|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 21, 2022 21:56:40 GMT
Human rights law is interlinked. There are rights which you have unless they contravene another right, so the law on the other right affects the first one. The problem with them is even though they sounded perfectly reasonable when introduced, the case law has vastly expanded the ambit of their power, ruling over many customs and traditions we held prior to this. It's like a turf war. Those in the human rights industry are power-grabbing. The power always goes to them, never the other way, unless say we add in clauses to our agreement in the ECHR. We are actually at liberty to do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 22:01:15 GMT
The Cairo declaration overrules all human rights, it is complete shite and not relevant to this discussion No it does not it says clearly what those rights are predicated on, just as in the UK they are predicated on law and as such can be overruled. I repeat the UN declaration was signed by the UK as inalienable rights and it is a binding government agreement with the citizens of the country. Otherwise it means nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 21, 2022 22:26:20 GMT
The Cairo declaration overrules all human rights, it is complete shite and not relevant to this discussion No it does not it says clearly what those rights are predicated on, just as in the UK they are predicated on law and as such can be overruled. I repeat the UN declaration was signed by the UK as inalienable rights and it is a binding government agreement with the citizens of the country. Otherwise it means nothing. The UN supports the concept of national sovereignty, so this is why. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 21, 2022 22:57:29 GMT
Son how is that snide, when that is exactly what you were doing? FFS I was not. Please say when you're prepared to debate like an adult Sheepy. I won't hold my breath I was stating a fact not debating with someone who believes they are a human rights lawyer. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 23:14:23 GMT
No it does not it says clearly what those rights are predicated on, just as in the UK they are predicated on law and as such can be overruled. I repeat the UN declaration was signed by the UK as inalienable rights and it is a binding government agreement with the citizens of the country. Otherwise it means nothing. The UN supports the concept of national sovereignty, so this is why. Indeed but by the affixing of a UK signature to that declaration this formed a contract between the government and the citizens, as individuals, of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 23:37:46 GMT
The Cairo declaration overrules all human rights, it is complete shite and not relevant to this discussion No it does not it says clearly what those rights are predicated on, just as in the UK they are predicated on law and as such can be overruled. I repeat the UN declaration was signed by the UK as inalienable rights and it is a binding government agreement with the citizens of the country. Otherwise it means nothing. Nope read it again, especially Article 24 which annuls all the foregoing human rights if the local Iman or National 'holy figure' sees fit. The Cairo Declaration is an abomination. hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 21, 2022 23:41:26 GMT
No it does not it says clearly what those rights are predicated on, just as in the UK they are predicated on law and as such can be overruled. I repeat the UN declaration was signed by the UK as inalienable rights and it is a binding government agreement with the citizens of the country. Otherwise it means nothing. Nope read it again, especially Article 24 which annuls all the foregoing human rights if the local Iman or National 'holy figure' sees fit. The Cairo Declaration is an abomination. hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.htmlHow is that different from making a law that removes that human right? Human rights are either rights or dispensations by government it is not possible to be both. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 21, 2022 23:44:39 GMT
The UN supports the concept of national sovereignty, so this is why. Indeed but by the affixing of a UK signature to that declaration this formed a contract between the government and the citizens, as individuals, of the country. An agreement is not a contract. A contract must have an exchange as its basis, like I agree to give you this if you agree to give me that in return. Usually the result of not sticking to these international agreements is you risk getting thrown out, so you have less influence as a country on an international level. Russia was threatened with this the other day on the UN, but the decision is a joint decision of members on what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 21, 2022 23:58:57 GMT
How is that different from making a law that removes that human right? Human rights are either rights or dispensations by government it is not possible to be both. What on earth are you on about now? You are so all over the place You stated we have no human rights in the UK then when that was shredded you pretended you hadn't said it then when it was proved you had you rattled on about a deck of cards perhaps in some absurd Wink Martingdale tribute then you ranted more BS about the Cairo declaration and when that was wholly disproved you go back to your inane square one. We have human rights in this country Sandy, it's a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 22, 2022 13:55:55 GMT
Indeed but by the affixing of a UK signature to that declaration this formed a contract between the government and the citizens, as individuals, of the country. An agreement is not a contract. A contract must have an exchange as its basis, like I agree to give you this if you agree to give me that in return. Usually the result of not sticking to these international agreements is you risk getting thrown out, so you have less influence as a country on an international level. Russia was threatened with this the other day on the UN, but the decision is a joint decision of members on what to do. There is an exchange. It is the consensus. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 22, 2022 14:00:25 GMT
How is that different from making a law that removes that human right? Human rights are either rights or dispensations by government it is not possible to be both. What on earth are you on about now? You are so all over the place You stated we have no human rights in the UK then when that was shredded you pretended you hadn't said it then when it was proved you had you rattled on about a deck of cards perhaps in some absurd Wink Martingdale tribute then you ranted more BS about the Cairo declaration and when that was wholly disproved you go back to your inane square one. We have human rights in this country Sandy, it's a fact. I repeat not if one of them can be thrown to the four winds because of a passing fancy. The discussion was that the human rights of the illegal migrants should be defended to the nth degree however the human rights of citizens already here are shredded by a stroke of the pen. Notwithstanding the mixed metaphor that is more than unfair. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 22, 2022 14:48:06 GMT
An agreement is not a contract. A contract must have an exchange as its basis, like I agree to give you this if you agree to give me that in return. Usually the result of not sticking to these international agreements is you risk getting thrown out, so you have less influence as a country on an international level. Russia was threatened with this the other day on the UN, but the decision is a joint decision of members on what to do. There is an exchange. It is the consensus. It's not a contract. It is a club of equals. If you hold the principle of national sovereignty then there can be no higher power than the head of state, so a group of heads of state are only a group in so far as they agree they should be. You see they are the top of the hierarchy, so no court can overrule them. A contract on the other hand is part of common law, governed by our civil courts. The initial idea of common law was to hand the commoners some teeth in disputes and not leave it all up to the barons. We invented it and exported it worldwide. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 22, 2022 16:40:20 GMT
There is an exchange. It is the consensus. It's not a contract. It is a club of equals. If you hold the principle of national sovereignty then there can be no higher power than the head of state, so a group of heads of state are only a group in so far as they agree they should be. You see they are the top of the hierarchy, so no court can overrule them. A contract on the other hand is part of common law, governed by our civil courts. The initial idea of common law was to hand the commoners some teeth in disputes and not leave it all up to the barons. We invented it and exported it worldwide. The vote is the contract. That cross on the ballot paper is tantamount to signing an agreement. Just as the seeking of that vote and the acceptance of it is the contract for those voted into government. Governments bind all through law until law is changed. Acceptance of the UN declaration was a further step in the contract which the electorate accepted at every general election since then. The government can leave that agreement and seek approval of the change in the contract at the next election. In the UK there is no higher power than the electorate who lend the Crown the right to govern in their name through a government selected from that electorate just as the UN declaration was signed by such a government. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 23, 2022 11:13:52 GMT
What on earth are you on about now? You are so all over the place You stated we have no human rights in the UK then when that was shredded you pretended you hadn't said it then when it was proved you had you rattled on about a deck of cards perhaps in some absurd Wink Martingdale tribute then you ranted more BS about the Cairo declaration and when that was wholly disproved you go back to your inane square one. We have human rights in this country Sandy, it's a fact. I repeat not if one of them can be thrown to the four winds because of a passing fancy. The discussion was that the human rights of the illegal migrants should be defended to the nth degree however the human rights of citizens already here are shredded by a stroke of the pen. Notwithstanding the mixed metaphor that is more than unfair. Sandy you seem to be in denial when you keep posting this crap Not one of the HRA rights has been 'thrown to the four winds'. Either you just can't be arsed to actually read the HRA (you were given the link) or you are deliberately promoting a falsehood. Here are the human rights we have. I suggest you read Article 14 title out loud tracing each letter with your index finger and it might sink it. I've highlighted the words that don't appear to be getting through to your grey matter. Article 2: Right to life Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour Article 5: Right to liberty and security Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 7: No punishment without law Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion Article 10: Freedom of expression Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association Article 12: Right to marry and start a family Article 14: Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Protocol 1, Article 1: Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to participate in free elections Protocol 13, Article 1: Abolition of the death penalty |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 23, 2022 16:29:20 GMT
I repeat not if one of them can be thrown to the four winds because of a passing fancy. The discussion was that the human rights of the illegal migrants should be defended to the nth degree however the human rights of citizens already here are shredded by a stroke of the pen. Notwithstanding the mixed metaphor that is more than unfair. Sandy you seem to be in denial when you keep posting this crap Not one of the HRA rights has been 'thrown to the four winds'. Either you just can't be arsed to actually read the HRA (you were given the link) or you are deliberately promoting a falsehood. Here are the human rights we have. I suggest you read Article 14 title out loud tracing each letter with your index finger and it might sink it. I've highlighted the words that don't appear to be getting through to your grey matter. Article 2: Right to life Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Article 4: Freedom from slavery and forced labour Article 5: Right to liberty and security Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 7: No punishment without law Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion Article 10: Freedom of expression Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association Article 12: Right to marry and start a family Article 14: Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Protocol 1, Article 1: Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to participate in free elections Protocol 13, Article 1: Abolition of the death penalty I have not mentioned the HRA act, I keep referring to the UN Declaration of human rights. No point in linking back to our HRA act. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Human rights belong to us all equally. If they do not then you do not have your human rights. What is so difficult to understand there. |
|
