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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    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.
    How would they find out or verify it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AverageExcellence)
    How would they find out or verify it?
    Plenty of human rights organisations out there that investigate penal regimes in countries, and inquire into the whereabouts and health of prisoners. If they found that Hamza was not available, or looked somewhat unwell, that would be reported.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    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.



    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.
    I am saying human rights abusers do not care for law to begin with, and it is only because of the belief in these laws rather than the existence of these laws is why they are enforced to begin with. This is the belief of the British people, the civil servants, parliament and so on, not of the ECHR, if middle class professionals fundamentally disagreed with these beliefs the ECHR would be worthless to begin with because they would just stall the system.

    There is if you will, the people, the government of people (professionals filling ministries or regular police officers) and the government (which yields responsibility) if the people are fundamentally at odds with those in responsibility those laws will not be enforced anyway, either through passive or active resistance.

    Law ultimately rests on the trust of juniors to enforce it, which would not happen anyway if they were in complete disagreement. Hence why the ECHR would not suddenly end human rights, because most civil servants are thoroughly supportive of such measures. Whereas in the Weimar republic they were not, which is because German nationalism was so prevalent in middle class professionals (look at the DNVP for example)
    Offline

    15
    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.
    I agree with a lot of what you say and I can tell you've studied international and constitutional law!

    I know the us constitution doesn't grant a strike down power explicitly but it was interpreted as such (dubiously) but we don't have one regardless. The point stands that they can protect rights by striking down the legislature, ours cannot. They are the ultimate arbiter ours is not.

    I know what keeps us following the ECHR is largely politics as they can not do anything to our national law but it has been mightily impressive in upholding such rights.

    I do however think the more political restraints we have the better. As well as our own judicial system, having an international body of all states agreeing to them is another political pressure. And also diplomatic pressure for example if we violated Enough rights the UN Security Council could sanction us.

    The more political and diplomatic protections against rights the better.

    Ps I will read the article. I do like Lord Hoffman.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    I am saying human rights abusers do not care for law to begin with, and it is only because of the belief in these laws rather than the existence of these laws is why they are enforced to begin with. This is the belief of the British people, the civil servants, parliament and so on, not of the ECHR, if middle class professionals fundamentally disagreed with these beliefs the ECHR would be worthless to begin with because they would just stall the system.

    There is if you will, the people, the government of people (professionals filling ministries or regular police officers) and the government (which yields responsibility) if the people are fundamentally at odds with those in responsibility those laws will not be enforced anyway, either through passive or active resistance.

    Law ultimately rests on the trust of juniors to enforce it, which would not happen anyway if they were in complete disagreement. Hence why the ECHR would not suddenly end human rights, because most civil servants are thoroughly supportive of such measures. Whereas in the Weimar republic they were not, which is why German nationalism was so prevalent in middle class professionals (look at the DNVP for example)
    I completely, and flatly, disagree. Public opinion is a factor in framing laws, but a mature society does not allow public or personal opinion to come anywhere near being in the consideration of law enforcement. Plainly and simply, if it's law, it's law, and the only authority we have for undoing or changing law is Parliament itself, not 'the people'. Parliament has made it law that the United Kingdom is itself subject to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and that's that.

    And you still haven't said a single thing to address what I pointed out - you keep going back to the Nazis, but it cripples your very argument. Why are you going on about public concern for enforcement when the Nazis themselves had little interest in such things, nor about authority being intertwined with popular consent?

    If we'd had the ECHR back 1933, there's an argument to be had that it would have gone some way to mitigating some of the worse excesses of the Nazis, or helped put pressure on foreign governments to stand up to them. But no, it all boiled down to 'the Germans know what's good for themselves and we should let them be'. Until the Nazis started deciding they knew what was good for other peoples.

    Sadly, it takes a bloody and horrendous war to educate people, and it takes international standards and expectations - international declarations of human rights - to make plain globally that 'Here's where we fell short, and here's what we must uphold; a nation that fails at these deserves to be a global pariah.'

    Also: you're going on about the European Convention on Human Rights. Do you have the same objection to the UN Declaration on Human Rights?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I completely, and flatly, disagree. Public opinion is a factor in framing laws, but a mature society does not allow public or personal opinion to come anywhere near being in the consideration of law enforcement. Plainly and simply, if it's law, it's law, and the only authority we have for undoing or changing law is Parliament itself, not 'the people'. Parliament has made it law that the United Kingdom is itself subject to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and that's that.

    And you still haven't said a single thing to address what I pointed out - you keep going back to the Nazis, but it cripples your very argument. Why are you going on about public concern for enforcement when the Nazis themselves had little interest in such things, nor about authority being intertwined with popular consent?

    If we'd had the ECHR back 1933, there's an argument to be had that it would have gone some way to mitigating some of the worse excesses of the Nazis, or helped put pressure on foreign governments to stand up to them. But no, it all boiled down to 'the Germans know what's good for themselves and we should let them be'. Until the Nazis started deciding they knew what was good for other peoples.

    Sadly, it takes a bloody and horrendous war to educate people, and it takes international standards and expectations - international declarations of human rights - to make plain globally that 'Here's where we fell short, and here's what we must uphold; a nation that fails at these deserves to be a global pariah.'

    Also: you're going on about the European Convention on Human Rights. Do you have the same objection to the UN Declaration on Human Rights?
    You've mistaken my understanding of 'people' the executive enforces laws but it does so through the appointment of ministers who oversee ministries, such ministries consist of people. Given the understanding of party politics and fragmentation not all ministers are in agreement, I never once said the public should decide the law, only that realistically public ministries such as the police which consists of people enforce them, it is they who choose whether or not to obey authority and carry out its action.

    Are the police today educated enough on international standards or would they be easily persuaded by demagogues? Perhaps that's a case for review to be made on its own, that they need to be more aware of the reasoning behind laws instead of blindly enforcing them.

    The Nazis for all their ills had a lot of support from the conservative professionals, the teachers, media, landowners and civil servants, this is what I mean by the people. Even workers arguably have a say since they can bring down entire governments by strikes (as before with the Kapp Putsch it was brought down by SDP strike)

    Also German lawyers did try to prevent Nazi excesses and the League condemned it several times, unfortunately just like the ECHR it had no actual power of enforcement.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    You've mistaken my understanding of 'people' the executive enforces laws but it does so through the appointment of ministers who oversee ministries, such ministries consist of people. Given the understanding of party politics and fragmentation not all ministers are in agreement, I never once said the public should decide the law, only that realistically public ministries such as the police which consists of people enforce them, it is they who choose whether or not to obey authority and carry out its action.

    Are the police today educated enough on international standards or would they be easily persuaded by demography? Perhaps that's a case for review to be made on its own, that they need to be more aware of the reasoning behind laws instead of blindly enforcing them.

    The Nazis for all their ills had a lot of support from the conservative professionals, the teachers, media, landowners and civil servants, this is what I mean by the people. Even workers arguably have a say since they can bring down entire governments by strikes (as before with the Kapp Putsch it was brought down by SDP strike)
    I think you're stretching the definition of having a say though, as if they are breaching the law in resisting then chances are high they will be punished for violation of the law.

    And I think I understand what you mean about law being framed by responsible ministers in Parliament, but this still assumes that they get it right, and that they seek the optimal policy devoid of concern for politics, when much can be motivated by concerns for popularity, cost, fear or personality. That's what courts and laws are there for, to mitigate against that.

    I don't find anything in what you say arguing against our rights being doubly defended by the ECtHR.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I think you're stretching the definition of having a say though, as if they are breaching the law in resisting then chances are high they will be punished for violation of the law.

    And I think I understand what you mean about law being framed by responsible ministers in Parliament, but this still assumes that they get it right, and that they seek the optimal policy devoid of concern for politics, when much can be motivated by concerns for popularity, cost, fear or personality. That's what courts and laws are there for, to mitigate against that.

    I don't find anything in what you say arguing against our rights being doubly defended by the ECtHR.
    Agreed that they will be punished usually, but human rights are usually the sorts of issues severe enough to cause a war, at the risk of bringing in another 'distraction' was it not Syria that was caused by the army and police resisting government oppression?

    I don't dispute the importance of courts, laws, judges or anything of that nature, I just think the assumption that the ECHR is the only buffer we have against tyranny is not true, and it would be ignored in such instances anyway.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Agreed that they will be punished usually, but human rights are usually the sorts of issues severe enough to cause a war, at the risk of bringing in another 'distraction' was it not Syria that was caused by the army and police resisting government oppression?
    Which broke out into civil war. That's not a simple case of people disliking law and freely wanting to change it. That's the breakdown of society and the end of public order entirely. Law goes out of the window then.

    I don't dispute the importance of courts, laws, judges or anything of that nature, I just think the assumption that the ECHR is the only buffer we have against tyranny is not true, and it would be ignored in such instances anyway.
    I don't think people are saying it's the only buffer at all. It's another buffer, an extra safeguard.

    And while you're right that it could be ignored and overruled by our Parliament, I think you forget that huge political cost such a move would have. Unless the whole country were entirely united behind the Government in proposing such a thing, and that Government knew of and was preparing to accept the international political cost of doing so, it's going to be difficult to achieve.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Plenty of human rights organisations out there that investigate penal regimes in countries, and inquire into the whereabouts and health of prisoners. If they found that Hamza was not available, or looked somewhat unwell, that would be reported.
    That's not quite how it works, HR organisations can't just arbitrarily request limited access to terrorist suspects as and when they please.

    Sophisticated 'enhanced stress interrogations' aren't going to be so crass as to leave a mark.

    you can hardly believe what the terrorist would say because it would be in his interests to say he was tortured to undermine any proceedings against him. How many terrorists are going to look spirited and well given the circumstances?

    and if you think nation states give a damn about torture, just look at MI6 and guantanemo, and the british extraditions to Gadafi's Libya, you are deluded if you think the world works that transparently and straight forwardly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AverageExcellence)
    That's not quite how it works, HR organisations can't just arbitrarily request limited access to terrorist suspects as and when they please.

    Sophisticated 'enhanced stress interrogations' aren't going to be so crass as to leave a mark.

    you can hardly believe what the terrorist would say because it would be in his interests to say he was tortured to undermine any proceedings against him. How many terrorists are going to look spirited and well given the circumstances?

    and if you think nation states give a damn about torture, just look at MI6 and guantanemo, and the british extraditions to Gadafi's Libya, you are deluded if you think the world works that transparently and straight forwardly.
    Well, I can't say it happens every time no, but in cases of considerable media prominence, there's a high chance of public interest and repercussions from that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    She is best placed to know about this.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sdotd)
    We are not allowed to leave to echr while in the EU. It is actually impossible and May knows it
    I asked this question of another poster and I repeat it here. Please give me a reference in the Treaties for this, because I can't find it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonsmith98)
    Damn Theresa! Back at it again with the denial of human rights!
    I was literally just about to write this
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I asked this question of another poster and I repeat it here. Please give me a reference in the Treaties for this, because I can't find it.
    Article 6.2 of the Lisbon Treaty states the EU itself will become a signatory of the ECHR with Article 6.3 binding the EU to abiding by the Convention’s principles.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is a good idea
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-eu-referendum
    how much longer till the cameron cabinet is out? if he is to be believed, then he wont stand for re-election.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Well, I can't say it happens every time no, but in cases of considerable media prominence, there's a high chance of public interest and repercussions from that.
    There is no public interest in his welbeing only his deportation and the UK having their legal butt covered in not getting the backlash if and when he gets tortured
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AverageExcellence)
    There is no public interest in his welbeing only his deportation and the UK having their legal butt covered in not getting the backlash if and when he gets tortured
    We'll see, and I am thinking more in general terms, anyway.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    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.
    Fair. I do have some sympathy for this argument. My main point was simply that to put forward the idea that there might be a way to deal with these matters better domestically does not make one a fascist, as has been suggested a few times in this thread.
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The more political and diplomatic protections against rights the better.
    As above.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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

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