Lord Falconer’s argument is a response to accusations about his being misogynistic, built on the premise that his opposition to the appointment of Liz Truss as lord chancellor is about her qualifications. He dismisses accusations that Chris Grayling and Michael Gove were not attacked at their appointments by indicating that Grayling’s subsequent behaviour and actions testifies to the fact that he was not qualified to defend the law, should not have been appointed based on the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, which states in section 2 that persons in consideration for appointment to that office must appear to be “qualified by experience,” and provides examples of qualifications. To counter an opposing statement that Truss has had 20 years of experience, Falconer states that a careful examination of Section 2 shows that her 20 years does not necessarily match up with requirements of the job. Falconer states further that other women were more qualified to do the job, citing Anna Soubry as one of them. Falconer concludes that his opposition to Liz Truss’s appointment as lord chancellor is not about her sex; rather, it is about her qualifications.
Evaluate the Source of the Argument
Having had experience as a former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, Lord Falconer is a verifiable, credible source. The hyperlink on his name in the source article states, “Falconer is a qualified barrister and senior counsel practising in London, and he became a QC in 1991. He was the first person to be the secretary of state for justice, the justice secretary, and he chaired the commission on assisted dying” (reference). These experiences put him in a position to be knowledgeable enough to present an argument; however, the caution is whether his argument can be truly unbiased given that he is from the labour party, while Liz Truss is from the Conservative Party. Nevertheless, a majority of the information Falconer presents here about people, declarations and credentials can be verified through the Internet. Neverthea fIdentify the Identify the Argument
Lord Falconer’s argument uses deductive reasoning to support his premises and to arrive at the conclusion that accusations about his opposition to the appointment of Truss as lord chancellor are not sexist. First, he provides facts that he had openly opposed Grayling at an October 22, 2014 meeting; additionally he uses Grayling as an example of someone who had had years of service in a position, but who wasn’t experienced to perform on the job. He also minimizes her study of politics, philosophy and economics, her position as a management accountant and as deputy director of Reform to those experiences, and uses the language of Section 2 to illustrate that they don’t translate to having the skills to uphold the law. Finally, he gives the name of a female and her qualifications, that he believes is suitable for the job.
Evaluation of the Argument
Falconer builds his argument of the premise of undercutting the arguments that indicate that males were appointed to a similar position without reprimand, and that Liz Truss was not able to uphold the law, and that they are other women who would be able to do so. Based on the fact that his premise was in response to accusations, they seem ready made, and they can be easily verified in accessible resources like the Internet.
Bibliography
Falconer, C. (2016, 07 25). The row over Liz Truss as lord chancellor isn’t about gender. It’s about the law. Retrieved from The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/row-over-liz-truss-sexism-gender-law-lord-chancellor
