Sad day for Europe

[Scouse]

The European Court of Human Rights was put there as an obstacle to the power of the State after a harsh lesson taught us by Adolf and his Nazi's.

It's being fucked over good and proper

If the reasoning is that it's got too big a workload it needs more funding, not neutering...

Sir Nicolas said he was "uncomfortable" with governments trying to "dictate" the court's operations.
"In order to fulfil its role the European court must not only be independent, it must also be seen to be independent," he added.
He said it was "not surprising that governments and indeed public opinion in different countries find some of the court's judgements difficult to accept".
"[But] it is... in the nature of the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law that sometimes minority interests have to be secured against the view of the majority."

I don't know how Clarke can say "trivial" cases get to the ECHR. Trivial in who's eyes...

 

[mr.Blacky]

Not sure if the first part is right (nazi part)
but I do not agree that judges should dictate laws to independent nations.
The legal power should not interfere with the law making part and vice versa! I cant see a way to vote for those judges so why should they make laws?
In a way the European court is trying to be a court for to many countries.

 

[Job]

It's the European part that pisses everyone one off in the UK, except for the lawyers buying new BMW's from legal aid.

 

[Raven]

everyone?

 

[Scouse]

Not sure if the first part is right (nazi part)

It's why it was set up. So nation states couldn't abuse their populations.

 

[Job]

Yes because if you actually have a genuine reason to call on the Human rights court, your case will be lost in a giant backlog of bollocks, it's become the the last resort of the scoundrel, which it was destined to be the day it was created.
It hasn't protected a single genuine abuse of human rights as you can clearly see from the obscene abuse that still goes on.

 

[Scouse]

Disagree Job. And a backlog is easily fixed - provide more funding.

 

[Embattle]

It's why it was set up. So nation states couldn't abuse their populations.

Ironic really that if it continues on its current path it'll probably do exactly the opposite.

 

[Scouse]

Ironic really that if it continues on its current path it'll probably do exactly the opposite.

How's that then Emb?

 

[Tom]

It hasn't protected a single genuine abuse of human rights as you can clearly see from the obscene abuse that still goes on.

Did you get that from the Daily Mail or is this one of those extremely rare instances where you actually know what you're talking about?

 

[Hawkwind]

People have a right to get pissed off with the whole EU thing. Personally it's the money that gets wasted in the EU systems that pisses me off. In 2009 they changed the salaries of MEP's to get 38.5% of an European Court Of Justice Judge, in 2005 that worked out at over 7000 Euros a month. Or over 18k Euros a month for the Judge, plus expenses!

MEP's get 150,000 Euros a year each of expense money that they do not have to report on. The papers are full of bankers that get bonuses but you don't often hear about the money that gets wasted by the unelected bureaucrats of the EU and that includes the lawmakers. No one should be surprised by the whole anti EU thing. When people are having to tighten their belts and go through painful austerity measures in some countries is it any surprise that there is a backlashe?

The money being made by these human rights campaign lawyers is obscene and all at the taxpayers expense. I heard last week that Qatada's lawyer said it was a matter of principle and right. Wonder if he would do the case pro bono then! Whole setup is bloody joke.

Human Rights Court has a backlog of over 8000 cases, some of which won't get heard for years. Some of the panels which review cases only meet for a few days each year! Funding won't cure that. The whole gravy train needs to be rethought.

 

[Scouse]

Methinks you're getting your (IMO correct) anger with the EU and lawyers mixed up with the European Court of Human Rights tbfh...

 

[Hawkwind]

Methinks you're getting your (IMO correct) anger with the EU and lawyers mixed up with the European Court of Human Rights tbfh...

Yep, people associate anything EU and one big gravy train. All the same shit tbh I doubt there is much difference in pay between the Human Rights Court judges and the EU Justice Court ones.

 

[Scouse]

Still - who gives a stuff how much it costs if the ECHR is the only line between the normal population and facism?

 

[Hawkwind]

Whilst I agree in the principle of the ECHR there simply has to be a better and cheaper way to do it. Keeping people locked up for months and years whilst they review cases is not fair on anyone. The whole system especially concerning rights to domicile needs a revamp.

 

[Embattle]

How's that then Emb?

I've said it before about HR etc although I don't fancy stomping over old ground again, especially considering some of the comments already posted.

The ECHR is no different than any other legal body in that it is far too expensive and takes far too long.

 

[Scouse]

The ECHR is no different than any other legal body in that it is far too expensive and takes far too long.

I agree that it's expensive and that it takes too long to resolve things.

However, it's very different from other legal bodies in that it's charter was drawn up to hinder nation states - which is exactly what it's doing right now in the face of two sucessive UK governments that keep passing laws that take away our rights....

It's obvious why our government keeps on complaining - the court is doing it's job correctly. The job it was set up to do right after Hitler plunged Europe into a war that killed millions - keep tabs on authoritarianism and hold governments to account.


IMO we should keep the laws the same - not reform them - and spend more cash. We'll then only have a court that is "expensive" (a lot cheaper than our banks tho, eh?). The longevity of cases problem would disappear.

 

[Raven]

So you are happy to have people ultimately in charge that nobody voted for and do not have to reveal any sort of agenda?

 

[Scouse]

No. But I'm extremely happy with the way the ECHR was set up, it's principles, standards and main aims.

Do you not know the difference between the various European establishments?

 

[Raven]

Yes.

They are still people who have power over us despite the fact that we have absolutely no say in who they are or any knowledge of any business interests or political leanings.

How or why they were set up is rather moot really.

I am actually for Europe and entities such as this, but not if they have no regulation or democratic right.

 

[Chilly]

But they actually exist to protect those freedoms. The ECHR in particular has a very simple, universally agreeable set of rules to run by. I think the less meddling by our governments the better.

There are arguments that they are meddling a bit too much with our internals (prisoner votes is a very controversial one that I think we as a country should have the final say over, not the EU, IMO) but for many other countries far less down the development road (Russia or the ex-soviets) the court is a lifeline and any reduction in powers would be disastrous.

/edit - I should also point out that most of the rulings we hear about are small points of law, frankly. Even prisoners getting the vote wont actually change anything, it's an ideological thing - there's not that many of em. Abu Whatshisface? Changing the law to kick ONE person out? No. I refuse to believe that any of our laws can be sensible changed based on one case.

 

[Job]

150,000 case backlog, an endless sea of bolaks cases supported by a cesspit (my favourite word) of half assed lawyers (spits on floor) bred in the litigation centre of Europe (The UK).
We are infested with them, all leeching of the back of people who actually work for a living, for the love of everything sacred we need a nutter with a machine gun to take them all out.
While they are charging 200 quid an hour to squeeze every last loopho;e out of an ever descending pit of legal
horseshit, real people are being fucked over and abused who's' stories don't warrant attention because they don't tick the PC boxes.
Just fucking disgusting.

 

[Scouse]

How or why they were set up is rather moot really.

Ridiculous. Because:

They are still people who have power over us despite the fact that we have absolutely no say in who they are or any knowledge of any business interests or political leanings.

We had our say. After World War 2. And the ECHR was set up to stop nation states decending into facism - just like Germany did.

The whole point of it is to have power over our government.

"Business interests" and "political leanings" should come secondary to human rights - without the ECHR business interests and political leanings take primacy. It's idiotic to remove the only safeguard we have against them.

 

[Raven]

I am not sure I said I wanted to remove them did I...?

 

[Scouse]

I am not sure I said I wanted to remove them did I...?

No. But you said you wanted democratic oversight (i.e. an ability to change the rules based on the prevailing political views of the moment).

Of "European institutions" in general I'm with you. Of the ECHR I'm against it. It's a system that is working and has been proven to work (against our governments - both Liebour and the Cuntservatives dislike it and find it inconvenient - a sign of it's goodness tbfh).

To this end I refer you to the original quote I made in my first post:

it is... in the nature of the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law that sometimes minority interests have to be secured against the view of the majority.

- which was what we signed up to. To protect us from facism and our would-be facist (but always well-meaning) governments.

Considering the current political climate and majority views of our public I'm desparate for the ECHR to receive more funding to clear the backlog and stay exactly as it is.

for the love of everything sacred we need a nutter with a machine gun to take them all out.

I would say this is the majority viewpoint of the average human being.

Q.E.D tbfh...

 

[Tom]

Lets just get something straight. Abu Qatada has been charged with no offences. Tried by no-one. Convicted of nothing. He isn't allowed to see the evidence against him. Neither is his lawyer.

He's been held in prison on and off since 2002. The government wants to deport him but he says he'll be tortured there, so he's fighting against his extradition.

I see nothing wrong with a court of human rights taking such a case. The fact that our government can detain someone for so long, without charge, is a fucking disgrace. I don't care how fuzzy his beard is or how depraved his thoughts, either charge him with an offence or leave him be.

 

[Scouse]

Totally agree 100%.

How he feels, what his views are, doesn't matter. It's a very simple logic problem:

A) He's a criminal who should be charged and tried in an open court of law, or;
B) Our government is criminal and we need protecting from it


If the answer is B) the ECHR is the only institution that can protect us.

 

[Hawkwind]

Lets just get something straight. Abu Qatada has been charged with no offences. Tried by no-one. Convicted of nothing. He isn't allowed to see the evidence against him. Neither is his lawyer.

He's been held in prison on and off since 2002. The government wants to deport him but he says he'll be tortured there, so he's fighting against his extradition.

Fair enough and I agree that he should have been charged and the evidence handed over.

However , It is well known that he preaches a radical and sometimes violent view of Islam. Even the muslim community have complained about him. Why should he be allowed to stay in a country he despises so much? The right to domicile in the UK should treated with some respect and whilst political lobbying through non violent protest is everyone's right, preaching hatred should not be accepted. Why can't the UK throw this unwanted individual out? He is not British and has no right to live in the UK. He arrived in the UK with family on forged UAE passports. He should have been turned away immediately and sent back. The fact that he is a wanted criminal in many different countries should not give him or his family the right to get free ride in the UK at the taxpayers expense.

He's been held in prison on and off since 2002. The government wants to deport him but he says he'll be tortured there, so he's fighting against his extradition.

The Jordanian government have already provided assurances that he will receive a fair court trial and will not be tortured. These assurances were acceptable to the highest courts in the UK and also the ECHR 3 months ago. The fact that he is still in UK is an absolute farce. When does this fairground ride end?

 

[Scouse]

Why should he be allowed to stay in a country he despises so much?

Because we can't and should not be able to deport people because of their views. If I held the same views as him (i.e. a white guy, from the UK, without fuzzy beard or brown god-bothering) should I be deported for my views? To where?

Either he's a criminal and we charge him (and then deport him) or we leave him the fuck alone.


He's probably only here to expose the hypocricy of our government anyway - and he's achieving that aim quite nicely - showing us that the freedoms that we think we have (right to a trial by jury, freedom from imprisonment without trial etc.) are not real.

The Jordanian government have already provided assurances that he will receive a fair court trial and will not be tortured

Lol!

/Jordan: "No, we won't torture him. Just cut on his balls a little bit, that's not torture. Awww - just waterboarding then? Seems a bit tame considering the Americans use it? Can't you extroardinarily rend him? You didn't have a problem breaking the law for other 'suspects'..."[/quote]

These assurances were acceptable to the highest courts in the UK

The highest courts in the UK aren't safe - they only administer the law set by the UK government. It's like saying to the Jews "the highest courts in Germany said that Hitler was right to persecute you"...

That's why we have the ECHR - it's jurisdiction exceeds our courts with a higher standard of principle - on OUR side.

The fact that he is still in prison without charge after ten years in the supposedly free west is an absolute farce. When does this facist prison-ride end?

Fixed

 

[Job]

I think we want to deport him so the Jordanians can torture him for us, just outsourcing if you ask me, nothing new.