|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 4, 2024 6:49:21 GMT
So Mr Johnson wants a referendum on leaving the echr , to be replaced by something else uk based I guess. Something that the government is more comfortable with and happy with the human rites it has given us. But I am very uncomfortable with this, the whole point of a legal set of human rites is to have rites the powers of the day may find uncomfortable and cannot ignore or vote away. History tells us that power only wants more power and can easily tell itself that individual rites are best removed or ignored for the greater good which strangely allways alines its their own wishes. It will take a lot for me to vote for this.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,618 
Likes: 6,432
|
Post by registerme on Oct 4, 2024 7:42:45 GMT
Some quick thoughts:-
1. I happen to believe that international agreements that constrain the ability of governments to do as they please are a good thing (as with national courts that similarly constrain the executive).
2. The UK was involved in the drafting of the ECHR, and was one of the first to sign up to it.
3. Anything that Johnson thinks is a good idea is probably a bad idea.
4. Anything that the feckless Tories believe is in their interests, either because it appeals to their populist base or because it would draw support from Reform, is probably a bad idea.
5. Thankfully Johnson's not in power.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 4, 2024 7:43:04 GMT
Mr Johnson is an irrelevant nobody. He is a journalist, an author and an after-dinner speaker who trades off his past failures - with zero power and zero influence, apart from within a small sub-group inside an opposition political party. He can, frankly, go and boil his head. These are the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENGNobody has ever been able to point to an article they disagree with and tell me why they think it shouldn't protect them or their family. What would the differences be to the "British Bill of Rights" proposed to replace it? Which of those protections would we lose?The Convention was created just after WW2, with Churchill driving its creation, and it was basically written by British lawyers. It has been in legal force in the UK since 1951, and applies to EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY (46 of them) with a toehold in geographical Europe, with the exceptions of the Vatican (theocracy, no freedom of religion), Russia (expelled in 2022), Belorus and Kazakhstan (dictatorships with abysmal human rights records), and Kosovo (due to its disputed status as a country, but it is in the process of joining). Greece left during its military dictatorship, then rejoined once democracy was restored. It is nothing to do with the EU, except that being subject to it is a prerequisite for EU/EEA/EFTA membership. Why can the UK not be expected to be held to the same standard of basic protections as, say, Erdogan's Turkey? The usual objection is "But forrin judges". Well, basic xenophobia aside, if that's the case, you'd think people would welcome the Human Rights Act 1998 - the sole job of which is to allow UK courts to rule on breaches of the convention, the same courts as would adjudicate the putative "British Bill of Rights". That's exactly what happened over Rwanda, with the UK Supreme Court deciding that it breached Article 3 - www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2023-0093-etc-judgment.pdf"ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."Surely nobody civilised can object to that, can they? Which brings us to the great big unexpressed elephant in the room. If people don't object to any of the articles themselves, and would use the same courts to enforce a replacement, surely the only reason that people can object to the convention is a simple one... They can't believe that human rights should apply equally to all humans.Where do these people sit on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rightsWould they have us leave the UN, too?
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 4, 2024 8:47:31 GMT
A simplification ,I think they believe in white rites but only if they are conveniently ignored when required. The sad situation in the USA where the Supreme Court has been polically stuffed by Trump so as to neuter it, political appointees have always happened but judges when appointed in the past have gone off the desired presidences track with independent views much to he benefit of citizens and the stability of the USA system of democracy.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 4, 2024 8:49:23 GMT
A simplification ,I think they believe in white rites I'm assuming that's a typo, but I fear you're far too close.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1,287
|
Post by james100 on Oct 4, 2024 9:25:03 GMT
I'm also anti leaving ECHR - UK government (and others) quite simply need an overarching authority/ code/ guidelines to keep them in check; one in effect across all political cycles IMO. But like "the EU made me do it", ECHR has been a simple scapegoat for the consequences of poorly designed / implemented policies for issues that need to be be addressed systemically or unfeasible commitments that should never have been made in the first place. So I can understand people starting to equate ECHR with their perception of failed immigration controls. And btw like it or not Boris Johnson - self publicist extraordinaire - is probably back, given the front runner of the Tory leadership contest is Jenrick who's said he'll stick BJ in shadow cabinet. Per Q4/24 Yougov data, Johnson is still much more popular, and much less disliked, than Starmer so it would be premature to write off his influence just yet.
I sleep a little easier for the ECHR existing under both of their governments.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 4, 2024 9:48:19 GMT
And btw like it or not Boris Johnson - self publicist extraordinaire - is probably back, given the front runner of the Tory leadership contest is Jenrick who's said he'll stick BJ in shadow cabinet. He'd have to stick BJ Piffle in the HoL... and then do we think Johnson would actually turn up to cabinet meetings and do the job? Nah, it's just empty words designed to get the Johnsonite members on his side.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 4, 2024 10:13:53 GMT
Some quick thoughts:- 1. I happen to believe that international agreements that constrain the ability of governments to do as they please are a good thing (as with national courts that similarly constrain the executive). 2. The UK was involved in the drafting of the ECHR, and was one of the first to sign up to it. 3. Anything that Johnson thinks is a good idea is probably a bad idea. 4. Anything that the feckless Tories believe is in their interests, either because it appeals to their populist base or because it would draw support from Reform, is probably a bad idea. 5. Thankfully Johnson's not in power. as a natural conservative most of my life, I agree with all of that
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 4, 2024 11:50:07 GMT
Sorry not a typo just a semi dyslexic engineer, good maths but  spelling. So I am not sure if I have the right rite When I write, but I will try to make it better wright. |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 4, 2024 12:03:03 GMT
Sorry not a typo just a semi dyslexic engineer, good maths but spelling. So I am not sure if I have the right rite When I write, but I will try to make it better wright. It was the "white" I was querying...
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 4, 2024 12:56:36 GMT
No sadly white rites is what I intended to wright. Dam write.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 4, 2024 21:04:00 GMT
ANYBODY here think the ECHR is a bad thing?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,677
Likes: 2,974
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 5, 2024 14:55:53 GMT
One can't answer such a binary question (if you'll excuse the pun).
It has done many good things but I'm starting to think there are some aspects of it that are not a force for good. Trans rights vs women's rights for example.
In general I would like to see family rights put front and centre and there has been a move away from that.
Those cultures that have a poor record on human rights also seem to be the ones that bear more children for the next generation. Something to think about there I think.
Good old fashion emancipation has improved many women's lives but there are increasing numbers who regret trying for a baby until its too late. Going late reduces family size and increases the chances of Autism (whose numbers seem to be going through the roof).
So in summary, we need to be very careful about which rights we protect and whether those rights have unintended consequences or impinge on other rights.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 5, 2024 16:11:29 GMT
One can't answer such a binary question (if you'll excuse the pun). It has done many good things but I'm starting to think there are some aspects of it that are not a force for good. Trans rights vs women's rights for example. In general I would like to see family rights put front and centre and there has been a move away from that. Those cultures that have a poor record on human rights also seem to be the ones that bear more children for the next generation. Something to think about there I think. Good old fashion emancipation has improved many women's lives but there are increasing numbers who regret trying for a baby until its too late. Going late reduces family size and increases the chances of Autism (whose numbers seem to be going through the roof). So in summary, we need to be very careful about which rights we protect and whether those rights have unintended consequences or impinge on other rights. The evidence on autism is conflicting at best, some studies show highest rates in young mother's. Also women with autism tend to have children later and there is a genetic factor. Older father's seem to have a stronger link, in some studies. But I think the jury is out, in the past autism was hardly diagnosed apart for extreme cases so all the historic figures are a bit dubious. Smaller family sizes is surely a good thing the world is over populated. I agree that women shouldn't have to share female only spaces with men who just identify as female, if they have lost all their male bits fair enough. And women athletes shouldn't have to compete against men, at least those who have gone through male puberty.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,978
Likes: 5,131
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 5, 2024 17:48:59 GMT
One can't answer such a binary question (if you'll excuse the pun). One can, because that's the choice that may be on the table. So which article do you object to there...? www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENGAh, it's the usual "these rights should only apply to people I agree with", is it?
|
|
spelling. So I am not sure if I have the right rite When I write, but I will try to make it better wright.