UK 'should cut links to European Court of Human Rights'
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
MX7 said:
No, we have the House of Lords to oversee any legislation. They understand our culture in a way that Strasbourg can't.
Blanket legislation over an area as wide and diverse as Europe can only work so far. As long as countries adhere to the general sentiments of the EU human rights laws, we should be able to decide the finer details ourselves.
In my opinion, this is just a manipulation of the law, and the fact that it's being debated at the moment suggests that it isn't being applied in the manner that was intended.
If it were aploitical then you would be right , but sadly, it isn't and it cannot be trusted or relied upon to deliver an honest or fair product.Blanket legislation over an area as wide and diverse as Europe can only work so far. As long as countries adhere to the general sentiments of the EU human rights laws, we should be able to decide the finer details ourselves.
In my opinion, this is just a manipulation of the law, and the fact that it's being debated at the moment suggests that it isn't being applied in the manner that was intended.
MX7 said:
rs1952 said:
The examples I gave were just that - examples of where countries may differ over what they think is right or wrong, and other countries might think differently.
What examples? You implied that it's a bad law."Just because something is "the law" in one country does not automatically make it "good law." The UK position on votes for prisoners is one such area"
Why is it a bad law?
MX7 said:
rs1952 said:
To the poster who mentioned the House of Lords - their job is to review legislation before it receives royal assent and, when that happens, their job on that particular matter is done. Legislation may remain on the statute book for many years and circumstances may change - the Lords will not be reviewing that.
So we need some overseer who examines and dissects our legislation on a constant basis? I don't think we do. Laws change all the time. Bad laws are binned, new laws made. We don't need an external assessor with a higher authority than our own system, especially as some of those making the judgments come from countries with a lower respect for human rights than our own.rs1952 said:
Then we must agree to differ, but I'm intrigued. Which are the countries who have a lower respect for human rights than our own? I think you'd be hard pressed to find one within the EU. Or are you one of those people who take the view that nobody gets a fair trial unless its in a UK court?
I'm not that blinkered.List of judges of the European Court of Human Rights
Have a look over at Freedom House, in particular the sections on countries like Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and the Ukraine. When it comes to human rights, are they really fit to pass judgement on us?
Marty Funkhouser said:
Are you really happy to leave our human rights in the hands of our own government? I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups. The UK Govt hasnt shown itself too bothered about human rights in recent years - control orders for one.
^^^^^^ +1
Frankeh said:
Wasn't it the European court of human rights that said we have to get rid of most of the DNA database?
If so, I'd rather we don't cut our ties.
It was also the ECHR that said that a hit and run, child killer couldn't be deported as it was against his Human rights along with numerous other Piss boilers that have been posted on PH over the yearsIf so, I'd rather we don't cut our ties.
I've worked with two resident judges and I have to say I was impressed with them. Their idea of service to the community was quite remarkable and one that, if everyone followed it, would not require some politican to give some trite speech about a 'big society' as a real one, and not political spin, would already be here.
But move up in the echelons of lawering and you get to those whose sole ambition is to be promoted and get power. They fight amongst themselves, overturning someone else's judgements just to put them in their place and to remove the challenge.
We've had some tremendous senior judges, Hogg always impressed me, but some have been less than what the roles demanded.
Senior judges are political. They make political decisions. For some, their main purpose is political. They are almost impossible to sack but it is all too easy to move someone who is 'off message' into a spot where they have no influence. The raised ranks are self-perpetuating.
Our judges come from a restricted background. Many feel that they do not represent the population's aspirations. That said, they should not be popularist of course. But some idea of what it is like for the rest of us might be nice.
Not only that but senior judges are open to considerable political pressure from the government. Whether they bow to that pressure is difficult to say but there are some decisions over the years which have raised suspicions.
The ECHR is limited in its authority. The DNA database is a case in point, as is the votes for prisoners. It is, though, persuasive.
We would appear to have the best of all possible worlds: a court that passes judgement over our senior court but one which we do not have to obey. That means that the EHCR has to be circumspect in its decisions. If they say something that the majority agrees with then the government must do something about it. Unless it is DNA of course.
We have just emerged from a right-leaning government that seemed to ignore the rights and desires of the population. The way the current one is going, alienating just about everyone, then I would assume its return is not too far away. I want protection from the next Blair, be they right or left leaning. I don't think the EHCR is man-enough for the job, but at least it is something.
But move up in the echelons of lawering and you get to those whose sole ambition is to be promoted and get power. They fight amongst themselves, overturning someone else's judgements just to put them in their place and to remove the challenge.
We've had some tremendous senior judges, Hogg always impressed me, but some have been less than what the roles demanded.
Senior judges are political. They make political decisions. For some, their main purpose is political. They are almost impossible to sack but it is all too easy to move someone who is 'off message' into a spot where they have no influence. The raised ranks are self-perpetuating.
Our judges come from a restricted background. Many feel that they do not represent the population's aspirations. That said, they should not be popularist of course. But some idea of what it is like for the rest of us might be nice.
Not only that but senior judges are open to considerable political pressure from the government. Whether they bow to that pressure is difficult to say but there are some decisions over the years which have raised suspicions.
The ECHR is limited in its authority. The DNA database is a case in point, as is the votes for prisoners. It is, though, persuasive.
We would appear to have the best of all possible worlds: a court that passes judgement over our senior court but one which we do not have to obey. That means that the EHCR has to be circumspect in its decisions. If they say something that the majority agrees with then the government must do something about it. Unless it is DNA of course.
We have just emerged from a right-leaning government that seemed to ignore the rights and desires of the population. The way the current one is going, alienating just about everyone, then I would assume its return is not too far away. I want protection from the next Blair, be they right or left leaning. I don't think the EHCR is man-enough for the job, but at least it is something.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 7th February 16:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff