Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    When has this ever been a good idea? It's only ever used at times of largescale warfare where it is absolutely necessary to suspend civil liberties to win. Don't act like if it wasn't for the ECHR the Torys would be torturing us.
    Do you read history at all? The ECHR isn't about the Tories its about ensuring that in none of the countries under its jurisdiction can anything akin to Nazi Germany ever happen again. Did you even read why Abu Qatada couldn't be extradited? That evidence against had been gathered using torture, so clearly some governments are prepared to commit torture when not at war.

    It's about safe guarding the population from state abuse of power regardless of whose in charge. That's how law works, it works the same regardless of who you are. You don't look at a government you like and get to say, "well they're alright, the ECHR doesn't need to apply to them" or look at someone you hate and say "well they're an arse so the ECHR shouldn't protect them.", that would be pretty much the definition of a biased law system.

    The ECHR wasn't written (by british lawyers I'll add) with this Tory government in mind, it was written with protecting us from any concievable government we might have.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Do you read history at all? The ECHR isn't about the Tories its about ensuring that in none of the countries under its jurisdiction can anything akin to Nazi Germany ever happen again. Did you even read why Abu Qatada couldn't be extradited? That evidence against had been gathered using torture, so clearly some governments are prepared to commit torture when not at war.

    It's about safe guarding the population from state abuse of power regardless of whose in charge. That's how law works, it works the same regardless of who you are. You don't look at a government you like and get to say, "well they're alright, the ECHR doesn't need to apply to them" or look at someone you hate and say "well they're an arse so the ECHR shouldn't protect them.", that would be pretty much the definition of a biased law system.

    The ECHR wasn't written (by british lawyers I'll add) with this Tory government in mind, it was written with protecting us from any concievable government we might have.
    Lol the irony,

    The excesses of the Nazis never happened in Britain to begin with, and interestingly neither the League of Nations or the Weimar constitution prevented such excesses of the Nazis

    You know what did? Sound political culture. Not a piece of paper listing rights and a far away court that prevents us from deporting criminals.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Lol the irony,

    The excesses of the Nazis never happened in Britain to begin with,
    "It can't happen here."

    and interestingly neither the League of Nations or the Weimar constitution prevented such excesses of the Nazis
    Well, the moment you find an entirely fool-proof way of stopping it, let us know. At the moment, you're letting the best be the enemy of the good.

    And seeing as the United Nations is the descendant of the League, are you advocating we leave that?

    You know what did? Sound political culture. Not a piece of paper listing rights and a far away court that prevents us from deporting criminals.
    HAH. War stopped them, or did that escape your notice? But to prevent it happening again, I'd rather something other than war.

    Seeing as 'mere pieces of paper' are what summarise the rule of law, and the rule of law is one of the greatest gifts Britain gave to the world, it's rather odd of you to scoff at it in such a way.

    Courts aren't meant to do whatever you want all the time, anyway. They are meant to enforce the law. You know, those scraps of paper. Those scraps of paper that Britain wrote, and, of its free will, signed up to.

    You know what? The 1689 Bill of Rights is an inconvenient restraint on the powers of the Queen. What business do we have restraining Her? It prevents the Queen from punishing criminals how She fits, and it's just a mere list on a scrap of paper. What a waste.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I'm happy to posit general, inalienable rights, too. The question is how we apply and decide them.

    We don't need to follow that argument all the way through. The point I was really trying to make is that there is nothing inherently authoritarian or oppressive in abandoning the jurisdiction of the ECtHR, or even the text of the Convention.

    Parliament could of course empower judges to override its legislation, in the same way as it did in relation to EU law. Parliament would of course be able to depart from that position by explicit language in any Act, but it can just as well ignore the ECHR/ECtHR if it really wants to. So, whilst I tend to favour a political process, if it's judicial supremacy we want, we can achieve it just as well in a domestic setting.
    The problem is that we don't have a constitutional document like the US or Germany which Parliament cannot abolish.
    And I think its good to have set human rights above Parliament.

    I'm also an internationalist, I like the idea of Europe working together, following a common standard of human rights. I hate the little england mentality of shutting ourselves off.
    I'd also point out that as Rakas did, the ECHR has voted with us 90% of the time.

    Our judges cannot overrule an Act of Parliament as you say and neither can the ECHR. What the ECHR can do is tell us we are in breach of our international obligations to protect human rights and that looks pretty bad on us.
    Plus there is no guarantee that Parliament would grant our Supreme court the powers to overrule.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Do you read history at all? The ECHR isn't about the Tories its about ensuring that in none of the countries under its jurisdiction can anything akin to Nazi Germany ever happen again. Did you even read why Abu Qatada couldn't be extradited? That evidence against had been gathered using torture, so clearly some governments are prepared to commit torture when not at war.

    It's about safe guarding the population from state abuse of power regardless of whose in charge. That's how law works, it works the same regardless of who you are. You don't look at a government you like and get to say, "well they're alright, the ECHR doesn't need to apply to them" or look at someone you hate and say "well they're an arse so the ECHR shouldn't protect them.", that would be pretty much the definition of a biased law system.

    The ECHR wasn't written (by british lawyers I'll add) with this Tory government in mind, it was written with protecting us from any concievable government we might have.
    Hear hear!
    The whole point of the ECHR is that it applies to all governments, setting a common standard.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    "It can't happen here."



    Well, the moment you find an entirely fool-proof way of stopping it, let us know. At the moment, you're letting the best be the enemy of the good.

    And seeing as the United Nations is the descendant of the League, are you advocating we leave that?



    HAH. War stopped them, or did that escape your notice? But to prevent it happening again, I'd rather something other than war.
    Gladders, our dear King Edward wanted a Nazi alliance, as did many senior members of Parliament and society. It is a complete misunderstanding to believe that the British were united in opposition, the reason for appeasement may have been antipathy to war and the public's pacifism but it was also due to the presence of far right groups which had put pressure on England not to resist German aggression, on the contrary the French were ripe for destroying Germany if we would have let them occupy the Rhineland sooner instead of letting Germany remilitarise it.

    It was not the League, not the constitution, not the parliamentary system, not the laws, it was the good will of many British people which prevented the excesses of Nazi government, my suggestion is to stop putting trust into institutions like the ECHR and instead work on actually making Britain a safe and open place to live.

    That starts with government at home, in the interests of the people, not hate preachers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Lol the irony,

    The excesses of the Nazis never happened in Britain to begin with, and interestingly neither the League of Nations or the Weimar constitution prevented such excesses of the Nazis

    You know what did? Sound political culture. Not a piece of paper listing rights and a far away court that prevents us from deporting criminals.
    ****ing hell.

    It doesn't matter that the "excesses of the Nazis" didn't happen here, the ECHR is about ensuring it never can, and anyone who tries to make it happen can be legally held accountable.

    Ah I see, "sound political culture" a completely legally meaningless phrase, and something that can change over time (exploiting cultural change due to lack of legal safeguards is how Hitler got to power).

    You're seriously arguing that because a constitution that didn't have legal safeguards failed to stop the rise of Nazi Germany, we shouldn't have legal safeguards? By your logic what is the point of having a legal system? Why don't we just trust people to be nice to each other?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Gladders, our dear King Edward wanted a Nazi alliance, as did many senior members of Parliament and society. It is a complete misunderstanding to believe that the British were united in opposition, the reason for appeasement may have been antipathy to war and the public's pacifism but it was also due to the presence of far right groups which had put pressure on England not to resist German aggression, on the contrary the French were ripe for destroying Germany if we would have let them occupy the Rhineland sooner instead of letting Germany remilitarise it.

    It was not the League, not the constitution, not the parliamentary system, not the laws, it was the good will of many British people which prevented the excesses of Nazi government, my suggestion is to stop putting trust into institutions like the ECHR and instead work on actually making Britain a safe and open place to live.

    That starts with government at home, in the interests of the people, not hate preachers.
    A huge oversimplification of a very complex time. And no, it was precisely the constitution, the parliament, and our laws, in alliance with the British people, defending the Convenant of the League of Nations (which embodied British ideals), that beat the Nazis. Even during the war, when a tyranny could have galvanised the resources of the nation even more to fight Germany and to root out traitors with sweeping powers, Parliament remained there to defend our rights. How inconvenient for us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    ****ing hell.

    It doesn't matter that the "excesses of the Nazis" didn't happen here, the ECHR is about ensuring it never can, and anyone who tries to make it happen can be legally held accountable.

    Ah I see, "sound political culture" a completely legally meaningless phrase, and something that can change over time (exploiting cultural change due to lack of legal safeguards is how Hitler got to power).

    You're seriously arguing that because a constitution that didn't have legal safeguards failed to stop the rise of Nazi Germany, we shouldn't have legal safeguards? By your logic what is the point of having a legal system? Why don't we just trust people to be nice to each other?
    I have explained slightly better above, the legal system rests on trust yes, such trust will breakdown if we place the rights of hate preachers over the public and make judgements in foreign courts. It is not law which decides what is right and wrong, it is man which decides law, and if no one agrees with it the rule of law is pointless.

    My suggestion is simply to put more faith in the British system rather. Who says the ECHR cannot also become an institution which does not agree with such rights? No one, and given the history of Europe we might want to rethink that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    A huge oversimplification of a very complex time. And no, it was precisely the constitution, the parliament, and our laws, in alliance with the British people, defending the Convenant of the League of Nations (which embodied British ideals), that beat the Nazis. Even during the war, when a tyranny could have galvanised the resources of the nation even more to fight Germany and to root out traitors with sweeping powers, Parliament remained there to defend our rights. How inconvenient for us.
    Such a huge period requires oversimplification in so little words, and your argument was even more simple than mine in its belief in parliamentary unity. I think you seem to believe these documents actually mean something, without anyone to enforce them they do not, if Britain had appeased some of its more senior members of society (remember the Daily Mail praise of Hitler) we would be fascists now, and it has nothing to do with the laws of this country, rather unified opposition who were already partial to such beliefs.

    Did you forget about conscription?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Such a huge period requires oversimplification in so little words, and your argument was even more simple than mine in its belief in parliamentary unity. I think you seem to believe these documents actually mean something, without anyone to enforce them they do not, if Britain had appeased some of its more senior members of society (remember the Daily Mail praise of Hitler) we would be fascists now, and it has nothing to do with the laws of this country, rather unified opposition who were already partial to such beliefs.
    What exactly are you trying to argue? That law is worthless, and it's purely down to executive fiat? That Parliament is simply an inconvenient frustration on the Government, and we should let those in power get on with things without inconvenience? What?

    Did you forget about conscription?
    Legislated for by Act of Parliament. What of it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    What exactly are you trying to argue? That law is worthless, and it's purely down to executive fiat? That Parliament is simply an inconvenient frustration on the Government, and we should let those in power get on with things without inconvenience? What?



    Legislated for by Act of Parliament. What of it?
    Not at all, on the contrary I am saying that law rests in the trust of those it is enforced over, and trusting it to some foreign court is the opposite approach.

    Yes, legislated for by act of parliament, disagreed by many in society who were punished for it. You could say they deserve it for breaking the law, but you could say so did the Jews for breaking the law of Germany.

    A lot of people seem to ignore that Germany did have a legislative branch (obviously) and it was actually perfectly legal under constitutional amendments to the Weimar Constitution passed with a two thirds majority (with some extra-judicial bullying).

    Law rests on trust. Trust in people. Start learning to trust the British is what I am saying, because it is the British who will decide whether such rights are enforced in the end, not a court which could be discarded at any moment illegally by an abusive government.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The problem is that we don't have a constitutional document like the US or Germany which Parliament cannot abolish.
    And I think its good to have set human rights above Parliament.

    I'm also an internationalist, I like the idea of Europe working together, following a common standard of human rights. I hate the little england mentality of shutting ourselves off.
    I'd also point out that as Rakas did, the ECHR has voted with us 90% of the time.

    Our judges cannot overrule an Act of Parliament as you say and neither can the ECHR. What the ECHR can do is tell us we are in breach of our international obligations to protect human rights and that looks pretty bad on us.
    Plus there is no guarantee that Parliament would grant our Supreme court the powers to overrule.
    No, that isn't the problem. At least in America's case, there is no provision in the Constitution that makes the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. The Supreme Court decided for itself that it had that right at the beginning of the 19th century Marbury v. Madison. This actually makes my point rather well -- that the argument about the process for recognising rights is separate from the argument about what those rights are.

    You may be a fan of internationalism in general. You might yet wish to question how well it is working, or even how desirable it is, in this instance. In that context I commend to you the article which I linked in the first of my posts which you responded to.

    The judges of the ECtHR indeed cannot overrule Parliament so far as English law is concerned as you stated, which was rather my point. Parliament is quite capable of enabling judges to override its own legislation, as they did in relation to European law by way of the ECA. If what you want is judicial protection of rights, that can be achieved just as meaningfully by that means domestically, since, as you point out, the ECtHR does not have the power to compel Parliament either.

    What binds Parliament to follow the rulings of the ECtHR is ultimately politics. This is the same force that prevents them from overruling EU law as it applies in England, and would be the same force that would prevent them from overriding a domestic rights document under my proposed alternative system of judicial control.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Not at all, on the contrary I am saying that law rests in the trust of those it is enforced over, and trusting it to some foreign court is the opposite approach.
    But law relies on a lot of things, but more importantly for this argument, laws, written down and declared, are also a powerful measure, a yard-stick, by which we regulate our behaviours and our expectations of ourselves. Very few in Britain would have given a fig about the violations of the Nazis if we did not have a very clear and proudly espoused set of international standards of common decency and humanity by which to find them wanting. The fact that the Nazis trampled all over them without concern made their atrocities even more atrocious than they would be otherwise.

    Yes, legislated for by act of parliament, disagreed by many in society who were punished for it. You could say they deserve it for breaking the law, but you could say so did the Jews for breaking the law of Germany.
    What law did the Jews break in Germany? The crime of being Jewish?

    Oh, someone needs an education in 'good' and 'bad' law.

    A lot of people seem to ignore that Germany did have a legislative branch (obviously) and it was actually perfectly legal under constitutional amendments to the Weimar Constitution passed with a two thirds majority (with some extra-judicial bullying).
    The extra-judicial bullying itself makes the whole thing illegal, don't you think? It doesn't matter whether it was 'perfectly legal', as you can't consider law in a vacuum. It has to be considered with such things as morality and popular consent, too.

    Otherwise, we'd still be governed like how Charles I governed right now.

    Law rests on trust. Trust in people. Start learning to trust the British is what I am saying.
    Law rests on a lot of things. It relies on force, too. That's what police are for, after all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The ECHR is by far and away the star of the pack when it comes to human rights and protecting individuals.

    Take the Abu Qatada case. The ECHR made Jordan have to agree not to use evidence obtained by torture in order for him to be deported- a huge positive.
    Incredibly noble and idealist but not worth the ink it was signed with, Jordan won't care once they've received him and neither will the west made too much noise on his behalf.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, that isn't the problem. At least in America's case, there is no provision in the Constitution that makes the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. The Supreme Court decided for itself that it had that right at the beginning of the 19th century Marbury v. Madison. This actually makes my point rather well -- that the argument about the process for recognising rights is separate from the argument about what those rights are.

    You may be a fan of internationalism in general. You might yet wish to question how well it is working, or even how desirable it is, in this instance. In that context I commend to you the article which I linked in the first of my posts which you responded to.

    The judges of the ECtHR indeed cannot overrule Parliament so far as English law is concerned as you stated, which was rather my point. Parliament is quite capable of enabling judges to override its own legislation, as they did in relation to European law by way of the ECA. If what you want is judicial protection of rights, that can be achieved just as meaningfully by that means domestically, since, as you point out, the ECtHR does not have the power to compel Parliament either.

    What binds Parliament to follow the rulings of the ECtHR is ultimately politics. This is the same force that prevents them from overruling EU law as it applies in England, and would be the same force that would prevent them from overriding a domestic rights document under my proposed alternative system of judicial control.
    Agreed, although I would argue that British subjection to the ECtHr is still important and necessary, not because we are incapable of being human by ourselves, but for the powerful soft power our human rights record signals to the wider world.

    I guarantee that a British withdrawal from the Convention will make Russia feel somewhat less reluctant to violate human rights within its own borders even more than they presently do.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AverageExcellence)
    Incredibly noble and idealist but not worth the ink it was signed with, Jordan won't care once they've received him and neither will the west made too much noise on his behalf.
    If Jordan were to violate their undertaking, however, (which we would know about), then it makes the ability to trust them next time somewhat more difficult. It could also harm trade relations. Jordan loses out.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    I have explained slightly better above, the legal system rests on trust yes, such trust will breakdown if we place the rights of hate preachers over the public and make judgements in foreign courts. It is not law which decides what is right and wrong, it is man which decides law, and if no one agrees with it the rule of law is pointless.

    My suggestion is simply to put more faith in the British system rather. Who says the ECHR cannot also become an institution which does not agree with such rights? No one, and given the history of Europe we might want to rethink that.
    Except the hate preachers rights went placed over the rights of the publics he was given the same rights as the general public. His rights were placed above the OPINION of the public, which is what legal rights are for.

    I shouldn't need to have faith in the british system (even though it can be easily argued the ECHR is largely a british system as british legal experts spearheaded it), as that would imply hope without evidence. Faith should not be something you rely on with a legal system, it should always be verifiable and have limits to what it can do (which is exactly what the ECHR is for and also has to go through).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    But law relies on a lot of things, but more importantly for this argument, laws, written down and declared, are also a powerful measure, a yard-stick, by which we regulate our behaviours and our expectations of ourselves. Very few in Britain would have given a fig about the violations of the Nazis if we did not have a very clear and proudly espoused set of international standards of common decency and humanity by which to find them wanting. The fact that the Nazis trampled all over them without concern made their atrocities even more atrocious than they would be otherwise.



    What law did the Jews break in Germany? The crime of being Jewish?

    Oh, someone needs an education in 'good' and 'bad' law.



    The extra-judicial bullying itself makes the whole thing illegal, don't you think? It doesn't matter whether it was 'perfectly legal', as you can't consider law in a vacuum. It has to be considered with such things as morality and popular consent, too.

    Otherwise, we'd still be governed like how Charles I governed right now.



    Law rests on a lot of things. It relies on force, too. That's what police are for, after all.
    You can't have law without force, you can't have force without authority, you can't have authority without trust. Law is useless if no one is bothered to enforce it because they disagree with it to begin with, the Kapp Putsch is an example, the police completely ignored the Weimar demands to put down the rebellion. The Nazis was actually perfectly legal, under the emergency decree article 48 of the constitution, with consent of senior figures like Hindenburg and the two thirds amendment, that means all of there laws were in theory completely legal, which means that being a Jew is by law a crime, and therefore legally wrong. So yes, it was legally wrong to be a Jew in Germany, and thank God many ignored that law because they shared my view of law instead of yours.

    I disagree with your view that law is populist in nature and has to take into account common welfare, it should do that, but it has no requirement to do so, it is only the generosity (or fear) of the people legislating that makes it so to begin with.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    You can't have law without force, you can't have force without authority, you can't have authority without trust.
    Uh, no. The latter part is completely contradicted by such examples as the Nazis and the Soviets. You don't need trust for authority. I will say that authority's life is made easier with trust, however.

    Law is useless if no one is bothered to enforce it because they disagree with it to begin with, the Kapp Putsch is an example, the police completely ignored the Weimar demands to put down the rebellion. The Nazis was actually perfectly legal, under the emergency decree article 48 of the constitution, with consent of senior figures like Hindenburg and the two thirds amendment, that means all of there laws were in theory completely legal, which means that being a Jew is by law a crime, and therefore legally wrong. So yes, it was legally wrong to be a Jew in Germany, and thank God many ignored that law because they shared my view of law instead of yours.

    I disagree with your view that law is populist in nature and has to take into account common welfare, it should do that, but it has no requirement to do so, it is only the generosity of the people legislating that makes it so to begin with.
    I have no idea what you're trying to argue. One the one hand you're saying we should 'trust' people to uphold human rights through the law by themselves, but on the other hand you have, right here, the Nazis, the prime example of where the public failed in this 'trust' and elected a regime that was built on the principle of trampling on the rights of others. You've completely cooked your own goose.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.