Friday, April 24, 2015
A review of the Lutfur Rahman judgment posted by Richard Seymour
When I say that the law is the dominant form of the dominant ideology, you might see what I mean when you look at the trial and judgment of Lutfur Rahman and Tower Hamlets First councillors. Not to worry if you don't - I will return to it. But for now, it's important that someone should begin the work of critically reflecting on the judgment rather than - as has been the general tendency - treating it as holy writ.
Jen Izaakson has done sterling work in beginning this mammoth task here:
37,000 people voted for Lutfur Rahman in a record turnout. He has now been deposed – not by an election, not by arrest and not by a jury trial, but by four local politicians who took him to court. Sitting in judgment was one man only – not a qualified judge, only a barrister (assumed by the media and even myself, to be a Judge) – who has demonstrated previously a peculiar interest in Muslims and elections.
This man found Lutfur Rahman guilty of multiple offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983. This article goes over what they were...
If, having read the judgment and Jen's article, you find yourself outraged by such a flagrant attack on local democracy with such a flimsy rationale, then you can sign this petition as a start. There will be a campaign around this. Those prematurely braying and hugging themselves with joy this judgment have a lot of explaining to do.
8:40:00 pm |
Permalink |
Comments thread |
|
Print |
Digg |
del.icio.us |
reddit |
StumbleUpon |
Tweet|
Share|
