High Court’s Semantics


This is a statement made following a recent High Court case; ‘In disallowing witnesses to be cross-examined and by ignoring inconsistencies in Boris Johnson’s witness statements, Justice Lang has confirmed today that the British establishment is no longer a guardian of freedom of speech nor of conscience.
Read on to find out why.

There was a time when this country was renowned for its legal system. We accepted the pomposity of the judiciary and the lawyers, for we respected the commitment to maintaining fair and impartial justice, irrespective of the status of personalities involved.

In recent time more and more people are losing respect in consideration of some sentencing, and the political correctness which is infecting our Courts, which with such rigidity, refuses to recognise the beliefs and consciences of people. There even appears to be an unwritten code of practice that demands the rights of the so-called ‘gay lobby’ must take precedence of any rights of Christians.

There was even a time when the Christian standards and value, which form the basis of our legal system, were accepted and practised by lawyers. A recent case, and a statement from the President of the Family Courts, reveals how far we have travelled from our Christian heritage.

Justice Mumby is reported to have stated, ‘happily judges no longer promote virtue morality or discourage vice immorality.’ He particularly repudiated Christianity and Christian morality and welcomed legislation of gay sex. In a recent High Court case Mrs Justice Lang seems to have adopted such advice.

In April 2012 whilst an election for Mayor of London was being held, Stonewall the homosexual campaign group, paid for a series of advertisements to be placed on London buses stating ‘some people are gay get over it’. A Christian Group, Core Issues, responded by seeking to have an alternative advertisement reading ‘not gay, post gay, ex gay, and proud.’ This was banned by the Mayor Boris Johnson, who was seeking re-election. Significantly he was due to address a Stonewall meeting soon afterwards.

Johnson at the tine claimed credit for the ban and even wrote to a Labour M.P to state he had.

A challenge was made to the High Court before Mrs Justice Lang who considered the ban lawful, but she criticised the way in which it was taken.

An appeal was made by Core to the Supreme Court which directed the judge to reconsider the case, in which emails not previously disclosed had been obtained, and it now appeared contradictory statements had been made by witnesses.

The rehearing took place this year and it is reported that after Core responded to Stonewall’s advertisement, the Guardian newspaper ever the supporter of liberal intolerance, became aware of Core’s action, which provoked angry protests from gay rights supporters. This obviously created panic at London Transport at the prospect of a Guardian article, and resulted in Boris Johnson angrily stopping Core from advertising, although it was established that no advertising rights were infringed.

Johnson alleged the advertisements were suggesting gay people were sick and could be cured. There was never any suggestion in the advertisements that this was so, and there were no grounds for so alleging.

Johnson was to state that whilst he agreed with the banning of Core’s advertisement because he felt it was offensive to gay people and their families, he had not initially seen the advertisement and did not give any instruction to ban it; he was merely giving a personal opinion.

Lawyers for Johnson argued that when he used the word’ instruct’ he was only expressing a point of view. Justice Lang did not allow him to be cross-examined on his evidence for some unreported reason, concluding there was a dispute about the meaning of the word ‘instruction’. Most people may think this episode too incredulous to believe.

Boris Johnson has not come out of this very honourably even though he won the legal battle. There was ample evidence from Johnson’s own side to prove he banned Core’s advertisement. Like his old Eton school mate Cameron, he was pandering to small but powerful lobby to attract their votes.

Remember this is a man renowned for his academic abilities, a master of the classics and Greek language, who seems to have got mixed up with the simple word instruction. Why not let Johnson be tested in Court?

The judge is reported to have said she thought the advertisement was offensive, which suggests bias. This is a country where people are allowed to have free speech. Obviously the High Court, Boris Johnson and David Cameron don’t think so. If it is lawful and acceptable to allow one organisation to put forward their controversial view it should be for the other side.

It would be hard to disagree with Core’s assessment of the trial,
‘In disallowing witnesses to be cross-examined and by ignoring inconsistencies in Boris Johnson’s witness statements, Justice Lang has confirmed today that the British establishment is no longer a guardian of freedom of speech nor of conscience.

In what is believed to be a contrived and punitive judgement handed down in the High Court, Justice Lang reduces to differences in “semantics” Mayor Boris Johnson’s intervention to halt the 2012 London Bus Campaign that Core Issues Trust, together with Anglican Mainstream mounted to counter an ongoing Stonewall campaign, and which he now both denies, but at the time was willing to be credited for as a Stonewall “hero”.
“
This is a clear example of the UK judiciary aligning itself with powerful political forces and personalities that will brook no opposition to the view that children are born gay and have any choice in sexual preference, expression or identity” said Dr Mike Davidson, Director of Core Issues Trust.

“At no point in the extensive Mayoral pre-election media coverage capturing the bus campaign –except when a legal challenge was launched more recently - did Mr Johnson disavow the impression that the decision to pull our advertisement was his own rather than that of Transport for London, which he now insists.