mr president the treaty of rome contains one sentence on this subject
it says men and women shall be given equal pay for equal work
now that sounds pretty straightforward
we all think we understand what that means
but what has happened in the subsequent decades is that through a process of judicial activism the european court has progressively extended the meaning of that phrase beyond anything that a reasonable person would assume
first it defined equal pay as meaning equal pension rights and equal holidays and so on
then it defined equal work as being work of equivalent value
how is an employer supposed to judge that
is it a question of how hard it looks like someone is working
do they have to factor in the availability of suitably qualified applicants
then in the south-west trains case in britain it was extended to look at the rights of spouses of same-sex unions
now we are talking about reproductive rights
there is an argument for all of these things
you can take the view that the state ought not to regulate contracts between employers and employees or you can take the view that we need this legislation
but whichever side you are on surely that is an argument that ought to be had by elected representatives who we can vote for and vote against
it is outrageous for them to be imposed on us by a court
a court with a mission is a menace a supreme court with a mission is a tyranny
