A LABOUR MP has tabled an amendment at Westminster to allow women in Northern Ireland the same abortion rights as in Britain.
Northern ireland was excluded from the 1967 abortion act, making it illegal in the Province.
The amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will face severe criticism from all of the Northern Ireland parties at Westminster who oppose such a move.
And that’s all the Northern Ireland parties who should be at at Westminster, even those who bleat loudest about other “human rights”- social reactionaries of the province unite indeed!
The Labour MP believes women in Northern Ireland are "second class" citizens and should have equal rights to those in the UK and the Republic.
Not sure about those “equal rights" "enjoyed" in the Republic, but apart from that, yes, surely UK rights for UK citizens should be the true Unionist attitude on this one?
9 comments:
I've always detested it when Acts are passed by Parliament everywhere except Northern Ireland. How could it conceivably for our benefit? If a law is valid elsewhere, why not NI?
I am, in principle, in favour of the same laws and Acts prevailing consistently throughout the Kingdom.
Therefore it follows that any abortion laws should pertain in NI like the rest of the UK.
Tim
Except, of course, that Northern Ireland, just like Scotland, has a different legal system to England and Wales.
Different implies differences.
And if Wales upgrades their Assembly to a full Parliament with primary law-making abilities then they will break the 1536 (and earlier) Union with England which was explicitly intended to make the English and Welsh one people with equal rights under the same law.
You will see that Wales is getting another referendum, Scotland is also promised one, but the Briitish State has no intention of allowing the English to have any say in our future.
England, the British State's first colony.
But hopefully not for much longer...
Let's integrate and harmonize (favourite term of the Agreement) the legal systems and have one streamlined system for the UK as a whole. Wishful thinking...
Tim
Ah, Wildgoose, but the Abortion Act 1967 applies in Scotland - and indeed abortion law is one of the specifically reserved matters under the Scotland Act and indeed is also reserved (although not expressly) in the Northern Ireland Act.
In these terms, there is a clear cross-jurisdiction applicability - as such there is no real reason not to apply this to Northern Ireland, legally speaking. That said, I am against abortion personally, and thus rather torn on the issue.
As for the Welsh Union - Acts are 'broken' regularly, that is implicitly amended by more recent Acts. There is nothing to stop the Laws in Wales Acts being amended and altered.
As for English devolution - you're better off without.
Where does devolution of the UK end? Here, here! Enough is enough! We don't need English devolution.
Tim
Donald Findlay giving up his legal career for the union - come on!
The problem is that Scots Law and English Law come two different traditions. English law comes from indiginous common law whilst Scot's law hails from the civil/continental tradition in terms of principals etc.
The difference really stems from the Wars of Independence. Scottish Law and English Law were heavily influenced by the Normans and their was a cross-fertilisation of those of Norman heritage operating on either side of the border (notably the Bruces).
Scots also went to Oxford and Cambridge and were heavily influenced by legal thinkin there.
Then the Wars of Independence came.
In the aftermath there was a cultural embargo between Scotland and England. Scots went to continental universities, normally in the Low Countries (notably Leiden and Bruges) as as French ones through the Auld Alliance. This changed a lot of Scottish thinking.
When St Andrews was set up in the early 15th century these ideas was imported into the new Scottish academic system, particuarly in the development of Scots Law. Justinanian and his influence was the day.
James I (of Scots, not VI and I) brought back from his 20 or so years of "board and lodging" in England some more English ideas. Some developed. Some not.
Notably vetoed was the creation of seperate chambers for the peerage and the shire/burgh memebers like England.
Scots Law developed on continental lines whilst influenced by English law.
An amigo of mine who did Scots Law said a typical remark concerning English Law from Scots Law academics was this:
"The miracle of English Law is not how it functions, but how it manages to function at all!"
I think a particular bug bear was the centuries long system in England (only reformed in late Victorian era) of having seperate "Common Law" and "Equity" courts. In civil cases if someone in England (or associated states) wanted a financial remedy to problem then they had to go to a "Common Law" court whilst if they needed something to be done (such as an injunction, an eviction etc) then they had to go to a "equity" court to get that remedy.
Never happened in Scotland. As my puffed up amigo said "Scots Law is a system of principles in which the bringing about justice is the sole aim!"
At the moment in the UK criminal law is pretty uniform in areas of crimes against the state, terrorism narcotics, firearms and road traffic laws. And not much else.
Obviously there are differences in enforcing these laws. In Scotland for example not only is there different courts to the rest of the UK but also different laws on evidence. In Scotland there are very strict laws concerning corroboration of evidence and subjudicy compared to England for example.
A big difference in criminal law is of course the law of murder. In England etc murder is defined as a homicide where the assailant intended to kill the victim.
Same in Scotland (and indeed probably the rest of the planet).
However the diffence comes in less murder. In England murder is also defined as a homicide that resulted from an attack where the assailant intended to commit greivous bodily harm.
In Scotland lesser murder is "wicked recklessness towards human life" - doctrine developed from 1600 onwards (developed in King's Advocate v Patrick Stewart). For a non-premeditated homicide to be classed as murder in Scotland, two or more factors need to be satisfied:
1- Homicide brought about during a robbery
2- Use of lethal weapon
3- Inflicting multiple blows/injuries
4- Intention to cause serious injurty to victim
5 - Reasonable knowledge that the attack might lead in death but carried on anyway
A noted difference between the two systems was case when a man in England decided to frighten a woman by splashing petrol on her door and setting it alight. She died in the blaze.
Convicted of murder, he had it reduced to manslaughter on appeal on the grounds that he neither intended to kill or commit GBH.
In a similar case in Scotland, the defence tried to use same argument only for the judge to point out that it was murder under Scots law on the basis of the above points 2 and 5.
Englishman got 10 years. Scot got life.
Once upon a time the diffence between the systems (in those pre-devolution halcyon days!) meant the diffence on whether you hanged or not depending on which side of the border you committed the offence.
Another major diffence of course concerns trial by jury. In England etc the accused (or in England the defendant should I say) can elect for trial by jury or not in "either way" cases.
In Scotland the prosecution chooses if you are indicted or recieve a summary trial. The background to this is that the Scottish prosecution system has traditionally been seperated from the law enforcement services. In England before the setting up of the CPS, the police were the ones who decided whether to prosecute or not.
Also of course in Scotland there is a much heavier use of professional judges. The sheriff courts which deal with the bulk of Scottish cases are staffed with legally qualified judges (sitting alone in summary or with a jury for lesser indictable offences) where as in England most cases are dealt with in the magistate's courts staffed mainly by lay judges.
In Scotland only very minor offences (such as soliciting and shoplifting) are dealt with by JPs. They sit in either the (soon to be phased out) district courts - controlled by local councils - and JP courts - run by the Scottish government.
To finish off, I might add that despite the English and Welsh being in union since Henry VIII, Wales retained its own legal system till at least the 18th century. The main court was the "Court of Great Sessions" which combined the roles of the English Assizes, Courts of Common Pleas, Kings Bench etc.
Ah, those good old days before devolution!
Interesting Aberdonian, I knew most of that but you shone a light on a few things, thanks.
Tim
"Where does devolution of the UK end?"
In either federation or dissolution.
Devolution is inherently unstable, and "a process, not an event".
Seeing as the genie has now been released from the lamp, (thanks to Gordon Brown - Tony was notably lukewarm, but it was "Gordon's Baby"), there's now no going back.
That means creating an English Parliament and a de facto federal state before the English get too pissed off at their second class status.
The economy is in a truly horrific state and it's going to get a lot worse, (all thanks to Gordon Brown again). That means people are going to be getting angry. Anger that will be vented at those responsible, the majority of whom not coincidentally happen to speak with Scottish accents...
Alec Salmond knows this full well. He must be rubbing his hands with glee. In politics the most important thing to have is luck, and everything is moving in his direction simultaneously at the moment.
I'm generally (or at least have been up until this point) an integrationist.
But I think the "GB has it so we must want it to if we're unionists" is a little too academic when it comes to the rights of the most vulnerable people in this country- the unborn
Post a Comment