Fair enough. 1. If we have been signed up to it for some considerable time how come same sex marriage has been such an issue here recently? Would it not have automatically have been legal from the moment we signed up . Where do more Catholic countries such as ROI & Italy stand on this matter ? The UK was the originator of the ECHR back in 1950, and has always been signed up to it ever since it started in 1953. Nothing is 'automatically' legal or illegal under the ECHR. What happens is that somebody brings an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, complaining that the government and/or courts of their home country are violating their human rights, because of some defective law or process or punishment etc. Countries have a very wide latitude in their laws, and the court is extremely reluctant in practice to find a country in breach. Laws permitting or forbidding same-sex marriage fall within that latitude, so laws vary a good deal across Europe. 2. Regarding freedom of expression, does the ECHR draw a line anywhere ? I`m thinking in particular of the so called muslim hate preachers . Are they flouting the convention & if so its it the fault of the UK that they are allowed to do so ? The ECtHR only draws lines when it is asked to do so in appeals to the court. If some Muslim hate preacher is not arrested, not prosecuted, etc by the UK authorities, that preacher has nothing to appeal against. There is no obvious way for a case to get to the court. If the UK has laws against hate speech but the UK authorities choose not to enforce them, that is not an ECHR issue. However if legal action was actually taken against a hate preacher and he alleged his right to free speech had been violated without just cause, that might become an ECtHR case - eventually. 3. There have been high profile cases reported where it appears that for example people who should have been deported after committing serious crimes have been allowed to stay because of family ties. Does the right to family life overrule apparently sensible deportation orders or is it the case that the judges are making mistakes ? Nearly all the people who are convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison in the UK (not being UK citizens) are on release only too glad to be allowed to go home as soon as possible. Some go to other countries, if there is a country that will have them. A residual small proportion either have no ties in any other country (e.g. having been in the UK from childhood), or face torture and death if forced to go to a country which persecutes people (e.g. Syria at present). In those cases it can be extremely difficult to decide what to do for the best. Judges, being human, sometimes make mistakes - but nowhere near as many mistakes as Daily Mail journalists make. Newspaper reports of such cases are full of errors and misrepresentations.
British judges have always played a major and prominent role in the ECtHR, and have always been eminent and distinguished jurists. Some other countries do not necessarily send their best judges, or do not necessarily have any first rate judges to send. I agree with you - I too would like to see the quality and experience raised, and I think this will happen with time. Remember that today's judges were trained as lawyers 30 or 40 years ago, and in several nations there were dictatorial regimes in power in those days. Judges cannot be conjured out of thin air - it takes many years to grow them! There has long been a series of UK programmes designed to help improve judicial standards in certain east European countries. When it comes to "problems", it seems the present government regards any case in which its shortcomings have been exposed as a being a "problem". The solution is to try and do better, but it is unrealistic to expect to win 100% of the time. 98% is pretty good, and a cause for congratulation.
And it would be disingenuous to suggest that we would loose those rights if we exited from the ECHR. This about whether British courts have the final say in the application of Law in the British Isles. It has even more to say about the fact that there is an election next year.
"...in a foreign land..." "...on foreign soil..."? It sounds as if you would be happier if the ECtHR held hearings in London. You may be right - the ECtHR could move around to different locations for sessions instead of staying put in Strasbourg all the time although this would be more expensive. The same applies to the parliament of the Council of Europe, which likewise stays put in Strasbourg. By contrast, the parliament of the European Union does indeed move regularly between locations instead of staying put; however it often gets criticised for the extra expenditure this causes.
Nope I meant what I said, if we want to get into a seperate discussion all well and good , I however would point the finger at the Tories as being more akin to the establishment, and more akin to telling us what to think, being the oppressive party, the ones oh I don't know wanting to change freedoms that have been established for over 60 years
Of those 15 rights which didn't exist before the ECHR ? They may have been "enshrined" but I think the right to a fair trial and most if not all of the others have been around for quite some time.
all sounds very good except when the echr get it wrong and make complete numpties of themselves somebody somewhere has to have the voice of reason and common sense to say that the echr are wrong or question some of the poor judgements that they exercise.
Depends what you mean by "getting it wrong". Perhaps if you had a court case and the court's judgment was against you, that is what you would define as the court "getting it wrong" and "being numpties".
Do you think that the somebody you refer to is some poor ignorant Daily Mail journalist who has been ordered by the paper's proprietor to make up a story alleging the ECtHR are "wrong" or have "poor judgment"? Is that what you mean by "common sense"?
There are over 10,000 and of those 3500 lots were updates of previous offences to reflect the society we live in, lots were new eg Sexual Offences Act 2003 to reflect new offences, to reflect new technology to protect the most vulnerable in society, children, vulnerable adults etc; I am struggling to make the leap between protecting society from those that do us harm, and the Tories stating that the ECHR should go? Unless of course you are implying that we should be protected from a political party that wishes to remove those articles? In which case we are in agreement.
Whats Europe got to do with human rights? Do they not have them in skandanavia? Do they run around imprisoning, torturing and genrally abusing their citizens? Argument in the extreme there pete...and tbf a pretty obtuse one
People, you need to realise, YOU have no say in what direction this country takes. The UK is part of the EU. You have gave away your rights.
Pete does, he's part of the establishment, albeit ex now Which is worrying as clearly is so blinkered to a Europe only solution. For a highly educated amd articulate fella, its both surprising and disappointing
Btw I gave away nothing. I never voted in labour who started this erosion, and I'm too young to have voted in Europe
All the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Faeroes) are of course members of the Council of Europe, subscribe to the ECHR, uphold human rights, and abide by judgments of the ECtHR. So what is your point?
