In The Hegemony of Political Correctness: and the rise of the woke-Right, once again I pointed out that the judges were acting as the high priests of political correctness:

“An insidious aspect of political correctness is the manner in which it is passed off as human rights, and the manner it has corrupted the understanding of human rights. Human rights have become the foremost of politically correct holy words, the definition of which is the preserve of the politically correct, and the judges act as the high priests. The consequence is that human rights have become perverse and even antisense…

The activities of the judges and lawyers are anti-democratic, and they display a scant regard for the interests and views of ordinary people. This is openly stated and is a long-standing viewpoint, as the judge Lord Bingham showed when he described the Human Rights Convention as ‘intrinsically counter-majoritarian’ and that decisions to uphold the rights of minorities ‘should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.’ Britain has become a lawyers’ dictatorship.

In a speech in Melbourne, Australia, Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court and Britain’s most senior judge, said that the Human Rights Act allowed judges to:

‘…interpret statutes in a way which some may say amounts not so much to construction as to demolition and reconstruction. We can give provisions meanings which they could not possibly bear if the normal rules of statutory interpretation applied. Parliament has written us judges something of a blank cheque in this connection … this new judicial power of quasi-interpretation can be said to involve a subtle but significant adjustment to the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary … The [British] approach can be seen as effectively conferring a law-making function on the judiciary.’

In June 2015, Neuberger said in a speech to commemorate the Magna Carta: ‘The need to offer oneself for re-election sometimes makes it hard to make unpopular, but correct decisions. At times it can be an advantage to have an independent body of people who do not have to worry about short term popularity.’ In reference to ‘judicial aggrandisement’, Neuberger highlighted that the EU law and the Human Rights Act had given the judges a ‘quasi-constitutional function’.”

In 2016, the British people voted to ‘take back control’ – not least out of concern at the scale of mass immigration. It will soon be 2024. The UK’s Supreme Court decision to stop the government sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda demonstrates very clearly that the UK has yet to take back control of immigration. The UK remains a lawyers’ dictatorship. Yet still the Tories refuse to repeal or exit the variety of so-called human rights and immigration legislation and treaties that have handed control of the UK’s borders to organised crime rackets and militant judges.

Brexit has exposed that the Tories are unfit to govern. They are too incompetent and are incapable of reforming themselves. They are woke-Right.