Labour
Conservative
Liberal Democrat
UKIP
SNP
Other
Our "Strong and Stable" MP has had to stand down after publicly stating homosexuality was ‘wrong’ and ‘dangerous to society’. Well done, Andrew Turner MP - you're a credit to intolerant bigots everywhere.
Other than a few feckless hopefuls trying to fill his bigoted shoes, the only other candidates around here are a bunch of swivel-eyed UKIP types. I honestly can't find anyone worth voting for.
I'll have to practice drawing male genitalia for the ballot paper.
Phage (07-05-2017)
Apparently she won't need any after June 8th.Originally Posted by TeePee
I'm not going to pretend i know much about Human Rights law, however depending on UK law for such things like human rights makes me extremely nervous as changes to UK laws seem all to easy for MPs to achieve, i think there's an idiom that says something like never giving the government powers you wouldn't want wielded by your enemy.
Apparently she won't need any after June 8th.
I'm not going to pretend i know much about Human Rights law, however depending on UK law for such things like human rights makes me extremely nervous as changes to UK laws seem all to easy for MPs to achieve, i think there's an idiom that says something like never giving the government powers you wouldn't want wielded by your enemy.
It's 'easy' provided it doesn't breach the ECHR treaty. The Human Rights act is basically in implementation of that law. British law should go farther than that to protect rights. Something like the US Bill of Rights would be ideal, provided it weren't ignored.
Maybe we're at cross purposes here as IIRC she's said she wants to withdraw from the ECHR, as in it would no longer apply to the UK, as in it would be English courts, not EU courts, making judgments based on the supposed British bill of rights that MPs could change as they wish.
Very much cross purposes. The ECHR is upheld by a court called the European Court of Human Rights. All members of the Council of Europe are bound to this by treaty. The EU is not involved with this, and has it's own EU court for EU law.
Britain has a Human Rights Act which is a set of UK laws that govern the manner in which the UK government implements ECHR. The Conservatives want to change this interpretation. Should that implementation breach ECHR, then they go to the European Court of Human Rights, again, not an EU Court.
May claims that ECHR is limiting, and should be reformed. That IS disturbing. But she has no support in her own party for this.
My opinion is that Human Rights are weakly protected in the UK, and that a British Bill of Rights should be more protective of human rights, preferable structured in a simple way like the US Bill of Rights. However, that seems to be ignored by everyone.
I'm not sure how much clearer i can be, Theresa May said in the past that she wants to withdraw from the ECHR, she not calling for reform she's calling for withdrawal, she doesn't want to remain a member of the Council of Europe, she doesn't want EU courts making judgments that effect UK citizens.
Last edited by Corky34; 05-05-2017 at 07:12 PM.
The rest may well be true, but the ECHR is still not an EU court.
Say it with me: 'ECHR is independent from the EU. Not an EU court.'
Correction. There's no such thing as British law or UK law. It's called English law. And, of course Scots law if you are from up there
I disagree here. I imagine the ECHR is a truly impartial body in the way it's not answerable to the UK. Now if we're given the British Bill of Rights then how will we know how a British Judge behave impartially free of political interference. We already know how the BBC was bullied by the Tory party in the last general election.
The British Bill of Rights as a Conservative policy was still an interpretation and incorporation of EHCR in to British (or English) law. I do not think leaving the Council of Europe is a good idea.
Yes i know it's not, it is a treaty that is interpreted by EU courts when their making judgments.
Yes i know it is, however who do you think interprets the ECHR treaty when people bring cases against government under that treaty, it's EU courts just like when Abu Hamza took his case against deportation to the EU courts.
The title of the article is wrong.
The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court.
No, no, and no again.
I guess this does prove that despite physically being the last broadsheet, The Telegraph really is a tabloid. No wonder since they used to have BoJo 'working' there making up stuff like the bendy banana myth.
To be fair to the copy writer, the article never mentions the EU but the headline writer does.
Anyway, maybe you should read the Wikipedia entry on the both:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...n_Human_Rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...f_Human_Rights
The ECHR is 100% a Council of Europe thing even if all countries wanting to join the EU must be signatures to the ECHR to met their minimum human rights commitments.
Here's a map showing the signatures:
In Europe, only Belarus and Kosovo are not signatures. Great company May wants to keep there. Still Erdoğan has pretty much announced he's leaving too.
So this is rather embarrassing, i made the same mistake even the newspapers and probably lots of others made, i was using the abbreviation of EU to mean Europe in general rather than the union.
In other words i should have been saying European and not abbreviating it to EU, apologies.
However that doesn't change that Theresa May wants to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, as a separate matter from the union stuff, or that the stuff i said before i started to use the EU abbreviation incorrectly is wrong, or maybe it it is as I'm starting to doubt myself now.
Last edited by Corky34; 06-05-2017 at 10:01 AM.
It's not the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that the Tory/May object to. It's the two-fer of activist European Court of Human Rights expanding the purview of tge original intent of the ECHR to override thinfs both originally exclyded from it, and to surplant the clearly expressed will of sovereign Parliaments. It's a two-fer because the way Labour framed the implementation of the HRA embeds that judicial usurping of Parliamentary will over matters it was never intended to cover, such as prisoner's access to the franchise.So this is rather embarrassing, i made the same mistake even the newspapers and probably lots of others made, i was using the abbreviation of EU to mean Europe in general rather than the union.
In other words i should have been saying European and not abbreviating it to EU, apologies.
However that doesn't change that Theresa May wants to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, as a separate matter from the union stuff, or that the stuff i said before i started to use the EU abbreviation incorrectly is wrong, or maybe it it is as I'm starting to doubt myself now.
So the intention is to repeal the HRA and withdraw ftom jurisdiction of these activist judges, BUT ... to embed the exact wording of the ECHR into UK Primary legislation, and to supplement it with a written Bill of Rights that confers essentially the same protections as envisaged by the ECHR against torture, thereby strengthening many current rights, which are more contained in tradition and common law, but returning the right of a sovereign Parliament to create and amend laws, and the UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter, short of Parliamentary amendment of law, of it's interpretation. Decisions from the ECtHR woukd then be advisory, not binding, on the Supreme Court.
spacein_vader (06-05-2017)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
