Latest news with #JonathanSumption
The Sun
24-05-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption blasts ECHR
A FORMER Supreme Court judge has blasted Europe's human rights laws imposed on Brits. Jonathan Sumption said we have no control over the European Convention on Human Rights and its influence on our laws. He backed a Policy Exchange report which hit back at claims that leaving the convention would be a betrayal of Sir Winston Churchill. 1 Lord Sumption said: 'It has now become an expanding source of domestic law over which Parliament has no influence or control and which it cannot repeal or amend. 'The British electorate has no input into it. The constitutional implications are enormous, although hardly appreciated by the public or acknowledged by professional politicians.' The report argues that although Britain helped draft the ECHR it is a far cry from what the Government had imagined as a safeguard against fascism and communism.
HKFP
09-05-2025
- Business
- HKFP
Former New Zealand Supreme Court judge set to join Hong Kong's top court following exodus of foreign justices
A former New Zealand Supreme Court judge is set to join Hong Kong's top court following a slew of foreign judges' departures over the past year, with some citing political reasons. William Young will serve as a judge at Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA) after he receives the Legislative Council's endorsement, the government said on Thursday. The approval of the legislature is part of the standard procedure for appointing foreign judges to the top court. Chief Executive John Lee has already green-lit Young's appointment after the New Zealand judge's name was put forward by the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (JORC), the body responsible for advising judicial appointments. According to Young's curriculum vitae, the 73-year-old was a permanent judge at New Zealand's highest court – the Supreme Court – from 2010 to 2022. Before that, he served as a judge in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He became the Court of Appeal president in 2006. As a barrister in the 1980s and 1990s, his practice involved fraud, competition law and tax. He also prosecuted for government bodies, including New Zealand's fraud and tax departments. 'He is a judge of eminent standing and reputation. I am confident that he will contribute substantively to the Court of Final Appeal,' Lee said in a statement on accepting the JORC's recommendation on Young's appointment. Young will be the sixth foreign judge at the CFA, joining five other justices from the UK and Australia. Since the start of last year, six foreign justices have left and one – James Allsop from Australia – joined the CFA. Top court exodus Since its establishment in 1997, the CFA has sporadically extended invitations to judges from other common law jurisdictions to join its appeal panel. This practice has been regarded as a testament to the international community's trust in the city's judicial system. But the top court has seen a number of foreign judges resign or not extend their tenures over the past year, with some citing political changes since Beijing imposed a national security law in 2020. Last year, the apex court lost five judges. Anthony Murray Gleeson from Australia did not renew his term when it ended in February 2024, citing old age; UK judges Jonathan Sumption and Lawrence Collins quit in June before their terms ended; while Canada's Beverly McLachlin and the UK's Nicholas Phillips did not extend their terms. Among them, British judge Jonathan Sumption wrote in an opinion piece in June, just days after his resignation, that Hong Kong was 'slowly becoming a totalitarian state.' Judges operate in an 'almost impossible political environment created by China,' he said. Australian judge Robert French resigned last month, saying that the role of foreign justices in the top court had become 'arguably cosmetic.' Before the recent string of departures, two British judges in 2022 – Robert Reed and Patrick Hodge – quit the CFA, citing an erosion of political freedom. The government has defended the city's legal system amid the resignations, saying in April that the 'presence or absence of individual judges will not undermine the integrity of the system, nor impair the HKSAR Government's determination in upholding the rule of law.'
Business Mayor
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Mayor
The supreme court has carefully ringfenced protections for women. That's all we wanted
M iddle-aged women are expected to fade into the background, to be apologetic for their existence, to quietly accept their lot. They're not supposed to stick up for themselves, to enforce their boundaries, to say no. As a woman, these societal expectations have been drummed into me from day one. But still. The swell of anger and disgust that rose in response to the supreme court judgment last week that made clear women's rights are not for dismantling – rights already won, that were supposed to be ours all along – has taken my breath away. I was in court last Wednesday to hear Lord Hodge confirm that the Equality Act's legal protections that were always intended for women are, indeed, reserved for women. He reiterated that trans people continue to have the same robust legal protections against discrimination and harassment as any other protected group, something I've always emphasised in my own writing. But men who identify as female – whether or not they have a legal certificate – are not to be treated as though female for the purposes of equalities law. This is a hugely consequential clarification because for the past 10 years lobby groups such as Stonewall have misrepresented the law, telling public sector organisations, charities and companies that they must treat trans women as women. Now the supreme court has made it clear: female-only services, spaces and sports cannot admit males, however they identify. Workplaces and schools must offer single-sex facilities; service providers do not always have to, though it may be unlawful sex discrimination for them not to do so. Read More SRA shuts down three directors of acquisitive firm This means it is never lawful to expect a female nurse to share changing facilities with a male colleague. It's not lawful to tell a distressed female patient that the obviously male patient next to her in the female-only ward is, in fact, a woman and she is transphobic to question it. It's not lawful to expect a female rape victim to take or leave a female-only support group that includes men. It's not lawful to tell a woman required to undergo a strip-search that the male police officer doing it is actually female. It's not lawful to expect teenage girls to play women's football on a team with male players, or female boxers to box against men. Lesbians can have their own groups and associations without being bullied into admitting straight male members who – in an act of gross homophobia – self-identify as 'lesbian'. Why does this matter? Because this unlawful activity has all been happening in recent years, to the detriment not just of women's safety, but our privacy and dignity. The judgment could not be clearer on the above, though that has not stopped a former supreme court justice, Jonathan Sumption, and a former cabinet minister, Harriet Harman, from taking to the airwaves to interpret the law incorrectly. Can you imagine angry leftwing men railing against any other group that's managed to secure their rights? Me neither In his remarks, Hodge cautioned against reading the judgment as a triumph of one group over another. That is entirely correct: the Equality Act balances conflicting rights, and the supreme court has simply restored the balance to where the law said it was supposed to be. Trans people have their protections, but now women's protections, too, have been clearly ringfenced on the same basis – all that leftwing feminists ever asked for. But many pundits have misinterpreted this as meaning women should not celebrate a landmark legal victory in a case it was a travesty they ever had to fight. It's a product of the rank misogyny embedded everywhere, from right to left. Can you imagine angry leftwing men railing against any other group that's managed to secure their rights? Chastising them for not being gracious enough in victory? Me neither. The reaction to the judgment serves as an important reminder that, while the law is the law, our culture remains dead-set against women who say no to men. It's how women's and lesbians' rights were so rapidly eroded by Stonewall and its allies in the first place, and why women have been bullied, hounded and sacked simply for trying to assert their legal protections. The same people are ignoring the supreme court's emphasis that none of this takes away from trans people's existing rights, and are scaremongering and infantilising trans people as victims. Lloyds Bank wrote to all its employees to say it 'stood by' and 'cherished' all its trans employees. Several unions have organised an emergency demo in support of trans rights, giving the impression they are being rolled back. It's easy to forget that all that has happened is that the supreme court has been clear that a male desire for validation does not trump women's rights to single-sex spaces and services. That if you are a male police officer or nurse demanding to strip-search or carry out a smear test on a woman, the answer is no. Part of being a grownup is understanding that the world cannot always be structured around your own wants and needs. It's not kind, compassionate or healthy to indulge a failure to accept that. Read More SRA set to cap fees for handling mis-selling claims The judgment means trans rights activists are at a crossroads. Do they double down and try to argue that MPs must respond by dismantling women's legal protections? Or do they put a stop to an ideological crusade that's harmed not just women and lesbians, but the many trans people who aren't dogmatic about gender ideology, and instead advocate for gender-neutral third spaces, open and female categories in sports, and specialist services for trans people, and against discrimination based on gender non-conformity? If they pick the latter path, they'll find willing allies in women like me. skip past newsletter promotion Analysis and opinion on the week's news and culture brought to you by the best Observer writers Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. after newsletter promotion And finally, to the countless women who lost so much in fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be ours all along, there could be no happier way for me to round off my last regular column for the Observer than by saying: you are heroes. Pop those champagne corks. Celebrate as hard as you like. You deserve it. Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist
The Guardian
20-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
The supreme court has carefully ringfenced protections for women. That's all we wanted
Middle-aged women are expected to fade into the background, to be apologetic for their existence, to quietly accept their lot. They're not supposed to stick up for themselves, to enforce their boundaries, to say no. As a woman, these societal expectations have been drummed into me from day one. But still. The swell of anger and disgust that rose in response to the supreme court judgment last week that made clear women's rights are not for dismantling – rights already won, that were supposed to be ours all along – has taken my breath away. I was in court last Wednesday to hear Lord Hodge confirm that the Equality Act's legal protections that were always intended for women are, indeed, reserved for women. He reiterated that trans people continue to have the same robust legal protections against discrimination and harassment as any other protected group, something I've always emphasised in my own writing. But men who identify as female – whether or not they have a legal certificate – are not to be treated as though female for the purposes of equalities law. This is a hugely consequential clarification because for the past 10 years lobby groups such as Stonewall have misrepresented the law, telling public sector organisations, charities and companies that they must treat trans women as women. Now the supreme court has made it clear: female-only services, spaces and sports cannot admit males, however they identify. Workplaces and schools must offer single-sex facilities; service providers do not always have to, though it may be unlawful sex discrimination for them not to do so. This means it is never lawful to expect a female nurse to share changing facilities with a male colleague. It's not lawful to tell a distressed female patient that the obviously male patient next to her in the female-only ward is, in fact, a woman and she is transphobic to question it. It's not lawful to expect a female rape victim to take or leave a female-only support group that includes men. It's not lawful to tell a woman required to undergo a strip-search that the male police officer doing it is actually female. It's not lawful to expect teenage girls to play women's football on a team with male players, or female boxers to box against men. Lesbians can have their own groups and associations without being bullied into admitting straight male members who – in an act of gross homophobia – self-identify as 'lesbian'. Why does this matter? Because this unlawful activity has all been happening in recent years, to the detriment not just of women's safety, but our privacy and dignity. The judgment could not be clearer on the above, though that has not stopped a former supreme court justice, Jonathan Sumption, and a former cabinet minister, Harriet Harman, from taking to the airwaves to interpret the law incorrectly. In his remarks, Hodge cautioned against reading the judgment as a triumph of one group over another. That is entirely correct: the Equality Act balances conflicting rights, and the supreme court has simply restored the balance to where the law said it was supposed to be. Trans people have their protections, but now women's protections, too, have been clearly ringfenced on the same basis – all that leftwing feminists ever asked for. But many pundits have misinterpreted this as meaning women should not celebrate a landmark legal victory in a case it was a travesty they ever had to fight. It's a product of the rank misogyny embedded everywhere, from right to left. Can you imagine angry leftwing men railing against any other group that's managed to secure their rights? Chastising them for not being gracious enough in victory? Me neither. The reaction to the judgment serves as an important reminder that, while the law is the law, our culture remains dead-set against women who say no to men. It's how women's and lesbians' rights were so rapidly eroded by Stonewall and its allies in the first place, and why women have been bullied, hounded and sacked simply for trying to assert their legal protections. The same people are ignoring the supreme court's emphasis that none of this takes away from trans people's existing rights, and are scaremongering and infantilising trans people as victims. Lloyds Bank wrote to all its employees to say it 'stood by' and 'cherished' all its trans employees. Several unions have organised an emergency demo in support of trans rights, giving the impression they are being rolled back. It's easy to forget that all that has happened is that the supreme court has been clear that a male desire for validation does not trump women's rights to single-sex spaces and services. That if you are a male police officer or nurse demanding to strip-search or carry out a smear test on a woman, the answer is no. Part of being a grownup is understanding that the world cannot always be structured around your own wants and needs. It's not kind, compassionate or healthy to indulge a failure to accept that. Sign up to Observed Analysis and opinion on the week's news and culture brought to you by the best Observer writers after newsletter promotion The judgment means trans rights activists are at a crossroads. Do they double down and try to argue that MPs must respond by dismantling women's legal protections? Or do they put a stop to an ideological crusade that's harmed not just women and lesbians, but the many trans people who aren't dogmatic about gender ideology, and instead advocate for gender-neutral third spaces, open and female categories in sports, and specialist services for trans people, and against discrimination based on gender non-conformity? If they pick the latter path, they'll find willing allies in women like me. And finally, to the countless women who lost so much in fighting to re-establish what was supposed to be ours all along, there could be no happier way for me to round off my last regular column for the Observer than by saying: you are heroes. Pop those champagne corks. Celebrate as hard as you like. You deserve it. Sonia Sodha is an Observer columnist
Arab News
10-02-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Former UK Supreme Court judge claims Israel's Gaza assault is ‘grossly disproportionate'
LONDON: Jonathan Sumption, a former UK Supreme Court judge, has described Israel's military actions in Gaza as 'grossly disproportionate,' and added there was 'at least an arguable case' that they were genocidal. Speaking ahead of the release of his new book, 'The Challenges of Democracy: And The Rule of Law,' Sumption explained to The Guardian newspaper why he signed a letter last year accusing the UK government of breaching international law by continuing to arm Israel. He said: 'I thought — and I still think — that the conduct of Israel in Gaza is grossly disproportionate and there's at least an arguable case that it's genocidal. One can't put it higher than that because genocide depends on intent. That's quite a difficult thing to establish but I read the provisional decision of the International Court (of Justice) and it seemed to me that they were saying that that was an arguable proposition. 'Given that the obligation of parties to the genocide convention is proactively to prevent it happening and not just to react after the event, I thought that the authors of the letter — and I wasn't the draftsman — had got a point.' Israel has denied committing genocide, maintaining that its military operations were acts of self-defense while also rejecting the ICJ's findings. Sumption's book, which is published on Thursday, focuses on perceived threats to democracy, including restrictions on free speech. He expresses concern over how certain opinions, particularly those supporting Palestinian rights, have been suppressed in some countries. He said: 'I think that supporters of the Palestinian cause have had a rough time in a number of European jurisdictions, notably Germany, where there's been direct — and government — moves to suppress that strand of thought altogether. 'We haven't got anywhere near as close to things as that … but there's certainly been a lot of calls for toughness on pro-Palestine demonstrations, which assume, without actually saying, that it's perfectly obvious that support for Palestine is wrong. I don't think it's wrong.'
