 |
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
I was in the site of the former headquarters of the "Holy" Inquisition in Seville today.
There's a museum. The Spanish have had a similar experience of the abuse of power not so long ago under Franco.
The museum's stated aim is to not allow such things to be repeated by learning from history. EU funded and no doubt a pointless and wasteful.
At the end of the exhibit are key articles from the European Convention of Human Rights. I struggled to find fault with them.
Have a read of the key ones:
2) the right to life; 3) prohibition of torture; 4) the prohibition of slavery and forced labour; 5) the right to liberty and security; 6) the right to a fair trial; 7) no punishment without law; 8) the right to respect for private and family life; 9) freedom of thought, conscience and religion and 10) freedom of expression.
Leaving the EU does not require us to leave this agreement but many of our politicians, press and some of our population are very keen to.
If we do not wish, as a nation to be legally bound to these principles by an outside supranational organisation then who does?
Do we write our own laws and uphold them in our courts? Will these judges be called traitors if they do not return the "right" decisions? Will the government defend our judiciary if this ever happened even if it were inconvenient for them? I mean, this is the UK, nothing like that could ever happen here... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was in the site of the former headquarters of the "Holy" Inquisition in Seville today.
There's a museum. The Spanish have had a similar experience of the abuse of power not so long ago under Franco.
The museum's stated aim is to not allow such things to be repeated by learning from history. EU funded and no doubt a pointless and wasteful.
At the end of the exhibit are key articles from the European Convention of Human Rights. I struggled to find fault with them.
Have a read of the key ones:
2) the right to life; 3) prohibition of torture; 4) the prohibition of slavery and forced labour; 5) the right to liberty and security; 6) the right to a fair trial; 7) no punishment without law; 8) the right to respect for private and family life; 9) freedom of thought, conscience and religion and 10) freedom of expression.
Leaving the EU does not require us to leave this agreement but many of our politicians, press and some of our population are very keen to.
If we do not wish, as a nation to be legally bound to these principles by an outside supranational organisation then who does?
Do we write our own laws and uphold them in our courts? Will these judges be called traitors if they do not return the "right" decisions? Will the government defend our judiciary if this ever happened even if it were inconvenient for them? I mean, this is the UK, nothing like that could ever happen here..."
I reckon these rights clash with tory ideology but leaving tbe EU does not mean leaving the UN |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There like free speech and democracy there brilliant until you don't like the outcome.
Then you bitch and moan about them, it's a trait of humans when they don't get what they want |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"I was in the site of the former headquarters of the "Holy" Inquisition in Seville today.
There's a museum. The Spanish have had a similar experience of the abuse of power not so long ago under Franco.
The museum's stated aim is to not allow such things to be repeated by learning from history. EU funded and no doubt a pointless and wasteful.
At the end of the exhibit are key articles from the European Convention of Human Rights. I struggled to find fault with them.
Have a read of the key ones:
2) the right to life; 3) prohibition of torture; 4) the prohibition of slavery and forced labour; 5) the right to liberty and security; 6) the right to a fair trial; 7) no punishment without law; 8) the right to respect for private and family life; 9) freedom of thought, conscience and religion and 10) freedom of expression.
Leaving the EU does not require us to leave this agreement but many of our politicians, press and some of our population are very keen to.
If we do not wish, as a nation to be legally bound to these principles by an outside supranational organisation then who does?
Do we write our own laws and uphold them in our courts? Will these judges be called traitors if they do not return the "right" decisions? Will the government defend our judiciary if this ever happened even if it were inconvenient for them? I mean, this is the UK, nothing like that could ever happen here..."
Where does the ECHR stand on the right to marry, and same sex marriage? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"I was in the site of the former headquarters of the "Holy" Inquisition in Seville today.
There's a museum. The Spanish have had a similar experience of the abuse of power not so long ago under Franco.
The museum's stated aim is to not allow such things to be repeated by learning from history. EU funded and no doubt a pointless and wasteful.
At the end of the exhibit are key articles from the European Convention of Human Rights. I struggled to find fault with them.
Have a read of the key ones:
2) the right to life; 3) prohibition of torture; 4) the prohibition of slavery and forced labour; 5) the right to liberty and security; 6) the right to a fair trial; 7) no punishment without law; 8) the right to respect for private and family life; 9) freedom of thought, conscience and religion and 10) freedom of expression.
Leaving the EU does not require us to leave this agreement but many of our politicians, press and some of our population are very keen to.
If we do not wish, as a nation to be legally bound to these principles by an outside supranational organisation then who does?
Do we write our own laws and uphold them in our courts? Will these judges be called traitors if they do not return the "right" decisions? Will the government defend our judiciary if this ever happened even if it were inconvenient for them? I mean, this is the UK, nothing like that could ever happen here...
Where does the ECHR stand on the right to marry, and same sex marriage? "
The universal right is a product of its time and draughted in terms of heterosexual marriage. The ECHR cannot impose new laws on a state where they do not exist, only interpret existing laws. I'm not sure what happens if a state introduces a new law which contradicts the Convention. I assume(!) that this would break the Treaty.
As I understand it, case law has recognised the legal status of a same sex marriage in any member state if the ceremony was carried out in one where it was legal.
The law is always a little cumbersome.
I assume that you skin read a headline to make a point. How about the wider point about a supranational court holding nation states to account and limiting their ability to corrupt the judiciary?
Of course, this only really helps when the separation of law and state is well established and the populace cares enough to protest. If the national court system is already corrupt it's almost impossible to exhaust the domestic legal process to get to the ECHR.
Again, that's the limit of law. It's written down and not arbitrary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I assume that you skin read a headline to make a point. How about the wider point about a supranational court holding nation states to account and limiting their ability to corrupt the judiciary?
Of course, this only really helps when the separation of law and state is well established and the populace cares enough to protest. If the national court system is already corrupt it's almost impossible to exhaust the domestic legal process to get to the ECHR.
Again, that's the limit of law. It's written down and not arbitrary."
.
So the populace "don't care enough" and so we need an outside body to tell us how our society should function.
In other words were dysfunctional halfwits incapable of running our own society.
When I was a Lenin fan everybody used to say I was mental but I maintain you hang around long enough and society will catch up with your beliefs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"
I assume that you skin read a headline to make a point. How about the wider point about a supranational court holding nation states to account and limiting their ability to corrupt the judiciary?
Of course, this only really helps when the separation of law and state is well established and the populace cares enough to protest. If the national court system is already corrupt it's almost impossible to exhaust the domestic legal process to get to the ECHR.
Again, that's the limit of law. It's written down and not arbitrary..
So the populace "don't care enough" and so we need an outside body to tell us how our society should function.
In other words were dysfunctional halfwits incapable of running our own society.
When I was a Lenin fan everybody used to say I was mental but I maintain you hang around long enough and society will catch up with your beliefs"
Actually, no. That is not what I said at all.
The UK government and press deliberately or accidentally tested the how much the population cares by attacking/not defending the judiciary in the wake of the Article 59 ruling. As it turned out, a lot of people did care.
The same is happening in Poland. The opposition and the general population are protesting the attempt to control the judiciary. The EU (a supranational organisation) is also starting the process of censuring Poland. This is within its remit but not the ECHR.
Turkey has just become a dictatorship. Not enough people cared and little external influence was brought to bear because of the refugee crisis.
I think that you know this already.
Save your anger for something more appropriate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I assume that you skin read a headline to make a point. How about the wider point about a supranational court holding nation states to account and limiting their ability to corrupt the judiciary?
Of course, this only really helps when the separation of law and state is well established and the populace cares enough to protest. If the national court system is already corrupt it's almost impossible to exhaust the domestic legal process to get to the ECHR.
Again, that's the limit of law. It's written down and not arbitrary..
So the populace "don't care enough" and so we need an outside body to tell us how our society should function.
In other words were dysfunctional halfwits incapable of running our own society.
When I was a Lenin fan everybody used to say I was mental but I maintain you hang around long enough and society will catch up with your beliefs
Actually, no. That is not what I said at all.
The UK government and press deliberately or accidentally tested the how much the population cares by attacking/not defending the judiciary in the wake of the Article 59 ruling. As it turned out, a lot of people did care.
The same is happening in Poland. The opposition and the general population are protesting the attempt to control the judiciary. The EU (a supranational organisation) is also starting the process of censuring Poland. This is within its remit but not the ECHR.
Turkey has just become a dictatorship. Not enough people cared and little external influence was brought to bear because of the refugee crisis.
I think that you know this already.
Save your anger for something more appropriate."
.
Your still of the opinion that societies can't regulate themselves, they need the higher power of the supernational EU?.
I'm not angry about anything anymore my friend, it's all too late for that I'm afraid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"
I assume that you skin read a headline to make a point. How about the wider point about a supranational court holding nation states to account and limiting their ability to corrupt the judiciary?
Of course, this only really helps when the separation of law and state is well established and the populace cares enough to protest. If the national court system is already corrupt it's almost impossible to exhaust the domestic legal process to get to the ECHR.
Again, that's the limit of law. It's written down and not arbitrary..
So the populace "don't care enough" and so we need an outside body to tell us how our society should function.
In other words were dysfunctional halfwits incapable of running our own society.
When I was a Lenin fan everybody used to say I was mental but I maintain you hang around long enough and society will catch up with your beliefs
Actually, no. That is not what I said at all.
The UK government and press deliberately or accidentally tested the how much the population cares by attacking/not defending the judiciary in the wake of the Article 59 ruling. As it turned out, a lot of people did care.
The same is happening in Poland. The opposition and the general population are protesting the attempt to control the judiciary. The EU (a supranational organisation) is also starting the process of censuring Poland. This is within its remit but not the ECHR.
Turkey has just become a dictatorship. Not enough people cared and little external influence was brought to bear because of the refugee crisis.
I think that you know this already.
Save your anger for something more appropriate..
Your still of the opinion that societies can't regulate themselves, they need the higher power of the supernational EU?.
I'm not angry about anything anymore my friend, it's all too late for that I'm afraid"
To some extent, no they can't. Societies want simple answers for complicated questions. Over the ages this ends up as victimising some minority or another to further the political or financial advantage of another.
However, I did also say, very clearly, that they are also capable of listening to the better angels of their nature and gave you two examples.
Supranational organisations do have their uses.
Working together and accepting the scrutiny of your peers is not always easy but usually very useful on a personal, business and national level wouldn't you say?
Regardless, do you find any of the items in the Convention objectionable and do you feel that they are worthy of legal enforcement? If so how and who guarantees that they are not corrupted? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"When did we vote on ECHR ? I missed that referendum. "
We didn't vote for the Paris Climate Accord either.
We live in a representative democracy anyway so I'm not sure what your point is.
My initial questions still stand though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I assume that you skin read a headline to make a point. How about the wider point about a supranational court holding nation states to account and limiting their ability to corrupt the judiciary?
Of course, this only really helps when the separation of law and state is well established and the populace cares enough to protest. If the national court system is already corrupt it's almost impossible to exhaust the domestic legal process to get to the ECHR.
Again, that's the limit of law. It's written down and not arbitrary..
So the populace "don't care enough" and so we need an outside body to tell us how our society should function.
In other words were dysfunctional halfwits incapable of running our own society.
When I was a Lenin fan everybody used to say I was mental but I maintain you hang around long enough and society will catch up with your beliefs
Actually, no. That is not what I said at all.
The UK government and press deliberately or accidentally tested the how much the population cares by attacking/not defending the judiciary in the wake of the Article 59 ruling. As it turned out, a lot of people did care.
The same is happening in Poland. The opposition and the general population are protesting the attempt to control the judiciary. The EU (a supranational organisation) is also starting the process of censuring Poland. This is within its remit but not the ECHR.
Turkey has just become a dictatorship. Not enough people cared and little external influence was brought to bear because of the refugee crisis.
I think that you know this already.
Save your anger for something more appropriate..
Your still of the opinion that societies can't regulate themselves, they need the higher power of the supernational EU?.
I'm not angry about anything anymore my friend, it's all too late for that I'm afraid
To some extent, no they can't. Societies want simple answers for complicated questions. Over the ages this ends up as victimising some minority or another to further the political or financial advantage of another.
However, I did also say, very clearly, that they are also capable of listening to the better angels of their nature and gave you two examples.
Supranational organisations do have their uses.
Working together and accepting the scrutiny of your peers is not always easy but usually very useful on a personal, business and national level wouldn't you say?
Regardless, do you find any of the items in the Convention objectionable and do you feel that they are worthy of legal enforcement? If so how and who guarantees that they are not corrupted?"
.
No I've always been a fan of Leninism, I'm just glad your coming round to my view point.
Let's be straight, I think most humans are knob ends and I'd be more than happy to take some outback and machine gun them!...
You seem to have the same thought pattern but your to liberal to go the whole hog?.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"
No I've always been a fan of Leninism, I'm just glad your coming round to my view point.
Let's be straight, I think most humans are knob ends and I'd be more than happy to take some outback and machine gun them!...
You seem to have the same thought pattern but your to liberal to go the whole hog?.
"
Waaaaaay off topic 
Leninism seeks to impose a single, idealised, perspective and system that is inflexible and is, unintentionally, structured to enable dictatorship.
You achieve more working with the grain of people's self interest and aligning it with those of society.
So no, I'm not coming around to your way of thinking but I can appreciate some of your opinions.
Start another thread on it but I am interested in you putting some thought into what I asked  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The current ploy is to pretend that citizens have all legal rights to the same standards as we've had whilst in Europe - but collated within this con of a bill the cons are trying to push through. it would create something that would be open to amendments without proper parliamentary scrutiny in future - and thus people would not have similarly strong and in no way equal protections to now.
In any event, we're not going to be completely free from European laws and courts influences, as the government has lied many times upon this and what must happen as we start a new relationship between the U.K. and Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Newbury |
"
I assume that you skin read a headline to make a point. How about the wider point about a supranational court holding nation states to account and limiting their ability to corrupt the judiciary?
Of course, this only really helps when the separation of law and state is well established and the populace cares enough to protest. If the national court system is already corrupt it's almost impossible to exhaust the domestic legal process to get to the ECHR.
Again, that's the limit of law. It's written down and not arbitrary..
So the populace "don't care enough" and so we need an outside body to tell us how our society should function.
In other words were dysfunctional halfwits incapable of running our own society.
When I was a Lenin fan everybody used to say I was mental but I maintain you hang around long enough and society will catch up with your beliefs
Actually, no. That is not what I said at all.
The UK government and press deliberately or accidentally tested the how much the population cares by attacking/not defending the judiciary in the wake of the Article 59 ruling. As it turned out, a lot of people did care.
The same is happening in Poland. The opposition and the general population are protesting the attempt to control the judiciary. The EU (a supranational organisation) is also starting the process of censuring Poland. This is within its remit but not the ECHR.
Turkey has just become a dictatorship. Not enough people cared and little external influence was brought to bear because of the refugee crisis.
I think that you know this already.
Save your anger for something more appropriate..
Your still of the opinion that societies can't regulate themselves, they need the higher power of the supernational EU?.
I'm not angry about anything anymore my friend, it's all too late for that I'm afraid
To some extent, no they can't. Societies want simple answers for complicated questions. Over the ages this ends up as victimising some minority or another to further the political or financial advantage of another.
However, I did also say, very clearly, that they are also capable of listening to the better angels of their nature and gave you two examples.
Supranational organisations do have their uses.
Working together and accepting the scrutiny of your peers is not always easy but usually very useful on a personal, business and national level wouldn't you say?
Regardless, do you find any of the items in the Convention objectionable and do you feel that they are worthy of legal enforcement? If so how and who guarantees that they are not corrupted?.
No I've always been a fan of Leninism, I'm just glad your coming round to my view point.
Let's be straight, I think most humans are knob ends and I'd be more than happy to take some outback and machine gun them!...
You seem to have the same thought pattern but your to liberal to go the whole hog?.
"
Not really sure how you can be a fan of Lenin out of context (the context being Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
