and women have equality in the law.

We were happy this week that the Speaker of the House Kendal Major stood up for Parliamentary Privilege. He said that no court can tell an MP what to say.

We are also pleased at the action of Jerome Fitzgerald, the MP for Marathon, who brought a resolution to bring the Judge Indra Charles, the lawyers Ferron Bethel and Fred Smith before the Bar of the House and possibly bring contempt charges against them for what to us is clear breach of privilege.

That a Judge of the Court would not recognize the convention of comity between the branches of government is disgraceful. Now this foolish action has to be considered on 12 May. Even on procedural grounds she was wrong. There was nothing in that application of an emergency nature that warranted an ex parte or emergency intervention of a court. It is simply disgraceful. But even if this matter must go to the Privy Council; even if the legislature has to intervene and stop this case dead in its tracks then that is what must be done. Parliament in this case must be supreme.

Number of hits for the week ending Saturday 30th April 2016 up to midnight: 132,955;
Number of hits for the month of April up to Saturday 30th April 2016 up to midnight: 1,009,287;
Number of hits for the year 2016 up to Saturday 30th April 2016 up to midnight: 4,489,189.