First thing we do is kill all the lawyers

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on December 1, 2008

Yes, wholesale killing of lawyers isn't the most reasoned or practical approach to solving the problems that face society today. However, when lawyers start suggesting ideas like this one, I may just reconsider.

Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.

The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.

But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the "right to a healthy environment".

The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.

Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.

In the meantime, back in what I like to call "reality" comes this unpleasant news for global warming scaremongers: "Glaciers in Norway, Alaska, growing again."

0 comments on “First thing we do is kill all the lawyers”

  1. This same cretin was a major proponent of allowing Sharia Law to function autonomously in GB.

    I'm waiting for a lawyer to self-destruct like the computer in movie, War Games. All of sudden, out of automatic conscience-free reflex an attorney sues himself...who counter sues in a cost recovery action...causing the first attorney (the same guy) to sue for damages against an illegal SLAPP suit...resulting in the second guy amending the complaint to include the first guy's (same guy) imaginary friend Bob...rinse lather repeat...until he shakes violently...and falls into a heap of gellatinous goo.

    Most guys just want to hit an attorney over the head with a shovel. Me? I want them to lose money in the process as well.


To put Bruen in context, we've now had about as many decisions striking down laws on Second Amendment grounds in the *3 months* since Bruen as we had in the nation as a whole in the *60 years* preceding Heller, according to research from @adamwinkler in 2006.

Yet another example of how antigunners would prefer more gun-related deaths if the alternative is a pro-gun group getting some bit of credit for reducing them.

A cartoon that teaches kids gun safety is offensive now? I don't think any TV network carries Eddie Eagle. Only way a

Jonas Edwards-Jenks @Jonas_EJ

"Founder @shannonrwatts of @MomsDemand asserts that Eddie Eagle is 'a propaganda tool, similar to Joe Camel in marketing cigarettes to kids.' Her critique is painfully plausible."

Makes me embarrassed to be a 'scientist', whatever that means anymore

Load More


December 2008



linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram