Human rights: a court that can
Thursday 8 November 2012
 Working for West Yorkshire Transport Service for seven months as a driver, taking vulnerable adults and children to schools and day centres, he was fired by his employer Serco in 2004, shortly after he had won a seat on Bradford Council, representing the Wibsey ward – home of this blog. His then employer, then and now, is nothing if not strong on corporate BS, claiming to "build respect by operating in a safe, socially responsible, consistent and honest manner". "We never compromise on safety", it says, "and we always operate in an ethical and responsible manner". In like vein, it drools on: "We listen. In doing so, we treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves and challenge when we see something is wrong. We integrate with our communities". When Redfearn took the company to the undustrial tribunal, however, Serco had claimed that their former employee's activities had been disruptive and offensive to Asian employees. These claims rather fell apart, though, when he lined up ranks of Asian colleagues as character witnesses, also proving that there had been no complaints against him. After they had affirmed that Redfearn had done nothing whatseover to cause offence, the company rather forgot about the "honesty" bit and changed their story midstream. It then claimed it had fired Redfearn on "health and safety grounds", on the basis that his continued employment could cause considerable anxiety among Serco's passengers and their carers, and there was a risk vehicles could come under attack from opponents of the BNP. Accepting the rather bizarre claims that a man should be fired because people (aka criminals) might attack his vehicle, the tribunal found for Serco. In 2005, though, Redfearn successfully appealed against this decision at an appeals tribunal. Then, in a classic demonstration of just how corrupt our justice system has become, the Court of Appeal found for Serco, on the new grounds that Redfearn's complaint was of discrimination on political grounds and not racial grounds, which fell outside of the anti-discrimination laws. He was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords. That left Readfearn with no other option but to appeal to the ECHR in Strasbourg, and the ruling has now come down that the British Government (Regina) was in breach of the convention on human rights, by not intervening on the basis of Article 11 - freedom of assembly and association – the seven judges coming to the conclusion, on a 4-3 majority, that Redfearn had been fired solely because of his membership of a political party. It was further declared that: "The court was struck by the fact that he had been summarily dismissed following complaints about problems which had never actually occurred, without any apparent consideration being given to the possibility of transferring him to a non-customer facing role". Prior to his political affiliation becoming public knowledge, neither service users nor colleagues had complained about Redfearn, who had been considered a "first-class employee", the court said. From the local Telegraph & Argus though, little of this bizarre story actually emerges. Yet Labour MP for Bradford South, Gerry Sutcliffe, is allowed to criticise the decision – and Redfearn is not given an opportunity to comment. Our-freedom-loving MP says that the court failed to take into account of the district’s "diverse community" and thinks Serco "did the right thing" in sacking Refearn. He adds: "I'm sad the European Courts have decided to overturn the ruling because it's not reflective of the make-up of our community where we want to have tolerance of all society. It will re-open old wounds that don't need to be opened". So, in the interests of "tolerance of all society", Mr Sutcliffe believes it entirely in order for BS Serco to lie through its teeth, and that there should be no tolerance for Mr Redfearn when he joins an entirely legal political party. Not content with that, the newspapers launches into its own diatribe, declaring that "it cannot be right for the Strasbourg court to be able to cast aside the legal judgements made in this country that ultimately upheld the decision by Serco to dismiss Arthur Redfearn". Note .. not judgements in general - just this one. The British legal system, it says, "decided that the company were within their rights to sack him because of his membership of the Far-Right party and many would rightfully argue that our courts should be sovereign in this matter". But for the paper and its Asian owners, "the real question" is whether the company should have been allowed to dismiss someone for holding and representing views which could clearly cause offence to his passengers and their families, "particularly as a number of them were Asian". And the answer, the paper says, "must surely be a resounding Yes" - although, presumably, it is happy for white trash to be offended. Fortunately, the Telegraph & Argus is not the law round here, and neither is Jerry Sutcliffe. And those who would wish that UK law was sovereign need also to accept that that, without an updated Bill of Rights and a constitutional court to protect our rights, it would be unsafe to allow British Courts – and even MPs – supreme power. Whatever one might think of the BNP, and however unhappy it is that we are subject to the rulings of the ECHR, the Court found that: "A legal system which allowed dismissal from employment solely on account of an employee's membership of a political party carried with it the potential for abuse and was therefore deficient". That is the issue here, and as long as our courts and political system can't deal with that, then we need an institution that can. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 08/11/2012 |
EU politics: not really trying
Wednesday 7 November 2012
 In what has all the hallmarks of being driven by the Downing Street publicity machine, one sees the emphasis on the multi-annual EU budget negotiations, with Mr Cameron continuing to play to the domestic audience, keeping attention focused on the budget, rather than the broader issues. Tucked in at the end of the BBC report, however, us the short note that, "if no agreement is reached by the end of next year the 2013 budget will be rolled into 2014 with a two percent rise to account for inflation". In other words, come what may, there is going to be an increase … and then there are the supplementary budgets. Reuters, though, does allow for German officials becoming "exasperated" by what they see as "London's slide towards Europe's margins", but it only manages to cite Gunther Krichbaum, head of the German parliament's EU committee. He warns against the island mentality of states like Britain "who want less Europe rather than more". "The European Union is not a multiple choice," he says (which, of course, it is). It is perhaps slightly comforting to learn from this that some of the German commentators are just as dense as their British counterparts, but this time we do get some interesting commentary from this side of the Channel, from Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times who asserts that "Britain and Germany are growing apart". Germany will do almost anything to preserve the euro, he writes, even at its own economic cost. [British] Ministers have long believed that Ms Merkel would sooner turn her back on the eurozone's periphery than underwrite the currency with German money or compromise its view of how the ECB should operate. "Only recently have they shed this delusion", writes Ganesh, although one is not yet sure that the media have entirely caught up. Less helpful is a sub-moronic piece from the Failygraph's favourite crutch, which tells us that "Germany is desperate to ensure that integration does not destroy the single market, which remains an asset". This is golden boy Mats Persson, of the europlastic Open Europe, who confidently tells us that the German "desperation" should include making sure that any eurozone banking union doesn't push the City of London "offshore", which would cut off a facilitator of investment and a gateway to global markets for Germany. Thus, goes the europlastic creed, both London and Berlin support the prudent use of public money, "and oppose the papering over of economic cracks through fast and loose money". Both, we are told, want to boost cross-border trade, in Europe and across the world. And this, if the British Government "stops its misguided lecturing, and advocates that kind of change, it may find it has more friends than it realised". One does enjoy the confidence of such assertions, but only on the basis that one can recognise the "fools rush in" syndrome, where even seasoned and knowledgeable German commentators fear to tread. They fully understand that German sentiment is ridden with factions and there is no such thing as a single, united "Germany", with a single, coherent view. Thus, the problem is misdiagnosed – partly - as Germany and Britain "talking past each other", a viewpoint which ignores the integration dynamics which are driving events in the eurozone. As long as these exist, and the UK is not in the euro, there is never going to be a meeting of minds. But then, Open Europe has its own agenda, which makes it one of the least trustworthy of commentators on the block – but ideally suited for a newspaper which used Janet Daley to forecast the result of the US election. More sanguine analysts will be watching closely to see whether Merkel is prepared to throw Cameron a bone today, which might help him on his domestic crusade. That is the most important issue for him, but Merkel has a general election next year, and she must watch her own domestic audience.
That, possibly to Cameron's discomfort, may help solve the mystery as to why Merkel is really in London later today.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 07/11/2012 |
Someone wins US election, shock!
Wednesday 7 November 2012
If I could be bothered to stay up into the wee small hours, I too could pick up something that every service in the world will be running. And that says it all … there is no point in this blog even attempting to duplicate what is being done elsewhere, by so many.
Further, conscious of how stupid and ignorant Americans often come over when they try to analyse British politics, I've been reluctant to return the favour. I simply do not know enough about the nuances of US electoral politics to be able make any worthwhile comment. On the broader issues, my few trips over to the other side of the pond and my general studies of US systems suggest to me that this election isn't going to solve anything. Picking one person from two flawed and unattractive individuals does not seem to be a remedy for the deep-seated problems that are affecting the whole of Western civilisation, to some extent or other. On the other hand, a good night's sleep will solve one of my immediate problems. So, when it comes a choice between that, and waiting to see which muppet won the election, there really is no contest. But, at least, I can confidently predict that somebody will win … and nothing much will change.
UPDATE: It looks as if the Obama muppet has won - 303 to 206 votes from the electoral college. That is not as close as many had predicted - and totally contrary to the predictions of the Failygraphmuppet. That is one to savour when the paper starts pontificating on the next election.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 07/11/2012 |
Posts
