From the article, he's only "failed" in getting compensation for wrongful detention; i didn't note whether he is going to be deported, or not.
And What About The Human Rights Of The Victims?
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
From the article, he's only "failed" in getting compensation for wrongful detention; i didn't note whether he is going to be deported, or not.
Sponsored Links
What, Daily Wail readers and thick white British chavs?
D
Deleted member 63160
Trolling alert.
Sooner we are out of the eu the better. The echr? pfft
Sponsored Links
D
Doggit
The drafting wasn't the issue; It's the way it gets interpreted and then implemented by the judges, who prejudge what the response would be if the case were taken to Strasbourg.
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
Would save a lot more time if JohnD could find the paragraph that even mentions the human rights, victims of criminals were supposed to enjoy.
Reading through it though, it seems that it's the "State"( or Member States") who shouldn't abuse Human Rights. It doesn't mention anything about individual criminals doing the same though.
They wouldn't be criminals if they didn't though, would they?
Governments ("States") have never had much trouble making laws and courts to control the citizens.
The idea that a state should have some rules to follow was slow coming. Until quite recently it was thought that what a state did to people inside its own borders was its own affair and nobody else's. For example a government might think it was a good idea to sterilise or euthanise the mentally feeble or deranged, or those physically disabled; or to lock up people according to their religion, or to deport citizens of unwelcome ethnicity, or to torture people to make them confess to crimes. The citizen had no right of redress against a government doing so. The UK directed its lawyers to draft the ECHR in an attempt to give governments rules on acceptable behaviour, and to give citizens a chance to seek redress within the country's laws or, failing that, outside.
So if you are looking for rules telling people they shouldn't murder, or rob, or park on yellow lines, you won't find them in the ECHR. That's not what it's for.
If you are a person who approves of torture, imprisonment without trial, or slavery, then it must seem very irksome to be told you shouldn't do it.
Sadly I have never yet found an opponent of human rights who will admit which rights he wishes to remove.
The idea that a state should have some rules to follow was slow coming. Until quite recently it was thought that what a state did to people inside its own borders was its own affair and nobody else's. For example a government might think it was a good idea to sterilise or euthanise the mentally feeble or deranged, or those physically disabled; or to lock up people according to their religion, or to deport citizens of unwelcome ethnicity, or to torture people to make them confess to crimes. The citizen had no right of redress against a government doing so. The UK directed its lawyers to draft the ECHR in an attempt to give governments rules on acceptable behaviour, and to give citizens a chance to seek redress within the country's laws or, failing that, outside.
So if you are looking for rules telling people they shouldn't murder, or rob, or park on yellow lines, you won't find them in the ECHR. That's not what it's for.
If you are a person who approves of torture, imprisonment without trial, or slavery, then it must seem very irksome to be told you shouldn't do it.
Sadly I have never yet found an opponent of human rights who will admit which rights he wishes to remove.
D
Doggit
But isn't that the very point at issue. No one who objects to the human rights act being misused by miscreants, wants to remove any of the said rights, only that those who take away the right to life or of injury to those that have killed or hurt, are then no longer entitled to the rights they've removed from other.
Almost every day, there are reports of criminals who have killed and raped, then going to court to uphold "their" human rights to a family life, to be allowed to stay in this country. If these people want their human rights upheld, then they've got to accept that with rights, also comes responsibilities, and if you take away someone else's rights, then you no longer have the right to go to court, to uphold your own.
Almost every day, there are reports of criminals who have killed and raped, then going to court to uphold "their" human rights to a family life, to be allowed to stay in this country. If these people want their human rights upheld, then they've got to accept that with rights, also comes responsibilities, and if you take away someone else's rights, then you no longer have the right to go to court, to uphold your own.
It just seems hypocritical at the very least, that those with no regard for the rule of law (when it suits them) demand the protection of the law (again, when it suits them).
But, that's criminals for ya. They just don't play fair.
But, that's criminals for ya. They just don't play fair.
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 728
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
I have been saying this for years. Courts today seem hell bent on supporting the same "Human Rights " the victims were supposed to be enjoying, before some criminal, either took away those "rights" or abused the same "rights", with absolutely no regard for any "Human Rights " legislation. Perhaps it's time the law was changed and all criminals should initially be charged with "Abuse of Human Rights" before being further charged with murder, rape, violence etc, etc.
Irony alert.
You are suggesting that the courts and police should not be obliged to obey the law?
Try reading it again.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- joinerjohn
- General Discussion
