Because patently has said all I wanted to say:
So, if the EU demands that we enact a law that is so obviously wrong, it is time to leave.How about it, Dave?
So, if the EU demands that we enact a law that is so obviously wrong, it is time to leave.How about it, Dave?
5 comments:
Being pettifogging...this has nothing to do with the EU. The ruling isn't from the ECJ. It is from the European Court of Human Rights, a separate organization.
In general, the ECJ and the ECtHR go out of their way to agree with each other so as not to create a 'who is supreme' argument. That squabble is on the horizon as the ECJ wishes to start ruling on human rights issues. However, as wiki notes, the effect of the Lisbon Treaty is that the EU can sign a further agreement to be bound by the rulings of the ECtHR and when that happens, the ECtHR would be the supreme court over the ECJ.
So if we left the EU tomorrow...it wouldn't make any difference to this argument as it is our Council of Europe membership and agreement to be bound by the rulings of the ECtHR which is the problem.
I'm thinking about getting one of those electric popcorn makers. Has anybody used one?
(N.B. I don't think much of human rights discourse; it is vastly over-rated as nearly all of them have conditions which mean they are more what you might call...guidelines. Strong property rights and a sense of decency produces more real protection for human rights. Which, I suppose, is why they've been stripped away.)
Surely the punishment for crime is incarceration. What does denying the vote got to do with it?
Frankly giving convicts the vote has little downside to me. It'll probably make little difference to the outcome of general elections, might get some convicts to engage more with civic participation, and, given the shambolic disorganisation of the prison service probably none of the votes will be counted.
I vote for no voting (does that make sense?)
"Being pettifogging...this has nothing to do with the EU."
Yeah, I know, but any excuse, eh? ;)
"Strong property rights and a sense of decency produces more real protection for human rights. Which, I suppose, is why they've been stripped away."
Good point.
"Surely the punishment for crime is incarceration. What does denying the vote got to do with it?"
Surely the punishment for crime is incarceration. What does denying them the right to drink alcohol got to do with it?
Surely the punishment for crime is incarceration. What does denying them the right to have pornography got to do with it?
Surely the punishment for crime is incarceration. What does denying them conjugal visits got to do with it?
This is the thin end of a wedge, mark my words.
"I vote for no voting (does that make sense?)"
It does. But, like EU membership, we don't get a vote.
What does denying them conjugal visits got to do with it?
Sick note: it was Hirst's solicitor, Elkan Abrahamson (at Jackson & Canter) who established the right of prisoners to send sperm samples to girlfriends for the purpose of insemination i.e. the creation of children which we will have to support since the chances of the woman or the prisoner doing so are zilch.
It's their 'uman right to a family life, innit.
Dickson v UK ECHR 4 December 2007
Dickson relied in part on the Hirst 2005 ruling. In a rare spark of sanity the secretary of state (not sure which one) had told Dickson no, but as it was NL which had been stupid enough to incorporate the HRA and stronger bindings to the ECtHR, they were caught by their own net.
Hirst and nearly all the characters involved are uniformly unlovely, but they would have been powerless if politicians had not consistently acted indecently and treacherously.
The reason this makes me vomit is that the human rights of Mark and Nicky Webster to have their kids back when they had been stolen by the Cleveland True Believer (name withheld in deference to blog owner) was trampled over by a series of judges culminating with Lord Wall (but not Judge Munby who emerges as the only one with a spark of decency in him) and have been told they can't get funding to take the British government to the ECtHR.
Human rights for decent, responsible people, yer 'avin a laugh, incha?
Post a Comment