• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

One step forward, one step back

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    The European Court [sic] does not have the power to convict anyone.
    However, their rulings are used as guidance by our activist judges. We have our own foolish laws now.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by TwoWolves View Post
      However, their rulings are used as guidance by our activist judges. We have our own foolish laws now.
      Is 'activist judge' a paranoid nutjob term for 'judge'?

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
        The European Court [sic] does not have the power to convict anyone yet or directly yet.

        FTFY!
        Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
          Oh fook off you patronising twunt!!

          Blasphemer!

          Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
          The use of "EU" was technically incorrect as the ECHR was set up long before the EU and is an agreement between many countries but, looking at all the convoluted politics behind it, the distinction is not so black and white. The Lisbon treaty requires the EU to sign up to it and no countries have entered the EU without signing up to it. More relevant to the UK, the EU has blocked any idea of us leaving it.
          No, it wasn't technically incorrect. It was just incorrect. The ECHR is not an EU court. Anymore than it is a Russian court. Or a British court.


          Again true. Admittedly there seems a bit of a contradiction here, I want the UK to have control of its own laws but am objecting to the EHCR not imposing on another nation. But what purpose has the EHCR ruling achieved here apart from adding enormous costs to the dispute?
          The Austrian woman felt her right to free speech overrode Austrian law, so she appealed. If she'd not gone to the court, there would have been no ruling. It was her wot dun it.

          When the UK joined the convention, as first signatory in 1953, under a Tory government under Churchill, they wanted to restrict the rights of individuals to go to the court, so eventually it was agreed that individual signatories could choose to allow this. Britain chose not to, until 1966 (Labour government). In 1998, the HRA was introduced (Labour), which allowed people to use the convention in British courts without going to the ECHR.

          There's this from May in your second link:

          May used a speech in central London to argue that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.

          “ The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.

          “So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”


          So it would be possible to have a hard Brexit, for example, without leaving the ECHR. It was also technically possible to leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. Can the UK leave the ECHR but not the EU?. They've only become connected issues as part of the Brexit negotiations.
          Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
            Is 'activist judge' a paranoid nutjob term for 'judge'?
            It's a pejorative term for those that put their personal political bias before the law or the safety of the public. One of my best friends is a Barrister for the CPS and it's a common complaint of hers and she's far from a nut job.

            Comment


              #16
              Looks like Article 10 of the ECHR is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, in that it gives humans no rights to free speech in any circumstances where that speech could be of any value (that value coming from saying things some other people don't like, thereby creating a motivation for political change).

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by GJABS View Post
                Looks like Article 10 of the ECHR is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, in that it gives humans no rights to free speech in any circumstances where that speech could be of any value (that value coming from saying things some other people don't like, thereby creating a motivation for political change).
                You will need to read this first before making such a statement

                https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6234980-8105265%22]}


                Principal facts
                The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria).
                In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in
                which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha,
                which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that
                Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we
                call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.
                On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that
                Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious
                doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S.
                appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in
                essence the lower court’s findings.
                A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December
                2013.
                Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
                Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to
                address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.
                If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value
                judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an
                objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate, and had not been aimed at
                defaming the Prophet of Islam. Lastly, Mrs S. submitted that religious groups had to tolerate even
                severe criticism.
                The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 June 2012.
                Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
                Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President,
                André Potocki (France),
                Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
                Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),
                Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
                Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
                Lado Chanturia (Georgia),
                and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.
                Decision of the Court
                Article 10
                The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
                Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
                accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went
                beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
                intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
                freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
                The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
                nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
                on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
                context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
                of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
                were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.
                The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value
                judgments. It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However,
                a value judgment without any factual basis to support it might be excessive.
                The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
                applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
                been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
                marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
                was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
                that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The
                national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
                general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical
                background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court
                saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as
                value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
                The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the
                applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings
                protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
                The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the
                Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable
                expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the
                permissible limits of freedom of expression.
                Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the
                statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.
                Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements,
                the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in
                the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been
                no violation of Article 10
                "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by GJABS View Post
                  Looks like Article 10 of the ECHR is about as useful as a chocolate teapot...
                  That's right, because no-one's right to free speech has ever been upheld in important circumstances.
                  Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                  Comment


                    #19
                    But does the Koran not say that taking a nine year old wife is fine?

                    And in our laws is someone who ****s a nine year old a paedo?

                    So someone, somewhere is incorrect.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by original PM View Post
                      But does the Koran not say that taking a nine year old wife is fine?

                      And in our laws is someone who ****s a nine year old a paedo?

                      So someone, somewhere is incorrect.
                      "In our laws" all of the ancient world were sexual deviants. Girls were typically married as soon as they menstruated circa 12 years old. Young boys were 'taught' by older men in return for sexual access. I detest Islam, but contextually it wasn't uncommon in the times for old men to take child brides, it helped assure virginity for one thing.
                      But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X