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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    As above.
    Fair enough. I think the point is to be wary about people like May and some (not all) who want to leave the ECHR, playing to nationalism by using such terms such as a 'British bill of rights' when in reality all it means is curtailing them a bit. They don't want a 'uniquely British' set of rights, they just want a few less.

    If people want to leave because they think it goes too far, then fair enough even though I disagree. But don't cloak it up in some cringey nationalism. You haven't by the way, its a comment about certain others.

    It's not perfect no, but it's done a pretty good job of harmonizing and increasing human rights throughout Europe and there's simply no real need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sdotd)
    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.
    (a) The EU has failed to join the ECHR as the ECJ has held that the draft accession agreement was contrary to the EU treaties http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.j...ype=TXT&ancre=

    (b) The EU agreeing to abide by the Convention's principles is not the same as an obligation on member states to join the EU. Let's say that the members of UEFA agreed that UEFA would be bound by the ECHR. That wouldn't make UEFA a signatory to the ECHR; nor would it make the FA a signatory to the ECHR let alone oblige the Welsh FA to join the ECHR.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Fair enough. I think the point is to be wary about people like May and some (not all) who want to leave the ECHR, playing to nationalism by using such terms such as a 'British bill of rights' when in reality all it means is curtailing them a bit. They don't want a 'uniquely British' set of rights, they just want a few less.
    It is perfectly reasonable to want a British Bill of Rights. The problem is that May and others are looking for the flaws in the ECHR in the text of the Convention and the flaws aren't there.

    The problem with the ECHR is that its interpretation is in the hands of activist judges from the political left.

    You can see this if you conduct a thought experiment by which you place the interpretation of the ECHR in the hands of the Hughes Court (the court Roosevelt attempted to pack because of its opposition to the New Deal).

    The creation of a non-contributory social security system runs counter to Protocol 1 Article 1 of ECHR. This reads:

    "(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

    (2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. "

    A non-contributory social security system involves taking money off one group of people to pay it to another. That confiscation deprives those called upon to pay for the system of their possessions. Any confiscatory taxation is required to be in the public interest. Undoubtedly, this seizure of the possessions of those called on to pay is in the interests of those who will receive the bread and circuses but it is not in the interests of those who will provide them. Therefore it cannot be said to be in the public interest. Therefore the first necessary limb of sub-paragraph (1) of this Article is not satisfied.

    Can then the seizure be justified under sub-paragraph (2)? Again the answer is "no". This sub-paragraph gives two grounds of justification for taking someone's property off them. The first is the "general interest". That must mean the same as the public interest. The public or general interest is served by the army and the navy or by the department of weights and measures because all benefit from them. However only the recipients of these transfers benefit from them, and they are not the public.

    The other ground of justification is to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. Taxation or other contributions (penalties are not relevant here) are not ends in themselves. Taxation or contributions can only be imposed to serve a lawful purpose and as there is no lawful purpose in imposing such taxation, the taxation is itself unlawful.

    As it is not suggested that the policy of paying social security to the idle and indigent can be funded with taxation of the industrious, the entire scheme of non-contributory social security as operated in the United Kingdom is unlawful and contravenes the rights of the claimant Mrs Cherie Blair."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It is perfectly reasonable to want a British Bill of Rights. The problem is that May and others are looking for the flaws in the ECHR in the text of the Convention and the flaws aren't there.

    The problem with the ECHR is that its interpretation is in the hands of activist judges from the political left.

    You can see this if you conduct a thought experiment by which you place the interpretation of the ECHR in the hands of the Hughes Court (the court Roosevelt attempted to pack because of its opposition to the New Deal).

    The creation of a non-contributory social security system runs counter to Protocol 1 Article 1 of ECHR. This reads:

    "(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

    (2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. "

    A non-contributory social security system involves taking money off one group of people to pay it to another. That confiscation deprives those called upon to pay for the system of their possessions. Any confiscatory taxation is required to be in the public interest. Undoubtedly, this seizure of the possessions of those called on to pay is in the interests of those who will receive the bread and circuses but it is not in the interests of those who will provide them. Therefore it cannot be said to be in the public interest. Therefore the first necessary limb of sub-paragraph (1) of this Article is not satisfied.

    Can then the seizure be justified under sub-paragraph (2)? Again the answer is "no". This sub-paragraph gives two grounds of justification for taking someone's property off them. The first is the "general interest". That must mean the same as the public interest. The public or general interest is served by the army and the navy or by the department of weights and measures because all benefit from them. However only the recipients of these transfers benefit from them, and they are not the public.

    The other ground of justification is to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. Taxation or other contributions (penalties are not relevant here) are not ends in themselves. Taxation or contributions can only be imposed to serve a lawful purpose and as there is no lawful purpose in imposing such taxation, the taxation is itself unlawful.

    As it is not suggested that the policy of paying social security to the idle and indigent can be funded with taxation of the industrious, the entire scheme of non-contributory social security as operated in the United Kingdom is unlawful and contravenes the rights of the claimant Mrs Cherie Blair."
    It's not a left or right issue. The us constitution for example - they're hardly lefties.

    Having certain inalienable rights supersedes right v left.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It's not a left or right issue. The us constitution for example - they're hardly lefties.

    Having certain inalienable rights supersedes right v left.
    Of course it is a left v right issue. Haven't you noticed that when the US Supreme Court divides 5-4, it is generally the same 5 and the same 4. How they decide in most hard cases, is on the basis of underlying political ideology and I have just demonstrated that the ECHR could, with judges of a different hue, be interpreted in a completely different way.

    "We find nothing unlawful in the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on these doctors for joining a trades union, the British Medical Association. In less enlightened times, all trades unions would have been seen as criminal conspiracies. Now persons in private life who feel the inclination to join a trades union, may do so without let or hinderence, despite the majority of the population considering them foolish and ignorant. That is what Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows. However Article 11 also protects the rights of normal right thinking people. Restrictions may be imposed on joining a trades union on those who are concerned in the administration of the state. All public employees are concerned in the administration of the state. Accordingly legislation preventing public employees such as these doctors from joining trades unions under penalty of imprisonment for a period of up to 25 years is not a breach of the convention. They will of course be able to vote during their sentence.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Of course it is a left v right issue. Haven't you noticed that when the US Supreme Court divides 5-4, it is generally the same 5 and the same 4. How they decide in most hard cases, is on the basis of underlying political ideology and I have just demonstrated that the ECHR could, with judges of a different hue, be interpreted in a completely different way.

    "We find nothing unlawful in the sentence of 10 years imprisonment imposed on these doctors for joining a trades union, the British Medical Association. In less enlightened times, all trades unions would have been seen as criminal conspiracies. Now persons in private life who feel the inclination to join a trades union, may do so without let or hinderence, despite the majority of the population considering them foolish and ignorant. That is what Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows. However Article 11 also protects the rights of normal right thinking people. Restrictions may be imposed on joining a trades union on those who are concerned in the administration of the state. All public employees are concerned in the administration of the state. Accordingly legislation preventing public employees such as these doctors from joining trades unions under penalty of imprisonment for a period of up to 25 years is not a breach of the convention. They will of course be able to vote during their sentence.
    I guess the left are just better at protecting human rights

    American system is different though in the sense that judges are indirectly elected through a legislature and have to appeal to party politics, the echrs are not.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I guess the left are just better at protecting human rights
    No. You simply feel comfortable when judges are making decisions that agree with your underlying politics.



    American system is different though in the sense that judges are indirectly elected through a legislature and have to appeal to party politics, the echrs are not.
    In America federal judges are not elected. They are nominated by the President for the time being. In recent times they have become political footballs in that the Senate, under both Republican and Democrat leadership, has been willing to block nominees from the other party in a way they would never have done with cabinet posts. The Democrats started this when they blocked Robert Bork who was clearly suitable to be appointed a Supreme Court judge but that doesn't excuse the subsequent blocking by the Republicans of numerous federal judges.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No. You simply feel comfortable when judges are making decisions that agree with your underlying politics.





    In America federal judges are not elected. They are nominated by the President for the time being. In recent times they have become political footballs in that the Senate, under both Republican and Democrat leadership, has been willing to block nominees from the other party in a way they would never have done with cabinet posts. The Democrats started this when they blocked Robert Bork who was clearly suitable to be appointed a Supreme Court judge but that doesn't excuse the subsequent blocking by the Republicans of numerous federal judges.
    I think it smacks of daily mailness to castigate the ECHR judges as 'just a bunch of lefties' without any proof or real evidence to back it up.
    Human rights are inalienable, not right or left wing.
    Judges to the ECHR are not done on a party political basis like us Supreme Court judges are.

    To try and turn human rights into a left right issue is wrong and defeats the point about human rights being above politics, not caught up in it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    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.
    As above.
    Oh indeed. That would be a rather shrill argument to make
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Human rights are inalienable, not right or left wing.
    Human rights are stated at a very high level of abstraction, which leaves a large degree of discretion in their application to concrete cases, especially where they need to be weighed up against other rights and interests. Where there is discretion, different approaches can be taken. Broadly, one may describe some such approaches as 'left wing', and others as 'right wing'.

    To say this is not to 'turn it into a left right issue'. It is to recognise what is inescapable, that there is a huge margin for these judges to exercise a discretion in accordance with their own political beliefs.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Human rights are stated at a very high level of abstraction, which leaves a large degree of discretion in their application to concrete cases, especially where they need to be weighed up against other rights and interests. Where there is discretion, different approaches can be taken. Broadly, one may describe some such approaches as 'left wing', and others as 'right wing'.

    To say this is not to 'turn it into a left right issue'. It is to recognise what is inescapable, that there is a huge margin for these judges to exercise a discretion in accordance with their own political beliefs.
    Some have little discretion. Torture for example is absolutely prohibited.
    I also think left right is far too simplistic and lacks nuance. Euthanasia for example is not really a left right issue, nor is freedom of expression. Things like cultural relativity also are not really right or left.

    They're far more complex and are supported and opposed by plenty on the left and right.

    Others of course can be interpreted but i wouldn't say necessarily that human rights is just a lefty thing, the whole idea is that they are above politics, above left or right.

    Of course there is room for discretion but I don't agree with the narrative that it's just full of lefty judges.

    I just think having permanent human rights, above the reach of politicians is a great thing even if they occasionally go too far.
    Governments will come and go but the aim is that there will always be inalianble human rights as opposed to each different government choosing what suits them. The whole idea is that we have such rights against governments, not at the whims of them.


    I do get your point about the legal aspect. True the ECHR cannot compel us to do anything. But an international organisation places great political pressure, more so than if just protected domestically.

    The very fact it has stopped our government on occasions proves the political impact it has and should remain. The govt would imo find it far easier politically to abrogate such rights if we weren't in this international human rights organisation.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think it smacks of daily mailness to castigate the ECHR judges as 'just a bunch of lefties' without any proof or real evidence to back it up.
    Human rights are inalienable, not right or left wing.
    Judges to the ECHR are not done on a party political basis like us Supreme Court judges are.

    To try and turn human rights into a left right issue is wrong and defeats the point about human rights being above politics, not caught up in it.
    In the two examples I have given, I haven't changed the rights at all. I have interpreted those rights in the way that I think Hughes CJ would have done, given the chance. That is the way he interpreted the US constitution.

    If you simply ask the question throughout Europe, on any matter of political controversy, is the judgement of the ECHR in accordance with the opinion of the democratic left in that country or the democratic right, 9 times out of ten the outcome will be that it is of the democratic left.

    Remember precedent creates a momentum. Once a decision has taken a particular attitude to a human right, it is much easier to go further than to reverse course. Futhermore, the Council of Europe is not a legislature to give a steer to the judiciary by what it enacts.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    In the two examples I have given, I haven't changed the rights at all. I have interpreted those rights in the way that I think Hughes CJ would have done, given the chance. That is the way he interpreted the US constitution.

    If you simply ask the question throughout Europe, on any matter of political controversy, is the judgement of the ECHR in accordance with the opinion of the democratic left in that country or the democratic right, 9 times out of ten the outcome will be that it is of the democratic left.

    Remember precedent creates a momentum. Once a decision has taken a particular attitude to a human right, it is much easier to go further than to reverse course. Futhermore, the Council of Europe is not a legislature to give a steer to the judiciary by what it enacts.
    I don't agree that it can just be boiled down to left vs right.

    There's lots of criteria, liberal vs authoritarian, religious vs secular, universality v cultural relativism etc.

    It's not just a simple left right issue. As I mentioned to TP, Freedom of expression is not really a left right issue not is euthanasia.
    There are plenty of factors and it doesn't just come down to lefty judges.

    If anything it would be better described as 'liberal' judges rather than lefty ones. I don't think Stalin would care too much about human rights.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't agree that it can just be boiled down to left vs right.

    There's lots of criteria, liberal vs authoritarian, religious vs secular, universality v cultural relativism etc.

    It's not just a simple left right issue. As I mentioned to TP, Freedom of expression is not really a left right issue not is euthanasia.
    There are plenty of factors and it doesn't just come down to lefty judges.

    If anything it would be better described as 'liberal' judges rather than lefty ones. I don't think Stalin would care too much about human rights.
    I disagree. I think if you take issues on each of the alternative battlegrounds that you identify, but then ignore those battlegrounds and see how the issue was decided on a purely left/right basis, favouring the left, you will usually get to the same decision.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I disagree. I think if you take issues on each of the alternative battlegrounds that you identify, but then ignore those battlegrounds and see how the issue was decided on a purely left/right basis, favouring the left, you will usually get to the same decision.
    No not at all.
    Let's take a right Euthanasia. That is supported and opposed by people across the political spectrum. There are plenty of right wing people who support it and left wing people who oppose it. It's more of a liberal vs authoritarian and religious v secular issue. Not right v left.

    Another would be freedom of expression. USA have absolute freedom of expression, we don't not does much of Europe or indeed The Islamic world.
    It's not a left v right issue. More of a liberal and religious issue again.

    Of course there may be elements of left v right but they are not dominant like you think they are.

    Do you really think Stalin would support human rights? Or Mao?
    Who do you think cares protecting human rights Nick clegg or the Chinese government?

    That's what I mean, human rights cut accross the political spectrum and are far too nuanced and complex to simply state they are a 'lefty' thing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No not at all.
    Let's take a right Euthanasia. That is supported and opposed by people across the political spectrum. There are plenty of right wing people who support it and left wing people who oppose it. It's more of a liberal vs authoritarian and religious v secular issue. Not right v left.

    Another would be freedom of expression. USA have absolute freedom of expression, we don't not does much of Europe or indeed The Islamic world.
    It's not a left v right issue. More of a liberal and religious issue again.

    Of course there may be elements of left v right but they are not dominant like you think they are.

    Do you really think Stalin would support human rights? Or Mao?
    Who do you think cares protecting human rights Nick clegg or the Chinese government?

    That's what I mean, human rights cut accross the political spectrum and are far too nuanced and complex to simply state they are a 'lefty' thing.
    Cases that get to the ECHR are not at that high level of abstraction. You don't get cases that decide whether free speech is a good thing. You get cases that decide whether Gerry Adams' voice can be heard on television or whether a media mogul has the right to show a picture of a celebrity in a bikini because she is on a public beach. At the level of the cases that arouse public controversy (some cases are bureaucracy against a citizen with no interest outside of the individual and bureaucracy as a whole) my view is that they can be decided by what the left would prefer as the outcome.

    Ronald Dworkin is a very influential figure in late 20th century jurisprudence and his views can be reduced to "the left wing position is always legally the right answer".

    Mao wouldn't have given two figs for human rights.

    Stalin is more difficult. The 1936 USSR Constitution is contemporaneous with Stalin's purges. This is what that constitution has to say about human rights

    http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/...04.html#chap10

    What is wrong with that? If Sweden adopted it tomorrow, no-one would bat a eyelid.

    Was it mere window dressing? I doubt it. I suspect like most monsters, he thought that he was fulfilling it, and to the extent he temporarily wasn't, history would understand him.

    Churchill wanted to put the Nazi leadership up against the wall and shoot them. The Nuremburg process was largely Stalin's invention with Roosevelt's support. The source for that statement is impeccable. It's Churchill's own history of the war.

    So, probably yes, Stalin would support human rights at the same time as he was sending his enemies to the Gulag,
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Cases that get to the ECHR are not at that high level of abstraction. You don't get cases that decide whether free speech is a good thing. You get cases that decide whether Gerry Adams' voice can be heard on television or whether a media mogul has the right to show a picture of a celebrity in a bikini because she is on a public beach. At the level of the cases that arouse public controversy (some cases are bureaucracy against a citizen with no interest outside of the individual and bureaucracy as a whole) my view is that they can be decided by what the left would prefer as the outcome.

    Ronald Dworkin is a very influential figure in late 20th century jurisprudence and his views can be reduced to "the left wing position is always legally the right answer".

    Mao wouldn't have given two figs for human rights.

    Stalin is more difficult. The 1936 USSR Constitution is contemporaneous with Stalin's purges. This is what that constitution has to say about human rights

    http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/...04.html#chap10

    What is wrong with that? If Sweden adopted it tomorrow, no-one would bat a eyelid.

    Was it mere window dressing? I doubt it. I suspect like most monsters, he thought that he was fulfilling it, and to the extent he temporarily wasn't, history would understand him.

    Churchill wanted to put the Nazi leadership up against the wall and shoot them. The Nuremburg process was largely Stalin's invention with Roosevelt's support. The source for that statement is impeccable. It's Churchill's own history of the war.

    So, probably yes, Stalin would support human rights at the same time as he was sending his enemies to the Gulag,
    I think you are massively conflating the ideas of right v left with liberal v authoritarian.
    You get right wing liberals and left wing authoritarian and vice Versa.
    Human rights if anything are far better described as liberal v authoritarian than right v left.

    But still there are an abundance of factors which determine it. Just saying 'right v left ' is lazy and way too simplistic.

    The ECHR have been asked to decide on abortion and euthanasia and have basically said states get to decide.

    Left does not equal liberal. Yet you are throwing the two terms together.
    Nick Clegg is not left wing but he's certainly more of a fan of genuine human rights than chairman Mao was.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think you are massively conflating the ideas of right v left with liberal v authoritarian.
    You get right wing liberals and left wing authoritarian and vice Versa.
    Human rights if anything are far better described as liberal v authoritarian than right v left.

    But still there are an abundance of factors which determine it. Just saying 'right v left ' is lazy and way too simplistic.

    The ECHR have been asked to decide on abortion and euthanasia and have basically said states get to decide.

    Left does not equal liberal. Yet you are throwing the two terms together.
    Nick Clegg is not left wing but he's certainly more of a fan of genuine human rights than chairman Mao was.
    If we take abortion, I am not sure that any non-Irish abortion cases have gone to the ECHR so I will only deal with Ireland.

    The vast majority of people on the political left in Ireland supported the women taking on the Irish state (and the eventual decisions of the ECtHR) over abortion. The vast majority of the supporters of the Irish State's position supported a centre-right party.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    If we take abortion, I am not sure that any non-Irish abortion cases have gone to the ECHR so I will only deal with Ireland.

    The vast majority of people on the political left in Ireland supported the women taking on the Irish state (and the eventual decisions of the ECtHR) over abortion. The vast majority of the supporters of the Irish State's position supported a centre-right party.
    Vo v France.
    That's on religious grounds, not right vs left.

    There's a difference between a left wing person holding a view and that view being left wing.
    Left v right is largely about social and economic factors.
    Liberal vs authoritarian is about Indivudal rights
    Then you can mix in internationalist v nationalist and religious v secular.

    It doesn't just boil down to right vs left. It's one factor amongst many.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrysisure)
    Replacing human rights ≠ abolishing human rights.
    You seem to be forgetting that this proposal is coming from someone who has actually literally knowingly sent people to their deaths for political advantage. I have precisely no confidence that she intends to replace it with anything of value.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.