The former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is experiencing what multitudes of others have experienced in their life – small-time judges.

Grilled by the Commons Privileges Committee of the UK House of Commons about his possible misleading of MPs in the UK Parliament, Johnson hinted that he may refuse to accept the verdict from its inquiry if it finds that he misled Members of Parliament.

Johnson’s opening statement to the Cross-party Committee, comprising seven MPs, four Tories, two Labour and one SNP, including the Labour chairman, Harriet Harman, was a firm rebuttal of the tendentious and prejudicial opinions that had circulated in the British mainstream media and social media, which I have come to expect.

Veteran, former-MP George Galloway mocked the investigation as a kangaroo court and said that its questioning is symptomatic of the malaise in western democracies. However, Johnson himself distanced himself from the ‘kangaroo court’ charge that had been associated with himself.

Thought Police

Johnson’s opening statement asserted that the Committee, after ten months of investigation, had produced no evidence against him. Fraser Nelson thinks this is plausible and that there is “no smoking gun”, repeated by his colleague at The Spectator Katy Balls. Nelson thinks that in the absence of evidence it will come down to “gut feeling”, but that Johnson will survive. He agrees with Galloway that it is so trivial compared to bigger issues. As far as I could see, in the absence of evidence, the Committee had tasked itself with judging not only Johnson’s motives but his very thoughts when he addressed the House of Commons.

Objective law

Possibly this is no wonder. Examing his thoughts in the absence of evidence is much the same as the Scottish Court of Session did when Boris Johnson tried to prorogue Parliament in 2019, corrected by the UK Supreme Court. Subjective opinion is being introduced into legal judgments and it would be little wonder if it is taking over other areas of law. It is wrong. Law should be objective and decisions should be objective.

Common experience

The House of Commons Committee is no different in this respect from most employers taking their employees to task, or any other organisation taking on individuals. It is disproportionate.

Some application

“Who made Me a judge over you?” asked Jesus Lk 12:14. Yet there are plenty of small-time judges in most human affairs. Thankfully, at present Jesus is a Saviour and not yet exercising His authority as Judge Jn 5:22. At the Day of Judgment, how will you be able to stand? Who will plead for you? 1Jn 2:1.

“Prepare to meet thy God.”

Amos 4:12