Originally posted by Mukkinese: I have already told you that, according to the government, articles 8 and 10 of the HRA and ECHR will be infringed by the proposed law, try reading what is posted.
What you consider "might be commonly held human rights" are irrelevant to the discussion, the rights under discussion are not aspirational they are law and need no vindication whatsoever, they are rights not privileges.
The situation is quite the opposite of what you state, it is the Government that must 'vindicate' any proposal it makes which will infringe those rights.
No, the situation is other than what you set out above. I may not have read the proposed legislation you refer to, but I have read on many occasions the HRA as you call it and the ECHR. You will note that the specific rights you seek to rely upon are qualifiedrights, i.e., not absolute, as I have previously said. You will also note that National Governments have the right to promulgate legislation which may conflict with those rights on the grounds, amongst others, of public policy, the public good or a variety of other considerations.
Any person or body who is aggrieved at what they see as an infringement of those rights may bring an action to the European Court of Human Rights to have that right vindicatedby that Court.
Rights are rights and do not need 'vindication' as you stated, it is the government that must prove the need to infringe them.
Any law which will infringe human rights has to be justified to the Committee on Human rights before it is passed. They must be satisfied that the infringements are necessary.
Certainly with such a large majority, the government can force such laws through and it is that then such laws must be challenged in court, but this proposal is not yet law, nor is it meant to be the public which must prove it is worthy of human rights.
If you have actually read previous posts and the ECHR/HRA, you will have seen that human rights laws, as already agreed by this government, will be infringed by this proposed law.
The case for 'the public good', as you describe it, is precisely what is being argued about in this thread - well done you may have actually caught up with the rest of us.
Rights are rights and do not need 'vindication' as you stated, it is the government that must prove the need to infringe them.
Any law which will infringe human rights has to be justified to the Committee on Human rights before it is passed. They must be satisfied that the infringements are necessary.
Certainly with such a large majority, the government can force such laws through and it is that then such laws must be challenged in court, but this proposal is not yet law, nor is it meant to be the public which must prove it is worthy of human rights.
If you have actually read previous posts and the ECHR/HRA, you will have seen that human rights laws, as already agreed by this government, will be infringed by this proposed law.
The case for 'the public good', as you describe it, is precisely what is being argued about in this thread - well done you may have actually caught up with the rest of us.
Having come back from a short break I am disappointed, but not surprised, to note that you continue to dissemble, and to ignore truths and facts which do not accord with your thesis. This cannot be got around by alleging that people 'have not read the posts'. I have read your posts - I'm just not buying it.
1. I still await your explanation as to how YOUR right to view somewhat advanced pornorgraphy (you appear to have resiled from Extreme) is anything to do with the generally recognized concepts of human rights, civil rights or univerals suffrage. This is my fourth time to ask this question.
2. It appears that you are too obtuse to recognize that I, and others, am aware of the fact that any Government must JUSTIFY on the grounds I have set out before in this forum, and other grounds, any law or regulation which may tend to infringe the articles in question.
3. I have now asked for the fourth time for your explanation as to how your 'right' to view, shall we say, 'advanced pornography' (as you have now resiled from Extreme) in any way falls to be dealt with in the sphere of human rights, civil rights or universal suffrage.
It appears that your 'deep concerns' in this area are in fact merely frivolous as, there is no legislation, nor even a white paper on this subject. If people were truly concerned on this matter they could lobby their Member of Parliament in that regard.
Incidentally, I would like you to outline what steps you personally took in aid of the gallant gentleman whose peaceful protest against the war in Iraq has been outlawed and dismantled by the current government. Fairly anti-freedom of speech stuff there I reckon.
<Sheik Yahbouti>
Posted
Before you ask, I am of course referring to the long time protester who mounted his picket and his placquards a safe and reasonable distance from the houses of Parliament.
1/Again, the right to view pornography in private, of any kind (yes including extreme or even VIOLENT pornography)involving consenting adults is covered by Article 9 of the HRA (privacy) and Article 10 of the HRA (freedom of speech, which covers the right to pass information between citisens).
Again the Government has declared that both articles will be infringed by this law, this point is not contended.
Clearly you may read, but certainly do not comprehend plain English.
2/ It was you who claimed that human rights must be 'vindicated' by the citisen, no one else said this in this entirely inaccurate paragraph.
quote:
A small sample of commonly held human rights might be; the right to life, the right to work, the right to free association; the right to found a family. All of these rights, held to be universal, are nonetheless limited in some ways - either by legislation or by sheer practicality. They are aspirational and held dear by all but have no value unless the means to enjoy them exist in tandem with the means to vindicate them.
Precisely the opposite of what you claim in this latest statement. I'm glad to note that you have seen the error of your ways.
3/ Already answered.
quote:
It appears that your 'deep concerns' in this area are in fact merely frivolous as, there is no legislation, nor even a white paper on this subject. If people were truly concerned on this matter they could lobby their Member of Parliament in that regard.
What on Earth are you talking about? A;Yet again you make assumptions about my motives, without any evidence. B;The proposed law is section 64 of the Criminal justice and Immigration bill 2007, which is about to go before the Lords (22 Jan).
As for you last point, it is asinine in the extreme. I have no intention of justifying myself to you, nor do I feel the need. If you have an issue with my argument then address the argument.
