In Britain and British territories overseas, in some places even where these are no longer “British” such as Malta, judges are known as Mr Justice – a term which in other countries such as Italy is utterly unknown and would presumably sound strange! Indeed, it is at least a bit high-sounding to personify a man or a woman as “Justice” itself, many a time even in cases where these same judges have perhaps shown themselves rather inclined to make a mockery of justice itself.
... it is at least a bit high-sounding to personify a man or a woman as ‘Justice’ itself...- Mgr Anton Gauci, Victoria
A few weeks ago we had a “High” Court in London giving us a sentence ruling that “the Catholic Church can be held liable for the wrongdoings of its priests” – a sentence which prompted me to pen some remarks under the title A Shockingly Unjust Sentence (The Sunday Times, January 8). Now again we have a High Court Mr Justice showing us that he has “taken sides with those who are undermining our Christian heritage” (February 11).
An atheist councillor had objected to “the saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a council” and, subsequently, a Mr Justice in London ruled that “the saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a council is not lawful”, adding that “there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue”.
In the light of the fact that as noted by a Christian Institute representative, “prayers have been a part of the council meetings for centuries and many people see them as a positive part of our national life”, one would simply ask Mr Justice concerned whether, on the contrary, there is a “statutory power” prohibiting the centuries-old practice to continue. If there is not such a “statutory power”, is it just to deprive the majority of having their wishes fulfilled in order to satisfy those of an individual?
There also comes in the remark of those lawyers who “argued that council members who were not religious were being ‘indirectly discriminated against’ in breach of human rights laws”. Funny, indeed! Wouldnot prohibiting said prayers, established and “legalised” by the use of centuries, be “indirectly discriminating against, in breach of human rights” in the case of the many who want to have the prayers?
The Romans used to say quieta non movere. Does that quieta for many centuries not give a “right”? Or, better, does it give objectors the “right” to have those same prayers removed?