Fox welcomes judicial censure of Labour's failure to equip our troops

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox has released this statement in response to a judge's warning that inadequate equipping of our frontline troops could be breaching servicemen's human rights:

“It should not take a court ruling for the Government to realise that it has a responsibility and a moral obligation to ensure that when it sends troops into harm’s way, they are the best trained and best equipped in the world.  To date this Government has failed.  It is shameful the Defence Secretary tried to gag coroners who have been critical of his Government’s abysmal stewardship of our Armed Forces.  Many will suspect that this is an example of how New Labour will react when their backs are increasingly against the wall.  This marks a new low in the Government’s attitude towards our Armed Forces and the broken military covenant.”

By way of postscript: Earlier this week Liam Fox spoke to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation about the dangers posed to NATO by the Lisbon Treaty's provisions on defence:

"Americans must realise that NATO must maintain its primacy in European security, and that any advancement of EU military capabilities must be done wholly integrated, not as a pillar, into the current framework of NATO—in support of NATO’s aims and objectives."

Download a PDF of the full Fox speech on NATO.

Comments

[Staunton]

I have to admit to being uncomfortable with all of this judicial activism.

In the last 48 hours we have had judges over-ruling elected politicians on a deportation, on a probe into Saudi Arabia and now this.

I want to live in a country where democratically elected politicians rather than judges hold the real powers.

[Umbrella man]

I'm getting a bit fed up with Fox.

I thought he was a hawk but he's said nothing about the humiliation of British troops in Basra. They're sat doing nothing while Americans are having to move south to reinforce the Iraqi troops.

Fox should be protesting against this but doesn't. He seems to be putting his hope of a job with PM Dave above the national interest.

[Matthew]

Judges were given the power to be 'active' so you can hardly blame them for using these powers. It is up to Parliament to repeal HRA if it wants to remove them again.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Its rich that any old villain/prisoner in a British jail can claim their 'uman rights are being breached for any reason that they care to think up, like not being able to smoke or some such, or having to 'slop out', whereas troops fighting FOR this country don't appear to qualify to have the Human Right to be adequately armed and protected when fighting for this country!!!!!

No, this is a socialist country, the villain is ALWAYS considered before a law-abiding TAX-payer!

[Iain]

"I have to admit to being uncomfortable with all of this judicial activism."

Yes especially Justice Collins who has with his rulings on asylum seekers almost single handidly made our asylum system the shambles it currently is and the state an impotent bystander to the shambles. . So Mr Fox would be well advised to be concerned about Justice Collins turning his judicial activist eye on the military and his desire to use the Trojan horse of the HRA to intervene in military matters, set aside the Military covenant with the HRA , and leave our military at the mercy of the human rights lawyers. For one thing you can be very sure about, regardless of all the syrupy words coming from human rights lawyers regarding the limitations of this ruling, they will as we speak be hitching a ride on the back of ambulances heading to the barracks in order to pick up speculative cases and seeking to widen the legal crack that Justice Collins has opened to the battle field.

[Tanuki]

I look forward to Liam Fox announcing that when the next Conservative government is elected one of our first actions will be to fire all the "real nappy outreach workers", 'local recycling facilitators' and "smoking cessation coordinators", diverting their otherwise-wasted salaries into rebuilding the UK's military strength to be truly world-class.

[Bill]

It is a real shame the public do not realise how our so called democratic system is so heavily biased. It goes without saying that the worst culprit is the unelected EU passing tons (no pun intended) of useless and damaging legislation made worse by general wide use of delegated legislation. But even the laws we can pass for ourselves end up being weighted as a result of judicial interpretation, an interpretation which itself is often the legal establishment's second bite at the cherry given their input as judges, barristers, solicitors, legal academics and members of pressure groups which shape/help intrduce legislation.

[Common Sense]

A big thumbs down for Liam Fox on this one.

I am relieved that others have picked up on the insidious quasi-political role that senior judges seem to be taking upon themselves, of which this latest ruling (however much we all agree with the sentiments) is a case in point. Of course the lion's share of the blame lies with Labour and its Human Rights Act but the judiciary has rushed to maximise its new role, rather than acting with restraint.

If Cameron and co don't re-democratise decision-making by scrapping the HRA then the next Conservative government will see many of its policies and actions ruled invalid by left-wing judges using ever more spurious and disingenuous interpretations of vaguely-worded human rights declarations.

Tim - Dominic Grieve is in charge of this area of policy and shows signs of being dodgy on it. It would be good to hear from him on the broader question of how we curb judicial activism and the anti-common sense human rights culture. A platform article would give CH readers an opportunity to question him in detail.

[Editor]

I'll approach Dominic for a piece Common Sense.

Thanks for the idea.

[Common Sense]

Wow! That's great news, Tim - service beyond compare.

In order to persuade Dominic to get to the nitty gritty of the matter (when it comes to replacing the HRA, the devil really is in the detail) it might be worth referencing this rather well informed discussion in the comments section of Harry's Place:

http://tinyurl.com/5acxx5

Obviously some of the contributions are polemical and even silly but others offer serious insights into the legal and political issues involved.

[Yet Another Anon]

That domestic legislation not specifically about military matters could interfere with military operations is very worrying, on this occasion it has resulted in a ruling properly noting the failure to adequately equip troops and adequately fund the military, on another occasion it could interfere with the ability to run a highly disciplined force and survive under war conditions, civil judiciary should not be involved in military or national security matters.

The Human Right Act is interfering of the worst sort, even more so in military matters than in civilian affairs.