Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

I'd be better able to comment if I'd seen the article in question.

a) No
b) No

A. no. B. No

Just back to say 'of course not', but would still have liked a link to the article rather than just a statement.

Ukip called them activist judges and wants them to be sacked.
Obviously not relevant or good journalism. I notice that Katie Hopkins has an article about it in the DM too, just two clicks away.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3901170/The-three-judges-blocked-Brexit.html

Sorry was in the bath!

No to both

So one of the Judge's sexual orientation was referred to in the article's description of him.

Isn't that what another thread on here is attempting to promote? More openness about people's sexual preferences and lifestyle choices...?

I don't think the DM has 'made an issue' of it at all and wonder why you do, Penstemmon

I am not sure that one's sexual orientation impacts on one's ability to do a job. They did not mention the sexuality of the other judges so by commenting on this the editor obviously thinks there is a point to be made.

I am just asking the question to see what the views of others are. I do agree that the more openess about sexual orientation is probably a good thing and this man has 'come out' & is living openly and honestly about his sexuality.

But like you said, Penstemmon, there was no need to mention it as it has nothing to do with the article or his ability to do the job.
Surely being open means accepting it without mentioning it.

I just looked through the article quickly. I can't seen why it was thought relevant to mention a judge's sexuality.

I think a person shouldn't feel that they have to hide their sexuality but neither should it be flagged up when there is no reason for it to be mentioned. After all a judge's heterosexuality wouldn't be thought newsworthy.

It reminds me of the way women in the public eye are often subjected to an analysis of their private lives , in particular if they are married and have children, whereas men rarely are.

Why is the fact the man has 'come out' is he described as being honest about his sexuality , if people do not choose to 'come out' they are being dishonest ?

The article sort of pretends it isn't making an issue of his sexuality by including references to the other judges' wives and children too.
I think that not only that judges' sexuality is irrelevant, but references to partners, wives, husbands and children is a serious invasion of their privacy.

However what really concerns me about this article is the assertion that judges are 'activist' and not politically impartial in making their judgements, and that their allegiance is to a 'metropolitan elite'.

That contradicts the whole basis of our political system - which is that parliament makes the laws, and that the judiciary interprets those laws passed by our elected politicians in an unbiased way.

Since the Referendum the ideal of parliamentary democracy seems to be giving way to mob rule. A dangerous road, IMHO.

The DM will use anything it can to prove to it's readers that the country is being undermined by fifth columnists. It uses sexuality because that appeals to those readers who are homophobic.

Obsession with sex. A judge is gay so is reported as such in a newspaper, a judge is gay and us described as being honest because he has 'come out'

I wouldn't use the Daily Mail for chip paper let alone read it.

My mam reads it so I have to keep abreast of the garbage she's absorbing as fact.

To answer the OP's questions

1) It's irrelevant
2) If it's irrelevant it follows that it is poor journalism; in my opinion.

However, if you think that rabble rousing is good journalism then today's headlines from the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph (I expected better of the last named) are up with the best..

I am even more ashamed of being British today than I was a few days ago when the Mail targeted foreign lorry drivers using their mobiles...(and on many other occasions since 24th June)

It's the Mail - what do you expect?

Please don't use the words "Daily Mail" and "journalism" in the same sentence.

Totally irrelevant of course. But used by this kind of paper to sway the opinion of some people in a distorted way. Sadly, tragically, it works with too many.

We are told again and again we shouldn't judge people for the paper they read- but I am sorry, if someone intentionally buys such papers with the dreadful, biased + all the 'ists' possible- then you do have to wonder if this is not what they want to read, and therefore support to some extent. There is no escaping that - whichever way you want to look at it.

Did the Daily Trash mention that the other judges were heterosexual?

MaizieD - I couldn't agree more. OP's questions are very much to the point. Oh ho hum. It's going to be rocky few months/years/decades...