Originally posted by Old Greg
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
One step forward, one step back
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by TwoWolves View PostHowever, their rulings are used as guidance by our activist judges. We have our own foolish laws now.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostThe European Court [sic] does not have the power to convict anyone yet or directly yet.
FTFY!Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.Comment
-
Originally posted by shaunbhoy View PostOh fook off you patronising twunt!!
Originally posted by xoggoth View PostThe use of "EU" was technically incorrect as the ECHR was set up long before the EU and is an agreement between many countries but, looking at all the convoluted politics behind it, the distinction is not so black and white. The Lisbon treaty requires the EU to sign up to it and no countries have entered the EU without signing up to it. More relevant to the UK, the EU has blocked any idea of us leaving it.
Again true. Admittedly there seems a bit of a contradiction here, I want the UK to have control of its own laws but am objecting to the EHCR not imposing on another nation. But what purpose has the EHCR ruling achieved here apart from adding enormous costs to the dispute?
When the UK joined the convention, as first signatory in 1953, under a Tory government under Churchill, they wanted to restrict the rights of individuals to go to the court, so eventually it was agreed that individual signatories could choose to allow this. Britain chose not to, until 1966 (Labour government). In 1998, the HRA was introduced (Labour), which allowed people to use the convention in British courts without going to the ECHR.
There's this from May in your second link:
May used a speech in central London to argue that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.
“ The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.
“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”
So it would be possible to have a hard Brexit, for example, without leaving the ECHR. It was also technically possible to leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. Can the UK leave the ECHR but not the EU?. They've only become connected issues as part of the Brexit negotiations.Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostIs 'activist judge' a paranoid nutjob term for 'judge'?Comment
-
Looks like Article 10 of the ECHR is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, in that it gives humans no rights to free speech in any circumstances where that speech could be of any value (that value coming from saying things some other people don't like, thereby creating a motivation for political change).Comment
-
Originally posted by GJABS View PostLooks like Article 10 of the ECHR is about as useful as a chocolate teapot, in that it gives humans no rights to free speech in any circumstances where that speech could be of any value (that value coming from saying things some other people don't like, thereby creating a motivation for political change).
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-6234980-8105265%22]}
Principal facts
The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria).
In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in
which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha,
which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that
Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “... A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? ... What do we
call it, if it is not paedophilia?”.
On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that
Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious
doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S.
appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in
essence the lower court’s findings.
A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December
2013.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to
address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.
If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value
judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an
objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate, and had not been aimed at
defaming the Prophet of Islam. Lastly, Mrs S. submitted that religious groups had to tolerate even
severe criticism.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 June 2012.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President,
André Potocki (France),
Síofra O’Leary (Ireland),
Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria),
Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),
Lado Chanturia (Georgia),
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Article 10
The Court noted that those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion under
Article 9 of the Convention could not expect to be exempt from criticism. They must tolerate and
accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs. Only where expressions under Article 10 went
beyond the limits of a critical denial, and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.
The Court observed also that the subject matter of the instant case was of a particularly sensitive
nature, and that the (potential) effects of the impugned statements, to a certain degree, depended
on the situation in the respective country where the statements were made, at the time and in the
context they were made. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had a wide margin
of appreciation in the instant case, as they were in a better position to evaluate which statements
were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.
The Court reiterated that it has distinguished in its case-law between statements of fact and value
judgments. It emphasised that the truth of value judgments was not susceptible to proof. However,
a value judgment without any factual basis to support it might be excessive.
The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware
that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The
national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his
general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical
background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue. Hence, the Court
saw no reason to depart from the domestic courts’ qualification of the impugned statements as
value judgments which they had based on a detailed analysis of the statements made.
The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the
applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings
protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.
The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the
Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable
expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the
permissible limits of freedom of expression.
Lastly, since Mrs S. was ordered to pay a moderate fine and that fine was on the lower end of the
statutory range of punishment, the criminal sanction could not to be considered as disproportionate.
Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements,
the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in
the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been
no violation of Article 10"A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George OrwellComment
-
Originally posted by GJABS View PostLooks like Article 10 of the ECHR is about as useful as a chocolate teapot...Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!Comment
-
But does the Koran not say that taking a nine year old wife is fine?
And in our laws is someone who ****s a nine year old a paedo?
So someone, somewhere is incorrect.Comment
-
Originally posted by original PM View PostBut does the Koran not say that taking a nine year old wife is fine?
And in our laws is someone who ****s a nine year old a paedo?
So someone, somewhere is incorrect.But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the youngerComment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment