Thought Ide share

Ok Guys A freind of mine has posted a blog about the CCJ, now this is a hot topic for me, and as such as I plan to post a comment there, as well as entering my view here, Before I can do so I have to get my facts straight. Now while looking at the main site: CCJ Web Site I came a cross a Q&A section that I had to share. It goes as follows:




Q. But is it not reasonable to assume that the Judges of the Privy Council being removed from the social environment are likely to be more dispassionate in interpreting and applying the law?
A. Yes! And herein lies the problem! Law is not a static corpus of abstract normative principles to be applied mechanistically in order to arrive at objectively valid solutions to resolve problems of human intercourse. Law is the normative outcome of the cut and thrust of human interactions based on collectively determined or generally accepted social values and subject to a process of continuing adjustment to its environment of control. Consequently, persons interpreting and applying the law should be attuned to the relevant dynamics of social interaction, which determine the quality and intensity of human intercourse, and the values conditioning such dynamics. And by this is meant the values that make us cry; the values that make us laugh; the values that make us happy or sad; the values that make us responsible, productive, creative, caring, proud people. In short, the values that condition our uniqueness as a people. In the premises, to be far removed from the immediate environment of social interaction to which the law applies would facilitate a dispassionate analysis of human events and judicially objective decisions but only to the detriment of desirable social behaviour and social cohesion.




Now I found this intrestring simpley because, for 2 years of my time at UWI i was a member of the Debating society, and without a doubt every discussion we had had to touch the CCJ, so at the time I knew quite a bit and and had argued both sides more times than I could count (Dont remember anything now). After reading this Article I was impressed by the phrazing this person has used, I would give extcra marks for that, simply because this is (pardon the language) BS at its finest, remember this is an official site yet this entire response is strictly his opinion on how a justice system should work. Yet the way he answers it you would actually believe that this was a fact and not a view. Mind you I agree with the view to an extent and you might too, but it its still an opinion being stated as fact. This guy must have been a class A debater.
In any case this is not my post re the Issue, that will come at a later date.
Till tghen, See Ya!!!