ISLAMOPHOBIA BY CIVITAS

For the first time since this blog began in 2009 I have no hesitation in using my whisper of a voice in copying in full the just published article from CIVITAS on the topic of a proposed definition of that contrived word "Islamophobia".  With magistrates being crucified metaphorically of course if their language deviates from what the MOJ language police deem appropriate this should not be without interest to many whose words are scrutinised as if there were a mistake in the number of angels on the proverbial pinhead. 

 What next for attempts to define 'Islamophobia'?

One of the outstanding issues that Theresa May left for Boris Johnson’s government to pick up this summer concerned demands for there to be an officially-sanctioned definition of 'Islamophobia'. Campaigners have long been calling for one, and the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims increased the pressure late last year by producing its own definition, describing Islamophobia as a ‘type of racism’. Given that Muslims are of a religious faith rather than a race, this is nonsensical.

Any such attempt to protect Islam from criticism is also a serious threat to free speech, as a new Civitas publication warned this month. The collection featured authors including Peter Tatchell, Richard Dawkins and a range of different religious and secularist commentators, and was edited by Emma Webb, director of Civitas’s new Forum on Integration, Democracy and Extremism. As Prof Dawkins put it succinctly:

‘Hatred of Muslims is unequivocally reprehensible, as is hatred of any group of people such as gay people or members of a race. Hatred of Islam, on the other hand, is easily justified, as is hatred of any other religion or obnoxious ideology.’

But while Mrs May’s government rejected the definition proposed by the APPG, it did agree that there should be a definition of some kind and set in train a process  to decide a form of words. The appointment of one of two intended advisers was rubber-stamped in haste in her final week in Number 10. 

The new prime minister must decide now where this process goes next. The most prudent course would be to abandon it.

A JP`s WILFUL REFUSAL OR CULPABLE NEGLECT

During training all new magistrates are told that if they or a close relative, or someone known to them has an involvement in a case which comes before them they must declare an interest and usually recuse themselves from any participation. Obviously the general guidance can be only that; general.  Certainly after a year or more on the bench a magistrate will have learned from colleagues when to consider if they are in breach of said guidance and of course the Deputy Justices Clerk is there for advice.  Therefore there appears to be no excuse for this woman although her name has not as yet appeared in cases disciplined by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. This would seem to be wilful refusal to act judicially or culpable neglect on her part.  No doubt the full story will out. 

PHONING AT THE WHEEL NEEDS A RE-THINK

Without exception government departments employ hundreds if not thousands of people to spread the word; the word they want we, the public,  to hear on the basis that all  words of opposing opinion  will, if not drowned out, be lost in the cacophony that results.  Nowhere is this attempt at control more evident than within the Ministry of Justice which day by day is becoming an oxymoron. With all the problems facing the MOJ, last week the House of Commons Transport Committee with or without consultation with its colleagues at Justice or Home Office decided to recommend that all mobile phone use whilst driving be banned.  This announcement, of course, made headlines in all media. But in practical terms there is no way that a measure such as this with dubious supposed statistics at its rear end will make it into law.  There are as far as I know no statistics on driving convictions or penalty points allocated for the use of in car hands free phone use.  The so called eminent MPs might have issued a warning against a driver talking to himself or a passenger whilst driving. In addition, for some years most if not all vehicles have been and are fitted with WIFI enabled cabins so that mobile hands free telephony can be installed within the vehicles` own navigation systems in minutes. If government rightly wishes to eliminate the use of non hands free use which is a laudable aim then the method is simple. They must use the argument that such use is as bad for concentration as driving with low level blood alcohol level where the sanction is immediate disqualification for six months plus of course fine and costs. The fact that mobile police patrols have been drastically reduced in the last decade means that the odds against illegal use being observed have increased considerably.  As with many illegal activities it is the fear of being caught that is the most effective sanction against the would be perpetrators acting in such a fashion. Publicise a first instance ban as with drink driving and mobile phone use whilst driving will be immediately reduced.  

ANOTHER COURT INTERPRETER PROVIDER BITES THE DUST

Since 2012 I have been commenting on the less than satisfactory history  of court interpreting that began with the yet to be investigated scandal of Applied Language Solutions` contract with the Ministry of Justice that year.  The MOJ for its part is regularly issuing notices of how efficient the current service is but apparently old habits die hard when it comes to that organisation`s signing of contracts.  

A sub contractor for these services went out of business last week.  It is now obvious that all government departments are obsessed with outsourcing.  In the oft forgotten days of the Callaghan administration and earlier, government employees used their trade union affiliations to cause havoc to public services.  I remember the three day week of 1972 and eating by candle light.  I remember rats searching in uncollected rubbish in 1979.  There was no doubt that Maggie Thatcher`s reforms to prevent such events was welcome relief but now the pendulum has swung to the maximum of its arc.  The principle of such activities has been taken much too far. There are some services which must now be taken under direct control before their inefficiencies  and siphoning off of capital as dividends lead some naive voters to think that the antisemitic communist Corbyn has the answer to our economic problems.  

However I would be being naive in thinking that that is going to happen.  Our capitalist system which has been allowed by the Conservative Party to be relatively unfettered in its greed is liable to be responsible for its own downfall. It would be poetic were it not so dangerous for the well being of us all. 

CAMERON OR JOHNSON; WHAT`S THE DIFFERENCE?

All those interested will have by now made up their minds whether or not our newly enthroned prime minister was showing “leadership” or being unwise in speaking out in support of “tough” sentencing. My own opinions on his and David Cameron`s similar comments and particularly of the Sentencing Council`s tick box structure have been mentioned here on more than one occasion. Cameron when PM revealed, perhaps without too much forethought, his thinking processes on the Sentencing Council.  He is quoted in The Telegraph at the time  as saying,

“My mum was a magistrate for 30-odd years and you don’t go on being a magistrate just reading the handbook and working out exactly what sentence is handed down. You respond to local circumstances, to the sense of right and wrong in that community.”

And that is precisely where the dispute in current sentencing now lies. For some years we have been told to do exactly that which is on the tin or top cover if preferred; read the handbook [guideline] and work out exactly the sentence. The tick box analogy is perfect. Now Johnson wants us to respond to local circumstances when he is well aware that his government is bent in removing “local” from such services as far as justice is concerned.

Politicians are like ladybirds; they never change their spots, some of them have a nasty bite and they fly off and leave the scene when disturbed.

HOW AWFUL

There is no doubt, unless the opinion is emanating from an MP on the Tory side where it`s waffle from dawn to dusk or from the Opposition where it`s based on, "they`re wrong whatever the topic", that most clear thinking individuals when pressed will admit to apprehensions about our justice system.  For this short post the justice system is a loose term encompassing the process from the law being broken to a defendant being found guilty or acquitted. In order to bring a defendant to court s/he must first be arrested for an alleged offence. However only about 8% of such people are actually charged.  In the last eight years the number of prosecutions has fallen by around 45%. Eight years ago there were just under 900,000 cases at magistrates and crown courts. Latest figures are just under 500,000. Ten years ago there were 20,000 more warranted police officers than there are currently. And nine years ago in Bradford the crown court was being overwhelmed with cases it could not handle with available resources. I posted on this particular city`s problems in this regard on 13th April 2018 with reference to an earlier post almost eight years prior.  

It seems that the situation in Bradford is no better now and arguably worse as the parliamentary answer of last week shows below.  For the complete exchange access is here. 

We used to read of the dreadful delays in places like India where defendants awaited trial for many years and sometimes waited in custody on remand.  "How awful", would be the opinion of most of the legal world.  We used to read of the corruption of police in Pakistan or in some Eastern European countries. "How awful", would be the outcry of British police authorities. We used to read of political double dealing in our near European neighbours and our parliamentary representatives would answer interviewers` questions, "How awful". 

Our justice system as an appendage of our total democratic system can now be summed up by just those two words "How awful".  

MUSINGS ON THURSDAY (2)

Sometimes magistrates courts and information of interest to those who use them are bereft of interesting items and at other times the pieces of news flow like buses after a hold up.

Whilst on the bench the most onerous decision making for me was not about whether to convict or acquit, to jail or not to jail but to decide if it were unsafe to bail an untried defendant especially in cases of alleged domestic violence.  Since then the procedure regarding bail has changed drastically. If I were a cynic I would suggest that these changes were designed to reduce the number of people kept in prison on remand but of course government does not operate like a black market shyster during World War 2.  Being now unable to keep suspects on almost unlimited bail with the associated conditions imposed police must release them without any conditions until they are ready to charge; this is called released under investigation.  This has been the case since April 2017. Since then the Metropolitan Police have released 97 out of 284 murder suspects.  During the same period 807 suspects have been similarly released. Of those suspects no figures are available for what subsequently happened to them.  Once again as has been the MOJ philosophy for at least two decades the tail of the target to reduce the numbers of prisoners has wagged the dog of the duty of a government to keep its citizens safe. 

It is against the law to use a mobile phone whilst driving; the operative word being use. At least that is what I and tens of thousands of judges, JPs and lawyers thought was the law.  But, and it`s a very big but, yesterday at the High Court the pronouncement from the bench was that the legislation does not prevent all use of a mobile phone held while driving. The defendant claimed in his defence that he was shooting a video with the phone`s camera.  This decision opens up a large can of worms. The press report is here although there might be some difficulty tracing it.   

The conviction of the offender who gained notoriety as "Nick" has produced not unexpected ramifications.  The newly installed Justice Secretary has backed a call from Sir Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini to ban the naming of those arrested for rape and other sexual offences. A report can be accessed here for those who wish to note opinion other than from  their usual media.