"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
I don't think the ECHR would protect us from such things if parliament wanted to go in that direction. But I see no advantage to leaving it either, since the propnents of that idea typically seen exercised by a very precise matter only, and leaving the ECHR is some magical weapon they propose to fix it.
Leaving or not leaving it isnt relevant, its a fiction. Rights that cant be enforced are merely fluffy aspirations and all signatories of the ECHR violate those rights all the time. Let's stop waving it around and pretending it has any meaning for either side
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
If 99% of the population of a country vote to approve a policy that deprives 1% of the population of their rights or their lives then of course the 1% should be allowed to say no. The Jews should have been allowed to block the legislation that deprived them of their human rights, for example, even though a plurality of German voters voted for the party that introduced them and a majority supported them.
O/T watch this week's John Oliver to see why Ron DeSantis is a douchebag.
You actually needed to watch something to establish that?
Sure, but it will at least be done in a funny way if is Oliver doing it - I hope Trump does not win the next election solely so the poor guy can focus on being funny, as after the 10th 'Trump is a horrendously awful person and so is anyone who supports him' piece it loses its lustre.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
If 99% of the population of a country vote to approve a policy that deprives 1% of the population of their rights or their lives then of course the 1% should be allowed to say no. The Jews should have been allowed to block the legislation that deprived them of their human rights, for example, even though a plurality of German voters voted for the party that introduced them and a majority supported them.
See my later comment.....as I said you dont object to majority rule...you just object to majority rule when you don't like what the majority says.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
Clearly that is part of the internal price Rishi is paying - Look, I'll do some sensible, collegial work with the EU to try to solve the NI issue, but in return I'll give you the most insane stuff on the boats stuff.
Actually that is a bit generous on Rishi, despite a sensible tone much of the time I don't really buy this idea he is a centrist, certainly not on migration, he seems pretty sincerely hard right on the issue.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
Clearly that is part of the internal price Rishi is paying - Look, I'll do some sensible, collegial work with the EU to try to solve the NI issue, but in return I'll give you the most insane stuff on the boats stuff.
Actually that is a bit generous on Rishi, despite a sensible tone much of the time I don't really buy this idea he is a centrist, certainly not on migration, he seems pretty sincerely hard right on the issue.
The trouble comes when it then, surprise surprise, throws up victims of injustice. Because people also don’t like unfairness or computer-says-no bureaucracy. The windrush debacle being a recent case in point and the home office failures with Afghanistan another.
So in summary you cannot be a refugee. How does somebody from Afghanistan claim asylum here? It is impossible.
Why does a refugee from afghanistan need asylum in the uk? There are safe countries nearer
Because some of them worked for us, and even fought for us ? Most of whom we've failed to help.
I added that yes where they are in danger down to working for us yes we should have an obligation. Your run of the mill afghani that just happens to have upset the wrong warlord no they can flee to a nearby safe country
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
Clearly that is part of the internal price Rishi is paying - Look, I'll do some sensible, collegial work with the EU to try to solve the NI issue, but in return I'll give you the most insane stuff on the boats stuff.
Actually that is a bit generous on Rishi, despite a sensible tone much of the time I don't really buy this idea he is a centrist, certainly not on migration, he seems pretty sincerely hard right on the issue.
The polling on this will be interesting
Polling is often interesting. During Covid some polling indicated the public supported never reopening some activities, ever. It remained a bloody awful idea of course.
Many people are more concerned about the boats than I am, its understandable politicians feel an imperative to do something about it, or attempt to do something about it. But this? It looks awfully performative.
1. I’ve been having a look at the bill. Not going to be able to put together anything coherent tonight. It’s a terrible piece of legislation that denies refugees their rights under the Refugee Convention. But a law in the UK cannot magically invent somewhere to remove people to.
2. So we’ll likely end up with tens of thousands of people who are refugees but whose claims cannot legally be assessed and who cannot work, who have to live on minimal state support in hotels. For ever.
3. If it doesn’t actually deter all arrivals — and it won’t — then it looks completely unsustainable. The government is going to create a new, huge, ever-growing asylum backlog. Honestly, I think it’s absolutely nuts.
Clearly designed to be illegal and pass on the blame to the courts.
Yes, the whole purpose is performative cruelty so as to create outrage at "Leftie North London Lawyers". It is designed to fail.
I'm actually struggling to get wound up by it all because it is so transparently performative and designed only to create dividing lines that most people will just dismiss it.
Less than two years to go as well.
It seems that the government plan at the next election will be to promise to leave the ECHR and to ask voters to trust Suella Braverman with their human rights!
As I have been saying the last couple of days leaving the ECHR is the logical conclusion if we want to deny refugee status to those who have travelled through safe countries. I probably wouldn't be in favour (depends on what replaces it), but it could be a legitimate part of an attempt to solve the problem.
Whereas making these endless new illegal laws is just cynical theatre at the expense of refugees, our courts and our voters.
Tonight's R&W Red Wall poll is actually better for the Conservatives - the swing from 2019 is still 16.5% but that's three points down on the last poll. The national R&W poll was pretty poor for the Tories so the next set of Blue Wall polling might be informative.
The IPSOS-MORI poll published today is ancient history with fieldwork carried out last week. The headline 19% swing would still be a landslide for Labour.
I was at Sandown this afternoon - they wanted £33 for the Premier Enclosure for six racs so it was the cheap seats for me. Interesting when the Royal Artillery foxhounds were paraded, silence from the cheap sets but whoops of approval from the expensive areas.
I did note a couple of hounds doing their bit to ensure the course was irrigated.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
If 99% of the population of a country vote to approve a policy that deprives 1% of the population of their rights or their lives then of course the 1% should be allowed to say no. The Jews should have been allowed to block the legislation that deprived them of their human rights, for example, even though a plurality of German voters voted for the party that introduced them and a majority supported them.
See my later comment.....as I said you dont object to majority rule...you just object to majority rule when you don't like what the majority says.
If the majority wants to introduce a policy that deprived people of basic rights, as you do, then it should not be enacted. Repealing your proposed law would not do that. That is why we have a limited list of rights in the ECHR. But you say that the majority can vote to commit genocide. Which is immoral and idiotic.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
"Stop the boats" might be nonsense, but nobody else seems to have a clue as to what to do. It is a problem that is getting worse across Europe, and ultimately will likely lead to a breakdown of the ayslum and refugee systems in Europe. What is the alternative that will work? Unlimited refugees? I don't think so, even the most liberal of countries will not support that.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
Clearly that is part of the internal price Rishi is paying - Look, I'll do some sensible, collegial work with the EU to try to solve the NI issue, but in return I'll give you the most insane stuff on the boats stuff.
Actually that is a bit generous on Rishi, despite a sensible tone much of the time I don't really buy this idea he is a centrist, certainly not on migration, he seems pretty sincerely hard right on the issue.
The polling on this will be interesting
Polling is often interesting. During Covid some polling indicated the public supported never reopening some activities, ever. It remained a bloody awful idea of course.
Many people are more concerned about the boats than I am, its understandable politicians feel an imperative to do something about it, or attempt to do something about it. But this? It looks awfully performative.
What is the 'this' of which you speak? Eliminating the pull factors to migrants as far as possible is absolutely key to reducing the numbers of small boat journeys. That means the messages must be clear and unequivocal. Given that migrants have clearly been receiving advice from traffickers to claim to be victims of modern slavery (a claim that works even if their country of origin is safe, and is very difficult to disprove), clearly the Government must do what it can to dispell the idea. Whether a bright red 'DENIED' graphic on a Tweet will do the trick is another question.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
A "pro-Ukrainian group" sounds like a euphemism for a Western intelligence agency.
They said they believed the perpetrators were Ukrainian and/or Russian nationals.
There’s a lot of sabotage of regime property happening on a weekly basis in Russia. Some possibly is liberal anti-Putinists but it seems a fair bit is different breeds of Russian ultra-nationalist. If Western intelligence are aware of Russian dissident groups then I assume they will be protecting their sources.
The pipeline was in fairly shallow water, marked on all the navigation charts.
Technical diving (mixed gas) is a hobby these days. And might well not be required. You can buy underwater ROVs for not very much money.
Think of all the drones we’ve seen dropping things in videos.
No reason for it to require Ivy Bells level stuff.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
A "pro-Ukrainian group" sounds like a euphemism for a Western intelligence agency.
They said they believed the perpetrators were Ukrainian and/or Russian nationals.
There’s a lot of sabotage of regime property happening on a weekly basis in Russia. Some possibly is liberal anti-Putinists but it seems a fair bit is different breeds of Russian ultra-nationalist. If Western intelligence are aware of Russian dissident groups then I assume they will be protecting their sources.
The pipeline was in fairly shallow water, marked on all the navigation charts.
Technical diving (mixed gas) is a hobby these days. And might well not be required. You can buy underwater ROVs for not very much money.
Think of all the drones we’ve seen dropping things in videos.
No reason for it to require Ivy Bells level stuff.
I really don't understand why people keep saying it could only be a nation state as you point out the tech is commercially available
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It worked for Tony Abbott in Australia in 2013 and an Italian version for Meloni in Italy last year
Didn't work so well for Morrison this year. Coming in from opposition is one thing. Defending a record of abject failure as the Govt is a wee bit more tricky
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
Clearly that is part of the internal price Rishi is paying - Look, I'll do some sensible, collegial work with the EU to try to solve the NI issue, but in return I'll give you the most insane stuff on the boats stuff.
Actually that is a bit generous on Rishi, despite a sensible tone much of the time I don't really buy this idea he is a centrist, certainly not on migration, he seems pretty sincerely hard right on the issue.
The polling on this will be interesting
Polling is often interesting. During Covid some polling indicated the public supported never reopening some activities, ever. It remained a bloody awful idea of course.
Many people are more concerned about the boats than I am, its understandable politicians feel an imperative to do something about it, or attempt to do something about it. But this? It looks awfully performative.
What is the 'this' of which you speak? Eliminating the pull factors to migrants as far as possible is absolutely key to reducing the numbers of small boat journeys. That means the messages must be clear and unequivocal. Given that migrants have clearly been receiving advice from traffickers to claim to be victims of modern slavery (a claim that works even if their country of origin is safe, and is very difficult to disprove), clearly the Government must do what it can to dispell the idea. Whether a bright red 'DENIED' graphic on a Tweet will do the trick is another question.
The this has been enumerated plenty of times in discussion of the proposals. I wasn't specifically referring to the modern slavery aspect, that I don't know enough about, but thinking more about the practical difficulties that have been highlighted as very likely as a result of the various proposals.
I certainly have concerns that believing it will have a deterring effect is probable, due to a general belief that deterrence is not very effective on most issues, as people think it won't happen to them, or they can get lucky.
"Stop the boats" might be nonsense, but nobody else seems to have a clue as to what to do. It is a problem that is getting worse across Europe, and ultimately will likely lead to a breakdown of the ayslum and refugee systems in Europe. What is the alternative that will work? Unlimited refugees? I don't think so, even the most liberal of countries will not support that.
Fund the courts and simply procedures to speed up processing. Get 95% done in 2 months. Very heavy fines for companies, including personal fines on directors. Lobby internationally to replace ECHR framework with global quota based scheme.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
"Stop the boats" might be nonsense, but nobody else seems to have a clue as to what to do. It is a problem that is getting worse across Europe, and ultimately will likely lead to a breakdown of the ayslum and refugee systems in Europe. What is the alternative that will work? Unlimited refugees? I don't think so, even the most liberal of countries will not support that.
That is probably true. But even if a problem appears, at present, to be insuperable, there will still be some options that are not worth trying 'just in case', if the cost or effectiveness still looks questionable.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
A "pro-Ukrainian group" sounds like a euphemism for a Western intelligence agency.
They said they believed the perpetrators were Ukrainian and/or Russian nationals.
There’s a lot of sabotage of regime property happening on a weekly basis in Russia. Some possibly is liberal anti-Putinists but it seems a fair bit is different breeds of Russian ultra-nationalist. If Western intelligence are aware of Russian dissident groups then I assume they will be protecting their sources.
The pipeline was in fairly shallow water, marked on all the navigation charts.
Technical diving (mixed gas) is a hobby these days. And might well not be required. You can buy underwater ROVs for not very much money.
Think of all the drones we’ve seen dropping things in videos.
No reason for it to require Ivy Bells level stuff.
It isn't about who could, it's about who would. I highly doubt that the Sea Scouts or the Bash Street Kids or whoever would interfere in such a global cauldron, unless they were highly motivated Ukrainians (which the US has ruled out), or someone doing an arms length operation on behalf of the US. Nobody would dare. We *certainly* wouldn't dare. We have to get US permission before Sunak passes wind these days.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
When a Home Secretary’s own analysis says that a measure is more likely than not illegal, and they push on with it anyway, then you know it’s Braverman.
Movement is in the right direction for the Tories. And they could squeeze the relatively high ReformUK share.
This is one of those polling myths needing to be challenged. Redfield & Wilton found less than 30% of Reform Party supporters would vote for the Conservatives if there was no Reform candidate in their constituency.
Indeed, 15% would vote Labour and most would stay at home - the notion all Reform supporters are just waiting to return to the Conservative fold is another comfort blanket to which increasingly desperate Tory supporters cling.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
A "pro-Ukrainian group" sounds like a euphemism for a Western intelligence agency.
They said they believed the perpetrators were Ukrainian and/or Russian nationals.
There’s a lot of sabotage of regime property happening on a weekly basis in Russia. Some possibly is liberal anti-Putinists but it seems a fair bit is different breeds of Russian ultra-nationalist. If Western intelligence are aware of Russian dissident groups then I assume they will be protecting their sources.
The pipeline was in fairly shallow water, marked on all the navigation charts.
Technical diving (mixed gas) is a hobby these days. And might well not be required. You can buy underwater ROVs for not very much money.
Think of all the drones we’ve seen dropping things in videos.
No reason for it to require Ivy Bells level stuff.
I really don't understand why people keep saying it could only be a nation state as you point out the tech is commercially available
When that building in America got bombed by a domestic terrorist, there quite a few people claiming that one or two guys couldn’t have done it. Because technology.
Despite the “technology” being mixing diesel fuel with fertiliser in a small cement mixer. With a dash of drag racing fuel IIRC.
9/11 could have been done by pretty much any group that had a handful of people prepared to kill themselves.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
I generally get on OK with people who come from overseas irrespective of their creed or colour. (For example I meet lots of Eastern Europeans at work). Suella clearly despises people from overseas, irrespective of their creed or colour. I suppose that makes her a patriot and me a traitor.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Staging posts in France also make no sense as you encourage people to make the dangerous Med crossing, which causes untold death.
What we need to do is to fund much more well-run refugee camps on the borders of the warzones and give them SEZ type rights to generate economic activity and livelihoods. The goal should be this is a temporary place and people should return to their home country when the war is over, and hopefully take their new jobs with them to help the economic rebuild.
You then have an office there where they can apply for asylum, and we only take the ones that are unlikely to be able to integrate back into their society post-war. The Yazidis, Christians, gay people etc. They can come and live in the UK. The rest can't because there are too many, so we fund the refugee camps better.
Then anyone that tries to circumvent that process and croses to Britain gets shipped to Rwanda. If they are successful in their claims, they get UK funding to host them in Rwanda. If they are not, they get a plane back to the refugee camp. That should make sure the right incentives are in place.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
I generally get on OK with people who come from overseas irrespective of their creed or colour. (For example I meet lots of Eastern Europeans at work). Suella clearly despises people from overseas, irrespective of their creed or colour. I suppose that makes her a patriot and me a traitor.
No, it just makes her smart about immigration and you ideologically committed to as much immigration as possible to show off your woke bonafides.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Lets dial this back with an actual example
All members of the EU and us are members of the ECHR.
The uk has created an offence of marital rape despite it being a majority overriding a minority believing its ok...
Quote "On the subject of marital rape, “more than a third of over-65s” do not consider forced marital sex rape, along with 16% of people aged 16 to 24. Overall, one in four Britons believed that non-consensual sex within marriage did not constitute rape."
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
We also have record levels of inward net migration.
Which no one bats an eyelid at.
Mind you I’ve learnt that not building houses is racist today. Every days a school day.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
Whataboutery of the highest order there WillG
Its not whataboutery at all. It just shows what bullshit the old racist card is. The same goes for Brexit. One side wants equal immigration standards for all people. One wants privileged access for an overwhelmingly white continent. Yet apparently that shows the first group is racist.
US intelligence officials believe an attack on the Nord Stream energy pipelines in September was carried out by a pro-Ukrainian group, but say there is no evidence they were assisted by the government in Kyiv.
The cost of repairing the underwater pipelines that carry gas from Russia to Europe has been estimated at as much as $500 million after they were damaged by explosives. Nobody claimed responsibility at the time, and while Washington now believes that an independent group was responsible, it is still not clear how the operation was carried out.
A "pro-Ukrainian group" sounds like a euphemism for a Western intelligence agency.
They said they believed the perpetrators were Ukrainian and/or Russian nationals.
There’s a lot of sabotage of regime property happening on a weekly basis in Russia. Some possibly is liberal anti-Putinists but it seems a fair bit is different breeds of Russian ultra-nationalist. If Western intelligence are aware of Russian dissident groups then I assume they will be protecting their sources.
The pipeline was in fairly shallow water, marked on all the navigation charts.
Technical diving (mixed gas) is a hobby these days. And might well not be required. You can buy underwater ROVs for not very much money.
Think of all the drones we’ve seen dropping things in videos.
No reason for it to require Ivy Bells level stuff.
It isn't about who could, it's about who would. I highly doubt that the Sea Scouts or the Bash Street Kids or whoever would interfere in such a global cauldron, unless they were highly motivated Ukrainians (which the US has ruled out), or someone doing an arms length operation on behalf of the US. Nobody would dare. We *certainly* wouldn't dare. We have to get US permission before Sunak passes wind these days.
Didn’t you see the news today? US intelligence saying they do indeed think it was highly motivated Ukrainians (or anti-regime Russians). But no evidence it was sponsored at state level.
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
When a Home Secretary’s own analysis says that a measure is more likely than not illegal, and they push on with it anyway, then you know it’s Braverman.
Absolute disgrace to the office.
Sadly you dont, it could have been Patel or Raab. Let alone a Francois, JRM etc who are vaguely plausible if this shower get re-elected.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
The thing is - no one trust the Tories to solve anything. The small boats thing today is another indicator of how they’ve lost their minds - pushing forward on something that looks dubious in terms of legality. Which is a shame after the common sense of the Windsor framework
When a Home Secretary’s own analysis says that a measure is more likely than not illegal, and they push on with it anyway, then you know it’s Braverman.
Absolute disgrace to the office.
I recall a lot of negative comments about the Lord Advocate basically saying they couldn't be sure the proposed referendum bill was within competence or not, and could the court please clear that up. This seems far more definitively silly than that was.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
I generally get on OK with people who come from overseas irrespective of their creed or colour. (For example I meet lots of Eastern Europeans at work). Suella clearly despises people from overseas, irrespective of their creed or colour. I suppose that makes her a patriot and me a traitor.
No, it just makes her smart about immigration and you ideologically committed to as much immigration as possible to show off your woke bonafides.
You are just making up s***. You don't know me, and I am certainly none of what you accuse me of. I am about as centrist as is possible, and yet you rabid GeeBeebies right wingers consider me to be some raging communist.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
Whataboutery of the highest order there WillG
Its not whataboutery at all. It just shows what bullshit the old racist card is. The same goes for Brexit. One side wants equal immigration standards for all people. One wants privileged access for an overwhelmingly white continent. Yet apparently that shows the first group is racist.
There is a degree of racism in both positions in truth, or at least it’s possible to level the accusation.
One side wanting “privileged access for an overwhelmingly white continent”.
The other side wanting much more restrictive migration from everywhere, and being particularly worried about expansion of the bloc to include large Muslim populations to its South East.
I would say there are very few people, though I’d be one of them, who would like significantly liberalised migration rules for everyone.
We settled on 'Stop The Boats' as a slogan for our policy, because cruel, impractical, illegal, deceitful, xenophobic gaslighting wasn't as catchy. #ToryGaslighting
It's vile.
It is.
Are HM Opposition in favour or against?
Stevie (useless) Kinnock was on PM. He's against the small boats and the crims. He wants an arrangement with Francais, and staging posts in France where they can apply for asylum, a clamp down on the crims and a legal route for genuine asylum seekers. He said stopping the boats before the legal route was putting the cart before the horse. It seemed quite reasonable to me.
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
What does he think the masses declined on the legal route are going to do? Oh let me guess they are going to get on a boat. It's only a solution if you intend to take everyone that applies and that isn't going to happen even under a labour government
Yeah,. A ferry from Calais
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
Ah, the old favourite the left loves. When you run put of arguments just screaming racism. Even more laughable when we have an ethnic minority Tory PM, after Labour have yet another white male at the top.
We also have record levels of inward net migration.
Which no one bats an eyelid at.
Mind you I’ve learnt that not building houses is racist today. Every days a school day.
I can assure you, it will have its consequences. Eventually...
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
I suspect the objection here is you suggesting what DougSeal meant and putting it in quotes as if he'd said it.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
I suspect the objection here is you suggesting what DougSeal meant and putting it in quotes as if he'd said it.
I did say what you really meant just before that....I felt that gave most readers enough of a clue was I was interpreting his words after I quoted his actual words just before....maybe I creditted pb with too much intelligence or he misunderestimated the intelligence of pb readers
Oh yes. https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072?cxt=HHwWgICw5YHRkqotAAAA Lots of people have to have seen it before publication, so you'd assume someone would pick up on it, but no. Sure, the tweet itself is clearer, but most won't get past the image. So it seems like it must be intentional, but could just be dumb.
Of course, those targeted by the message would argue their claims are not spurious. Pre-determining them as spurious doesn't help the legitimate ones.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Lets dial this back with an actual example
All members of the EU and us are members of the ECHR.
The uk has created an offence of marital rape despite it being a majority overriding a minority believing its ok...
Quote "On the subject of marital rape, “more than a third of over-65s” do not consider forced marital sex rape, along with 16% of people aged 16 to 24. Overall, one in four Britons believed that non-consensual sex within marriage did not constitute rape."
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
I suspect the objection here is you suggesting what DougSeal meant and putting it in quotes as if he'd said it.
I did say what you really meant just before that....I felt that gave most readers enough of a clue was I was interpreting his words after I quoted his actual words just before....maybe I creditted pb with too much intelligence or he misunderestimated the intelligence of pb readers
The thing is Pagan, if I tell you what you 'mean' by something you might also (reasonably) object.
They’ve had 2 examples this century of a government quietly giving way to protests and changing course so hopefully they’ll choose that route again. The position of the government is so at odds with public opinion on this that one can only assume the Russians have something on them (or more likely on their oligarch godfather Ivanishvili).
A shame. Georgian Dream seemed a sensible bunch until recently.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Lets dial this back with an actual example
All members of the EU and us are members of the ECHR.
The uk has created an offence of marital rape despite it being a majority overriding a minority believing its ok...
Quote "On the subject of marital rape, “more than a third of over-65s” do not consider forced marital sex rape, along with 16% of people aged 16 to 24. Overall, one in four Britons believed that non-consensual sex within marriage did not constitute rape."
I bet all those legal immigrants are patting themselves on the back for their good fortune - that they will, after all, have access to the UK's modern slavery system.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Lets dial this back with an actual example
All members of the EU and us are members of the ECHR.
The uk has created an offence of marital rape despite it being a majority overriding a minority believing its ok...
Quote "On the subject of marital rape, “more than a third of over-65s” do not consider forced marital sex rape, along with 16% of people aged 16 to 24. Overall, one in four Britons believed that non-consensual sex within marriage did not constitute rape."
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
Fucking hell - you literally falsified a quote from me, putting it in quotation marks. by saying that was what I “meant”. You literally lied about what I said. Are you denying that you made a up a quote by me and put it there as if they were my own words? It’s there, in the post history, you lying moron. If you had any morals you would apologise for that but you won’t because you’re a craven prick.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think the media have the influence they need to re-entrench the monarchy.
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Lets dial this back with an actual example
All members of the EU and us are members of the ECHR.
The uk has created an offence of marital rape despite it being a majority overriding a minority believing its ok...
Quote "On the subject of marital rape, “more than a third of over-65s” do not consider forced marital sex rape, along with 16% of people aged 16 to 24. Overall, one in four Britons believed that non-consensual sex within marriage did not constitute rape."
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
If 99% of the country choose to vote for policy x why do you think the 1% should be allowed to say no?
For example if the law of the land was women must always agree to sex when asked and 99% of people want to change that but 1% want to keep it you think the minority should not be allowed to be overridden or is it as I suspect you just don't like the majority choosing to vote for something you disagree with?
Forcing women to have sex is not in the ECHR. A better example would be that if 99% of the country vote to eliminate a racial minority then we should enact that because 99% support it? The ECHR as a right to life. But you believe that a majority can override that life. So you essentially support the Holocaust, which was perpetrated by a government that came to power democratically. A genocide supporter on PB. Why am I not surprised.
Not what I said at all I merely pointed out the stupidity of your statement that the majority should not be able to force their views on a minority. As I said your position really is the majority cant impose on a minority when I agree with the minority.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
You are a nasty little shit. I never argued a “blanket ban” and you know it you lying penis. You’ve erected a straw man or two because you’re losing the argument. There is a limited amount of things a majority can never impose on a minority. But it’s hard to explain that to someone who would have said when the Nuremberg Laws were passed “oh, it’s the will of the majority. Sad but we can’t impose our will on them.”
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
I used you words back at you...dont mean them then don't fucking say them ... your words "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights" what you meant was "We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Where have I even said that? You are making quotes up - how is that “using [my] words” against me? How do you know what I “meant”. I certainly didn’t say that. You are putting words in my mouth. Human rights belong to everyone who is human - even you. If Parliament passed an act of attainder against you, snivelling shit you are, I’d hope the ECHR would protect you. The ECHR protects even liars like you. Think of that in your Hitlerite wet dreams.
I pulled that out of your post? Its in the original post....wow are you denying what you posted ok here is the whole post...not the bolded bit
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
Fucking hell - you literally falsified a quote from me, putting it in quotation marks. by saying that was what I “meant”. You literally lied about what I said. Are you denying that you made a up a quote by me and put it there as if they were my own words? It’s there, in the post history, you lying moron. If you had any morals you would apologise for that but you won’t because you’re a craven prick.
Be a liar or be stupid but don’t be both.
And before that I quoted your actual words and made it clear it was my paraphrase before hand by saying this is what you actually meant. So don't give a shit what you think I suspect 99.9% of readers here did not take that as me claiming you said the second....the real truth is you have no fucking answer and are embarrassed because you realised you were talking crap in the first place so now decide to attack on the technicality because you are a lawyer....fuck off not bothering with the conversation anymore....go complain to a mod or something if you think you have a case
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think they have the influence they need to entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
Can't see it myself. It's not worth the political capital or aggravation spending time and effort on what exactly we replace it with. Obviously there's any number of options that could be used, but path of least resistance is to just keep going with the status quo so long as Charles and the follow ups avoid glaringly bad cock ups. Minor ones are salvageable.
I think Harry is the biggest risk to the institution - I'm astonished he's not already called for abolition of the monarchy, its where his views would seem to logically go, and decades of him on the sidelines saying something like that is powerful, even though he is not currently very well liked.
I see that Charles was booed again today on a visit to Colchester
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Public anger over his treatment of Harry and Meghan. Possibly.
I was told the focus groups have reacted very badly about kicking out the Sussexes and giving their place to the friend of the nonces.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
I was really rather astonished by the media manufacturing of King Charles, after the death of the Queen. It was utterly absurd. Even the guardian went along with it.
I don’t think the media have the influence they need to re-entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
The problem the Guardian has with Charles is he has been broadly correct on all the stuff he has been lobbying for (homeopathy aside), and comes across an eccentric green aristocrat.
Comments
It reminds me of the time management consultants were hired and their strategy boiled down to advertising
'Become victims of fraud and this bank will protect you all the way, so you'll love being a repeat victim of fraud.'
Actually that is a bit generous on Rishi, despite a sensible tone much of the time I don't really buy this idea he is a centrist, certainly not on migration, he seems pretty sincerely hard right on the issue.
Most of whom we've failed to help.
https://twitter.com/benwansell/status/1633111934399664129?s=46&t=t1IEY_5UZfb65mquusi2ZQ
The trouble comes when it then, surprise surprise, throws up victims of injustice. Because people also don’t like unfairness or computer-says-no bureaucracy. The windrush debacle being a recent case in point and the home office failures with Afghanistan another.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/news/2022/09/20/the-abuse-of-modern-slavery-laws-by-asylum-seekers
Many people are more concerned about the boats than I am, its understandable politicians feel an imperative to do something about it, or attempt to do something about it. But this? It looks awfully performative.
Whereas making these endless new illegal laws is just cynical theatre at the expense of refugees, our courts and our voters.
Tonight's R&W Red Wall poll is actually better for the Conservatives - the swing from 2019 is still 16.5% but that's three points down on the last poll. The national R&W poll was pretty poor for the Tories so the next set of Blue Wall polling might be informative.
The IPSOS-MORI poll published today is ancient history with fieldwork carried out last week. The headline 19% swing would still be a landslide for Labour.
I was at Sandown this afternoon - they wanted £33 for the Premier Enclosure for six racs so it was the cheap seats for me. Interesting when the Royal Artillery foxhounds were paraded, silence from the cheap sets but whoops of approval from the expensive areas.
I did note a couple of hounds doing their bit to ensure the course was irrigated.
My view is sometimes they should be able to when it is more civillised. A blanket ban on the majority imposing their will would lead to all sorts of things we don't want
The BBC had an Aussie on to back the Government line and he said it might work as it did in Aussie but you also need a legal means for asylum seekers to arrive to claim asylum.
Let's face it Cruella was on manouvres today and her ultimate aim as PM is to remove us from the Churchillian ECHR. Anyway should she become PM and she dreams of sending leftie Remainer traitors to Rwanda, I'll volunteer. It's got to be no worse than living in Rwanda than her lawless dystopian totalitarian state. At least the sun shines.
I've never used drugs in my life, good Muslim boy, natch.
But would you say the Liz Truss premiership was a bit like doing crack cocaine or heroin trip?
Technical diving (mixed gas) is a hobby these days. And might well not be required. You can buy underwater ROVs for not very much money.
Think of all the drones we’ve seen dropping things in videos.
No reason for it to require Ivy Bells level stuff.
I certainly have concerns that believing it will have a deterring effect is probable, due to a general belief that deterrence is not very effective on most issues, as people think it won't happen to them, or they can get lucky.
Very heavy fines for companies, including personal fines on directors.
Lobby internationally to replace ECHR framework with global quota based scheme.
Go crawl under a rock and misrepresent someone else.
Today we saw a Conservative Party that would have made Enoch Powell and Peter Griffiths polish their racism with pride.
"We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities that I agree with of human rights"
If there is a shit here then I think its you but then you are a lawyer or something so what else should we expect
Seems it is becoming a regular occurance and not one the late Queen experienced
Attitudes to the monarchy changing ?
Absolute disgrace to the office.
Indeed, 15% would vote Labour and most would stay at home - the notion all Reform supporters are just waiting to return to the Conservative fold is another comfort blanket to which increasingly desperate Tory supporters cling.
Despite the “technology” being mixing diesel fuel with fertiliser in a small cement mixer. With a dash of drag racing fuel IIRC.
9/11 could have been done by pretty much any group that had a handful of people prepared to kill themselves.
And so on.
What we need to do is to fund much more well-run refugee camps on the borders of the warzones and give them SEZ type rights to generate economic activity and livelihoods. The goal should be this is a temporary place and people should return to their home country when the war is over, and hopefully take their new jobs with them to help the economic rebuild.
You then have an office there where they can apply for asylum, and we only take the ones that are unlikely to be able to integrate back into their society post-war. The Yazidis, Christians, gay people etc. They can come and live in the UK. The rest can't because there are too many, so we fund the refugee camps better.
Then anyone that tries to circumvent that process and croses to Britain gets shipped to Rwanda. If they are successful in their claims, they get UK funding to host them in Rwanda. If they are not, they get a plane back to the refugee camp. That should make sure the right incentives are in place.
RMT suspend all strikes with Network rail
Hopefully this is the start of the end to the railway strikes
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1633196115414888449?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
All members of the EU and us are members of the ECHR.
The uk has created an offence of marital rape despite it being a majority overriding a minority believing its ok...
Quote "On the subject of marital rape, “more than a third of over-65s” do not consider forced marital sex rape, along with 16% of people aged 16 to 24. Overall, one in four Britons believed that non-consensual sex within marriage did not constitute rape."
source https://www.theweek.co.uk/98330/when-did-marital-rape-become-a-crime
Now I suspect I and you both agree on this being a good reason for the majority overruling the minority
Now lets look at the EU whose members are all signatories of the ECHR
Quote "In seven of the 28 Member States of the EU, marital rape is not defined as a crime. As a result, victims of such violence are left defenceless"
source https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2015-004521_EN.html
Which no one bats an eyelid at.
Mind you I’ve learnt that not building houses is racist today. Every days a school day.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
There that is where you said what I quoted you as saying....dont tell me you didnt say something which is in the post history
The rail strikes don’t really seem to have had the impact expected ahead of them either.
One side wanting “privileged access for an overwhelmingly white continent”.
The other side wanting much more restrictive migration from everywhere, and being particularly worried about expansion of the bloc to include large Muslim populations to its South East.
I would say there are very few people, though I’d be one of them, who would like significantly liberalised migration rules for everyone.
Also - the country not keen on the adulteress Camilla being designated Queen rather than Queen Consort.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072?cxt=HHwWgICw5YHRkqotAAAA
Lots of people have to have seen it before publication, so you'd assume someone would pick up on it, but no. Sure, the tweet itself is clearer, but most won't get past the image. So it seems like it must be intentional, but could just be dumb.
Of course, those targeted by the message would argue their claims are not spurious. Pre-determining them as spurious doesn't help the legitimate ones.
There are an awful lot of other crimes it says nothing about either. That's not really it's role.
Hadn’t considered the second one, but then I’m not bothered by it, but now you mention it then it makes sense.
https://twitter.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1633192086274031620?s=46&t=t1IEY_5UZfb65mquusi2ZQ
They’ve had 2 examples this century of a government quietly giving way to protests and changing course so hopefully they’ll choose that route again. The position of the government is so at odds with public opinion on this that one can only assume the Russians have something on them (or more likely on their oligarch godfather Ivanishvili).
A shame. Georgian Dream seemed a sensible bunch until recently.
Strongly hinting that the April energy price guarantee rise will be cancelled
Giving a place to Andrew is far more of a reason.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/women-and-justice/list/european_court_for_human_rights
Be a liar or be stupid but don’t be both.
I don’t think the media have the influence they need to re-entrench the monarchy.
Gone within a generation, imo.
I think Harry is the biggest risk to the institution - I'm astonished he's not already called for abolition of the monarchy, its where his views would seem to logically go, and decades of him on the sidelines saying something like that is powerful, even though he is not currently very well liked.
That's pretty much their subscriber base.