web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "british"

Botched vandalism of British Treasury leaves climate-change protesters red-faced — literally

Westlake Legal Group cc Botched vandalism of British Treasury leaves climate-change protesters red-faced — literally Treasury The Blog Paint Extinction Rebellion Climate Change british britain red Blood

A beetroot-infused palate cleanser that comes with an important lesson:

If you absolutely must have a fire truck for your protest stunt, don’t try to save a buck by buying it it off eBay, for cripes sake. These people are lucky the tank didn’t explode, or that the dancing hose didn’t whip around at a bystander. Someone could have been hurt.

Or, worse, they would have all been stained crimson from head to toe and I would have had to make a pitiful joke about how “the Greens really are Reds after all.”

I suppose the protesters’ metaphor still works, though, no? The Treasury was supposed to be “blood-stained” because of the government’s climate policies; instead, “blood is running in the streets” because of them. Something something blood, something something climate change. Close enough.

The post Botched vandalism of British Treasury leaves climate-change protesters red-faced — literally appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group cc-300x159 Botched vandalism of British Treasury leaves climate-change protesters red-faced — literally Treasury The Blog Paint Extinction Rebellion Climate Change british britain red Blood  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lindsey Graham: The British ambassador got a raw deal from … the press

Westlake Legal Group kd Lindsey Graham: The British ambassador got a raw deal from … the press Trump The Blog leaks Kim Darroch Jeremy Hunt diplomatic british britain Boris Johnson ambassador

No, Kim Darroch didn’t get a raw deal from the press. He got a raw deal from whoever leaked his private diplomatic cables to the press. And he got a raw deal from Graham’s golf buddy, who passed on a chance to do the Brits a favor by being magnanimous about this and ignoring the criticism of his administration in those cables.

But this may be all Graham can muster anymore by way of criticism of the president at this stage in his evolution towards total Trump sycophant. He recognizes that Darroch was treated badly. He feels strongly enough about it to say so publicly.

Yet he can’t bear to place the blame where it really belongs. So he complains, but subs in a scapegoat. “Darroch was mistreated by the, er, media” is as close as he can get in Lindsey-speak to saying “bad Trump.”

If Graham’s eager to blame someone else for Trump’s tantrum over Darroch’s cables, I have a much better candidate than the press. As Ed noted earlier, it was Boris Johnson’s pitiful cuckish refusal to say he’d keep Darroch on as ambassador if he succeeds Theresa May as prime minister that convinced Darroch to quit. And critics are rightly letting him have it:

“Boris Johnson isn’t even PM yet and he is already responsible for a grievous blow to the UK’s international reputation…,” tweeted Nick Boles, an independent lawmaker and one-time Johnson adviser. “The British people can now see that Boris Johnson will be Donald Trump’s poodle, that his response to any command from the White House will be: ‘How high, Mr President?’”…

Tom Tugendhat, chair of the foreign affairs committee, told Sky News: “If we allow ourselves to be bullied in who we chose to represent us, then frankly, what does sovereignty mean? If you can’t even choose who represents you, then in what way are you in charge of anything?”

It wasn’t just gutless but stupid of Johnson, as his diplomatic corps might hold it against him. “He has basically thrown this fantastic diplomat under the bus to serve his own personal interests,” said one junior officer in the Foreign Ministry to Reuters, a point echoed by others who spoke to the Financial Times. An ambassador from a different country remarked to the NYT how ironic it was that Darroch was being bounced for criticisms of the Trump administration — inept, unpredictable, diplomatically clumsy — that routinely appear in cables sent by other foreign diplomats. Actually, said a British official to WaPo, you don’t even need to ask other diplomats whether Darroch’s criticism was apt. “Trump’s own aides, advisers and friends” will tell you that it is.

British columnist Brendan O’Neill asked a fair question: Why is it that Johnson and Nigel Farage, two of the UK’s loudest voices in favor of Brexit and sovereignty, were so quick to kiss the ass of a foreign power by tossing Darroch in the trash?

These are people who are supposed to be taking back control. Who are meant to be resuscitating Britain’s sovereign rights. Who have promised to bring legal, political, economic and diplomatic affairs back under the say-so of ordinary Britons and the people we actually elect.

And yet they flat-out failed to confront Trump, whose comments on Darroch — he branded him a ‘stupid fool’ and a ‘pompous guy’ and said his administration would no longer work with him — were in essence an ultimatum: get rid of this guy or there will be trouble.

The response should have been a clear, polite ‘Mind your own business, Donald’.

“It is for Britain and Britain alone to choose its ambassadors. And therefore Kim Darroch will be staying in his role,” O’Neill wanted them to say, insisting that Darroch be kept on if only for a few months longer as a gesture to show that the UK doesn’t take orders from anyone, particularly a president whose complaint here involved nothing grander than a bruised ego.

Maybe this is a defect of nationalism. Just as European “nationalists” seem eager to toady to a foreign nationalist power like Putin’s Russia, the British nationalists Boris and Farage seem to tremble at the thought of antagonizing Trump in even the smallest way, never mind that, Trump being Trump, it’s possible that he would have changed his mind about Darroch and dropped the whole “persona non grata” thing tomorrow. The best one can say of Johnson here is that he was legitimately worried that if he didn’t soothe Trump’s ego by abandoning Darroch, a post-Brexit U.S.-UK trade deal would have become much less likely. Imagine believing that the president would be so thin-skinned that he’d refuse to trade with a major western power because their ambassador hadn’t been punished for criticizing him confidentially. That’s … that’s …

That’s totally understandable on Johnson’s part, now that I think about it.

Exit question from Twitter pal “Lesser Frederick”: What’s the lesson American righties mean to impart by supporting Darroch’s ouster? That American diplomats stationed abroad should “go native” and never criticize the governments they’re interacting with — not even privately? “If diplomats are not willing to report anything to their government that they think might potentially embarrass the host country,” says LF, “then diplomats are useless as an intelligence source.”

The post Lindsey Graham: The British ambassador got a raw deal from … the press appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group kd-300x153 Lindsey Graham: The British ambassador got a raw deal from … the press Trump The Blog leaks Kim Darroch Jeremy Hunt diplomatic british britain Boris Johnson ambassador  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

“An immense intrusion”: British judge orders developmentally disabled Catholic woman to have an abortion, over her and her family’s objections

Westlake Legal Group c-3 “An immense intrusion”: British judge orders developmentally disabled Catholic woman to have an abortion, over her and her family’s objections UK The Blog Nathalie Lieven Disabled british Abortion

To our great national shame, there’s a ruling not unlike this one buried in the archives of the U.S. Supreme Court, long since derided as one of the worst in American history. (And authored by one of the Court’s greatest justices, no less.)

That case is no longer good law, although I’m not sure if it’s ever been explicitly overruled. In the UK, though, the eugenic principle underlying it seemingly stands: When the disabled try to reproduce, the state may lawfully take drastic measures to prevent it, up to and including unwanted surgical intervention.

Why not adoption here, you say? Why not let grandma, who told the court that she’s willing, raise the baby instead? Good questions. All I can tell you is that the holy church of Choice sometimes doesn’t allow for … choice. Even when — or especially when? — the choice in question is driven by religious conviction.

“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion,” said Justice Nathalie Lieven in her ruling in the Court of Protection, June 21…

Doctors at the trust wished to abort her pregnancy and argued that, due to her diminished mental capacity, the abortion would be less traumatic for the woman than giving birth, especially if the baby would then be placed in foster care…

The woman’s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter. A social worker who cares for the woman also disagreed that she should be forced to have an abortion

Lieven also said that she did not believe the woman’s ongoing mental health care needs would permit her mother to assist in raising the child.

Note that it’s not just the family’s wishes that are being overruled. An arm of the state itself opposes termination. But anyway, what about adoption? (And why not let the woman’s mother at least try to manage raising the baby?) Well, said the court, it’d be simply too wrenching and confusing for a woman with the mental capacity of a child to have her newborn baby snatched away after it’s been born and given to another family.

The humane, and apparently far less wrenching, thing to do is to forcibly kill the child in her womb over her objections instead.

This wouldn’t be an early termination either, do note. The woman is reportedly 22 weeks pregnant, a stage at which fetuses are viable if they receive good medical care. Whether the court considered viability in its calculations is unclear, although it doesn’t sound like it: Reportedly, one of the reasons the judge preferred abortion to adoption is that asking the mother to part with, and I quote, “a real baby” would have been too cruel. The entire point of this case is that the woman and her family consider the child in her womb to be a “real baby” already, but the state in its infinite wisdom will substitute its own judgment on that.

The fact that Catholic News Agency is pushing this story raises hopes that it’ll come to the attention of the Pope, who can put some pressure on the UK to rethink this — but only so much. Remember, the Pope also championed the case of Alfie Evans, the British infant with a degenerative neurological disorder whose parents wanted him to receive longshot treatment for his illness in Italy. The Italian government okayed it, Italian doctors okayed it, the Pope endorsed it, but Alfie’s British doctors insisted that he was incurable. In the end, the UK wouldn’t let him go. He ended up dying in a hospital room, not even at home per his parents’ wishes because the government feared mom and dad might abscond with him to Italy in a desperate bid to, er, save his life. This is the mentality facing this woman and her mother in fighting for her child to be born: The British state will fight tooth and nail to have a possibly perfectly healthy baby liquidated because their authority will not be questioned.

Here’s the Pope last year comparing abortion to hiring a hitman. How often does a judge hire a hitman to take out a baby?

The post “An immense intrusion”: British judge orders developmentally disabled Catholic woman to have an abortion, over her and her family’s objections appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group c-3-300x153 “An immense intrusion”: British judge orders developmentally disabled Catholic woman to have an abortion, over her and her family’s objections UK The Blog Nathalie Lieven Disabled british Abortion  Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com