The General Election in the United Kingdom

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Mr. Sausages said:

Which rules would the Isle of Man follow in your deluded utopia?

Rules about what?

And what Utopia am I deluded about?
 

Your question needs clarity. It’s not understandable.
 

[Mr. Sausages]

 

[HeliX]

7 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No doubt a UKCHR would look, in most respects, like the ECHR but would have the ability to adapt to any particular different cultural, economic or societal differences. 

Taken from Reddit:

Here is a list of some of the things our various governments over the last 50 years have been prevented from doing by the convention. This is not even a complete list.

 

Torturing Irish republican detainees (1978)

Covering up the thalidomide scandal (1979)

Treating homosexuality as criminal in N.Ireland (1981)

Letting teachers hit children (1986)

Forcing journalists to 'out' their sources (1996)

Discriminating against refugees of a particular race at the border (2001)

Detaining people for years without charging them a crime (2004)

Mistreating detainees in Iraq (2005)

Ignoring domestic slavery (2006)

Barring gay people from serving in the military (2007)

Letting employers snoop on employees emails (2007)

Allowing the police to hold innocent people's DNA forever (2008)

Giving police free reign on stop & search without due cause (2010)

Detaining mentally ill people arbitrarily and indefinitely (2011)

Sending people abroad to be tortured (2012)

Stopping gay people inheriting from their partners (2013)

Spying on everyone's communications in bulk (2016)

Removing refugees to an unsafe country for asylum processing (2022)

 

These are not theoretical problems. These are measures that successive governments managed to pass through parliament and were stopped by the ECHR tribunal.

 

In our system with its 'Parliamentary sovereignty' and no way to entrench Human Rights laws as superior to other legislation, without the ECHR, they would have gone ahead. Even a UK Supreme Court judge does not have the power to stop primary legislation.

 

Think about this when you hear parties suggest we should exit the convention.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

Taken from Reddit:

Here is a list of some of the things our various governments over the last 50 years have been prevented from doing by the convention. This is not even a complete list.

 

Torturing Irish republican detainees (1978)

Covering up the thalidomide scandal (1979)

Treating homosexuality as criminal in N.Ireland (1981)

Letting teachers hit children (1986)

Forcing journalists to 'out' their sources (1996)

Discriminating against refugees of a particular race at the border (2001)

Detaining people for years without charging them a crime (2004)

Mistreating detainees in Iraq (2005)

Ignoring domestic slavery (2006)

Barring gay people from serving in the military (2007)

Letting employers snoop on employees emails (2007)

Allowing the police to hold innocent people's DNA forever (2008)

Giving police free reign on stop & search without due cause (2010)

Detaining mentally ill people arbitrarily and indefinitely (2011)

Sending people abroad to be tortured (2012)

Stopping gay people inheriting from their partners (2013)

Spying on everyone's communications in bulk (2016)

Removing refugees to an unsafe country for asylum processing (2022)

 

These are not theoretical problems. These are measures that successive governments managed to pass through parliament and were stopped by the ECHR tribunal.

 

In our system with its 'Parliamentary sovereignty' and no way to entrench Human Rights laws as superior to other legislation, without the ECHR, they would have gone ahead. Even a UK Supreme Court judge does not have the power to stop primary legislation.

 

Think about this when you hear parties suggest we should exit the convention.

Ah yes the ever reliable Reddit:-

“How accurate is Reddit? One of the many dangers of Reddit, much like Wikipedia, is the fact that anyone can publish links to the site in the hope of having their content seen and it making the fabled front page. The problem is that unlike Wikipedia what they enter doesn't have to be accurate, truthful or even real.”

So I could go onto Reddit and say that Taylor Swift hates Muslims without a shred of evidence.

So lets just take one from your list above

The EHCR  ( Preventing) Discriminating against refugees of a particular race at the border.

I’m not sure that such discrimination has ever been enshrined, or allowed  in UK law, I’d be suprised if it had been. In fact I would be very surprised if it wasn’t some sort of offence  to do so. So we don’t really need the ECHR to do that for us.

I am not saying that most of those things on your list didn’t occur like say teachers hitting children ( being a hit child myself) but to credit the ECHR as putting a stop to that rather than saying domestic societal changes wouldn’t have had influenced a change in the law is a bit disingenuous.

Anyway if the other  Europeans have a more progressive and enlightened attitude towards these sort of things why are things like bullfighting and throwing goats off bell towers still allowed? Not human rights, more animal rights I’ll grant you but shouldn’t we expect the EU to put a stop to this sort of thing? ( a small example of why we’re better off out)

 

 

Edited June 18 by The Voice of Reason

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Ah yes the ever reliable Reddit:-

“How accurate is Reddit? One of the many dangers of Reddit, much like Wikipedia, is the fact that anyone can publish links to the site in the hope of having their content seen and it making the fabled front page. The problem is that unlike Wikipedia what they enter doesn't have to be accurate, truthful or even real.”

So I could go onto Reddit and say that Taylor Swift hates Muslims without a shred of evidence.

Here's the evidence for all of the points above. The evidence is readily available because they were things that were passed through parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/03/landmarks-human-rights-echr-judgments-transformed-british-law

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/five-ways-european-court-human-rights-makes-us-safer-echr

https://eachother.org.uk/50-human-rights-cases-that-transformed-britain/

Quote

I  am not saying that most of those things on your list didn’t occur like say teachers hitting children ( being a hit child myself) but to credit the ECHR as putting a stop to that rather than saying domestic societal changes wouldn’t have had influenced a change in the law is a bit disingenuous.

The ECHR is to credit because without it the UK would have passed it. The ECHR literally stopped each of those things above from being passed by UK Parliament.

[The Voice of Reason]

Festivals

Approximately 60,000 animals are killed in festivals throughout Spain each year. Activities at these festivals include pulling the heads off live chickens, throwing live turkeys off a church tower, bullfighting, chasing bulls off piers into the sea, chasing bulls down the streets with flaming brands attached to their horns, and dragging a bull by its horns and forcing it to bow in front of the statue of a saint before being slaughtered. An estimated 11,000 bulls were tortured and killed in Spanish festivals in 2014.^[12]

[HeliX]

9 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Not human rights, more animal rights I’ll grant you but shouldn’t we expect the EU to put a stop to this sort of thing? ( a small example of why we’re better off out)

We're better off out because... we were forced to have bullfights when we were in the EU? Because we couldn't ban bullfighting on UK soil while we were in the EU? Or is it entirely irrelevant and not an example of how we're better off out at all?

[The Voice of Reason]

2 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Here's the evidence for all of the points above. The evidence is readily available because they were things that were passed through parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/03/landmarks-human-rights-echr-judgments-transformed-british-law

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/five-ways-european-court-human-rights-makes-us-safer-echr

https://eachother.org.uk/50-human-rights-cases-that-transformed-britain/

The ECHR is to credit because without it the UK would have passed it. The ECHR literally stopped each of those things above from being passed by UK Parliament.

So without the ECHR you reckon teachers in the UK would still be hitting children?

[HeliX]

Just now, The Voice of Reason said:

So without the ECHR you reckon teachers in the UK would still be hitting children?

They would've been in 1986 when the ECHR stopped them, yes.

[The Voice of Reason]

Just now, HeliX said:

They would've been in 1986 when the ECHR stopped them, yes.

We are now in 2024. 

[The Voice of Reason]

3 minutes ago, HeliX said:

We're better off out because... we were forced to have bullfights when we were in the EU? Because we couldn't ban bullfighting on UK soil while we were in the EU? Or is it entirely irrelevant and not an example of how we're better off out at all?

Obviously not. It’s not part of the British culture to indulge in bullfighting.  ( thank goodness) As I have constantly said you have 27 nations with different cultures. 
Which is why it’s not irrelevant 

[HeliX]

11 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

We are now in 2024. 

Oh, so it would've been alright for us to not be in the ECHR and for them to not stop us doing objectively shit things as long as we only did them for a while?

[HeliX]

7 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Obviously not. It’s not part of the British culture to indulge in bullfighting.  ( thank goodness) As I have constantly said you have 27 nations with different cultures. 
Which is why it’s not irrelevant 

It's wholly irrelevant because being in or out has no bearing on whether we have bullfighting. It's outrageous that you're trying to claim it as a benefit of being out.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

Oh, so it would've been alright for us to not be in the ECHR and for them to not stop us doing objectively shit things as long as we only did them for a while?

And I suppose it was the ECHR that stopped us drowning witches or putting children up chimneys?

[HeliX]

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

And I suppose it was the ECHR that stopped us drowning witches or putting children up chimneys?

Did someone say that everything good that's ever happened is the result of the ECHR? Or did I say that the ECHR has repeatedly fought for the rights of British people when the Government was trying to remove them?