– En av demokratiets grunnpillarer er et uavhengig rettssystem, som fungerer som det ultimate forsvar av friheten fordi dommerne er frie fra politisk kontroll. Men i Storbritannia og Europa finner noe svært alarmerende sted: Dommere blir i økende grad en direkte trussel mot friheten fordi de har lagt beslag på den politiske prosessen, skriver Melanie Phillips i Daily Mail.

– Som et resultat beveger de seg — nei, marsjerer med trommehvirvler og vaiende faner — inn på områder som burde være utenfor deres ansvarsområde.

Phillips sikter til to nylige domsbeslutninger. EU-domstolen, EUs juridiske arm, har avgjort at forsikringsselskaper ikke lenger kan skille mellom menn og kvinner når de regner ut forsikringspremier som igjen konverteres til årlige pensjonsutbetalinger. Hittil har menn fått høyere årlige beløp fordi deres gjennomsnittlige levealder er kortere enn kvinners, men nå kan menn miste flere hundre pund i årlige utbetalinger fordi den nye rettsavgjørelsen vil tvinge selskaper til å behandle begge kjønn likt.

Rettens begrunnelse er i aller høyeste grad tvilsom, og resulterer i urettferdighet:

The judges have interpreted anti-discrimination law in the most bone-headed way by saying that any gender difference in these rates is discriminatory.

But there is a very good reason for this difference, in that women live longer than men.

Discrimination surely occurs only when people in the same circumstances are treated differently. Which is patently not the case with pensions, where the different rates aim to ensure men don’t lose out.

The ruling will therefore impose unfairness upon the pension system. And to put the tin lid on it, this is being forced upon us by a foreign court.

What in heaven’s name entitles a bunch of judges who represent no one and are not even part of our society to supersede our own democratic decision-making and dictate to us our own pension arrangements? In any sane universe, nothing at all.

Den samme dommen betyr for øvrig at selskapene også må beregne samme bilforsikringspremie for menn og kvinner, til tross for at kvinner generelt leverer langt færre skadekrav enn menn.

– Den andre dommen er mye verre, fortsetter Phillips. Dommen er avsagt av britisk rett, og opprettholder forbudet mot å være fosterforeldre for det kristne paret Eunice and Owen Johns, fordi de nekter å fortelle barna at homoseksualitet er akseptabelt. Forbudet betyr i praksis at paret blir straffet for å ha feil holdninger:

In just about every respect the Johns are ideal foster parents — decent, solid, loving and with years of experience. Given the chronic shortage of foster parents and the large number of black children in care, one might have thought the Johns would be as valuable as gold dust.

Yet Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson justified the ban by ruling that the couple’s attitude to homosexuality was a legitimate reason to withhold official approval from them. Such people are therefore effectively being punished for having the wrong attitudes. This is the kind of behaviour associated with totalitarian societies, not liberal Britain.

More jaw-dropping still, the children whose ‘right’ to be told that homosexuality is acceptable is supposedly infringed by the Johns’ Christian beliefs would all be under ten years of age.

So the Johns are being punished for wanting to protect children from inappropriate talk which would surely be an abuse of their childhood.

And despite the judges’ insistence that they are not taking an anti-Christian position, that is precisely what their ruling does. For it effectively holds that traditional Christian beliefs harm children.

Indeed, the judges went much further and said there was no place in law for Christian beliefs, since ‘the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity’.

But Britain has an established Church, the monarch undertakes to be ‘Defender of the faith’, the country’s literature, history, institutions and attitudes are steeped in Christianity, and most people still identify themselves as Christian.

In short, the judges’ assertion is simply idiotic. But these judges are not idiots; they are clever men.

Their assertion must be seen instead as an attempt — at some level at least in their minds — to exclude Christianity from the public sphere.

Til tross for at dommerne hevder at de forsøker å opprettholde like rettigheter for alle trosretninger i et mangfoldig samfunn, fornekter de i virkeligheten kristnes — og, implisitt, rettroende muslimers og jøders — rett til å leve i henhold til en av de mest fundamentale doktrinene i deres tro.

In this, they were explicitly echoing last year’s controversial ruling by Lord Justice Laws against a Christian registrar who refused to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies.

In that ruling, the judge said it was wrong for the law to give preference to the Judeo-Christian tradition — which merely amounted to ‘subjective opinion’.

Well, so much for the Bible, then. And as if the opinion of these judges was anything other than wholly subjective! Their key error is to assume that secular — or atheistic — attitudes form a neutral middle ground, whereas traditional Christian beliefs amount to a kind of fringe sect.

But secularism is not neutral. It is directly and aggressively hostile to the Christian and Biblical morality which underpins western civilisation.

The judges think it is wise and humane to assert that there is no hierarchy of values, and that all creeds are equal.

But this is both absurd and nihilistic. Some values will always trump others. The only question is which ones will do so. And what these judges are doing is de-coupling the laws of this country from the western civilisation which underpins it.

Fordi menneskerettigheter og anti-diskrimineringslover påberoper seg å være universelle, tjener de uvegerlig som et sekulært våpen mot kristen eller annen spesifikk religion, mener Phillips. Siden forskjellige rettigheter konkurrerer mot hverandre, må dommerne nødvendigvis foreta avveininger mellom dem.

Men dette betyr — i saker som er blant de mest splittende for samfunnet — at dommere har fått makt til å diktere reglene for moralsk oppførsel på bakgrunn av lite annet enn deres egne fordommer, fortsetter Phillips:

Thus in the Johns’ case, they ruled that the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence over religious rights.

But on what authority do they issue such a momentous cultural pronouncement? Only their own secular prejudices.

In similar vein, the judges of the European Court of Justice are imposing the deeply oppressive and unjust ideology of equality of outcomes.

This court has long been infamous for having a highly politicised view of its role, promoting a federal state by extending the reach of the EU deep into the internal affairs of member nations.

– Det må innrømmes at den eneste grunnen til at dommere i Storbritannia og Europa er blitt for store for parykkene sine, er at politikerne har gitt dem muligheten til det. Det var regjeringen som tok Storbritannia inn i EU, og utsatte oss for en i stadig større grad undertrykkende og antidemokratisk innblanding fra EU-domstolen. Og det var de etterfølgende regjeringene som undertegnet Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjonen (EMK) og dermed belemret oss med den katastrofale menneskerettighetslovgivingen, skriver Phillips, og legger til: – Faktum er at det at dommere kan leke politikk på denne måten bare kan omgjøres av den politiske klassen:

So come on, Mr Cameron — stop equivocating.

Take all this head on — the destruction of this country’s core moral values, the ‘human rights’ inquisition and the loss of democratic control to both the EU and the British judiciary — and you will walk on water ever after.

Daily Mail: These judges want to destroy our core moral values. We simply can’t let them succeed