Human Rights

[Dave2002]

Quite! Though May may not have intended such, the outcome could well be a progressive development for the Jordanian justice system in a more general sense.

Possibly. It will be "interesting" to follow what happens to Abu Qatada in the long run. Are we really gong to follow his case now with such interest that we will feel he is being given a fair trial with no evidence obtained by torture used against him? i doubt it.

I have no idea whether the Jordanian justice system is a good or fair one - it may well be - but I doubt that many here in the UK are going to follow this up to assess the outcome.

[aeolium]

The important thing about a constitution is that the process for altering it should be more difficult that that of passing a new act - otherwise it just becomes a tool of government. In order to do this, parliament would have to give up its ultimate sovereignty to a constitution, and I'm not sure how that would happen. In 1781 the USA was emerging as a new nation, with a will to make the system work (a very successful one); there is no contemporary equivalent for us.

The choice is stark - the ECHR presently provides a binding oversight of our law that is separate from government, but it only does so because we allow it to in order to be part of the Council of Europe. The alternative would be to establish a similar body in the UK, but inevitably any disputes with government would be easily resolved by changing the powers of the court - something that would be much easier to do than at present.

There are indeed certain advantages in the US system of limiting the power of the executive by virtue of the constitution, and I am still in favour of a constitution here which would provide something of that protection. On the other hand, there is a danger that any constitution embodies the preoccupations of the age in which it was drafted but has an endurance long beyond the time when some of those preoccupations - for instance the original US drafters' concern about the right to bear arms - have long outlived their relevance. And because the constitution is (rightly) exceptionally difficult to amend, those anachronisms remain. That is the trade-off for the protection against executive power. I think if you went through the ECHR carefully you would probably find elements of the protocols which nowadays might be redrafted or at least reworded, because it is a historical document reflecting the concerns of that age, over 60 years ago. It still seems pretty good to me though.

[Pabmusic]

There are indeed certain advantages in the US system of limiting the power of the executive by virtue of the constitution, and I am still in favour of a constitution here which would provide something of that protection. On the other hand, there is a danger that any constitution embodies the preoccupations of the age in which it was drafted but has an endurance long beyond the time when some of those preoccupations - for instance the original US drafters' concern about the right to bear arms - have long outlived their relevance. And because the constitution is (rightly) exceptionally difficult to amend, those anachronisms remain. That is the trade-off for the protection against executive power. I think if you went through the ECHR carefully you would probably find elements of the protocols which nowadays might be redrafted or at least reworded, because it is a historical document reflecting the concerns of that age, over 60 years ago. It still seems pretty good to me though.

All very true. The ECHR is easier to amend than the US Constitution, largely because acceptance is by treaty (more exactly by ratification of 'protocols', of which there have been 13 to date). The 13th Protocol outlaws the death penalty in all circumstances (the 1950 treaty had a 'getout clause' for the death penalty).

[amateur51]

I didn't read past this sentence. If you're going to be insulting I'll not bother engaging with you.

I don't see how that is insulting, unless you have an inflated ego. Being in error is about the facts not about you personally, unless you insist on making it so.

[Mr Pee]

I don't see how that is insulting, unless you have an inflated ego. Being in error is about the facts not about you personally, unless you insist on making it so.

It was clearly insulting, and clearly aimed at Beef Oven personally.

As usual, Beefy, you don't grasp the point.

[ahinton]

It was clearly insulting, and clearly aimed at Beef Oven personally.

The latter part of this may well be true but the former is not; if someone happens to exhibit a less than full grasp of the facts of something, the taking to task for this by someone else is not in and of itself insulting unless that person chooses to feel insulted thereby, as am51 has quite correctly observed.

[amateur51]

It was clearly insulting, and clearly aimed at Beef Oven personally.

You have quoted out of context and I read the whole thing as saying that Pabs was getting exasperated by Beefy's failure to grasp the points. A fair point tactfully made.

[Pabmusic]

You have quoted out of context and I read the whole thing as saying that Pabs was getting exasperated by Beefy's failure to grasp the points. A fair point tactfully made.

I am humbled by your (and Ahinton's) support. But I shouldn't need support at all. What I said was neither vicious nor rude. It might have been factually wrong (I don't think so, but then I'm not perfect) in which case the response should surely have been to point out my errors.

There is another way of dealing with things like this. On 3rd June, Beefy threatened me with physical violence (http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...thread/page136 - post number 1353) which I treated as light-hearted (and didn't make a fuss about). It's a good job that I'm not over-sensitive.

[ahinton]

I am humbled by your (and Ahinton's) support. But I shouldn't need support at all. What I said was neither vicious nor rude. It might have been factually wrong (I don't think so, but then I'm not perfect) in which case the response should surely have been to point out my errors.

There is another way of dealing with things like this. On 3rd June, Beefy threatened me with physical violence (http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...thread/page136 - post number 1353) which I treated as light-hearted (and didn't make a fuss about). It's a good job that I'm not over-sensitive.

There was indeed no rudeness in what you wrote and I think that most people here agree; likewise, I did not conclude that BO's "threat" was intended to be interpreted literally.

Anyway, back to the subject. Here's the latest on the Human Rights front, in the form of an ECHR Grand Chamber decision overturning that Court's previous conclusion and running contrary to the earlier findings of the UK government which is now obliged to reconsider its stance and set up the necessary ways and means to accommodate today's decision. I've heard it said that there's many a slip 'twixt U and KIP and perhaps this might turn out to be something of an illustration thereof...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

And, closer to home, here's another, which seems to amount to something of a boomerang for the egregious Mrs May:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23228019

[Pabmusic]

There was indeed no rudeness in what you wrote and I think that most people here agree; likewise, I did not conclude that BO's "threat" was intended to be interpreted literally...

Neither did I take it that way, of course. Thank you, Ahinton.

As to the ECHR decision, I'm not surprised at all. It is simply too final to say that, however long a person lives, we will never even consider his (or her) future again. In terms of practicalities, I doubt that it will make very much difference, but it may do in a few cases.

[Pabmusic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23228019[/url]

I'd missed this entirely. Several years ago, stop & search was heavily criticised for being directed overwhelmingly against blacks (I'm talking early 80s here). The powers were removed. They were later reintroduced with sincere assurances they wouldn't be abused. It strikes the cynical side of me that you can't tell if there's a racist bias if you don't record the searches properly...

[ahinton]

Neither did I take it that way, of course. Thank you, Ahinton.

As to the ECHR decision, I'm not surprised at all. It is simply too final to say that, however long a person lives, we will never even consider his (or her) future again. In terms of practicalities, I doubt that it will make very much difference, but it may do in a few cases.

Indeed; reports suggest that there are currently 49 people in Britain on indefinite prison sentences, so any changes would affect well under one in a million of the population and then only were future reviews of any of their sentences to result in a recommendation for parole or release, which is by no means certain. I'm not surprised by the ECHR decision either and, however heinous the crime/s committed by those currently on indefinite sentences, they are all still human beings being cared for and served in prison by other human beings funded by all the taxpaying human beings on the outside of prison; sentences of indefinite duration have always struck me as a kind of cop-out arising from an apparent judicial inability to face up to realities - a case of "I don't know what to do so we'll just keep x, y and z on indefinite sentences" - and it must be particularly demoralising for the prison staff, knowing that nothing will ever be achieved or achievable.

[amateur51]

Mrs May has made great play of the length of time (12 years) and the cost to the British tax payer of the Abu Qatada case.

I just wish she'd reflect on the thousands of asylum and refugee applications that have been 'delayed' or 'lost' in the Border Agency's (and predecessor agencies') pending trays and in-trays under successive governments.

At best these people's lives, already traumatised in the main, have been put on indefinite hold, and at worst families have been torn apart, relationships fractured, careers ruined, all for a lack of urgency in processing these cases, and a lack of political will to sort it out. Admit defeat Mrs May - organise a system suitable for purpose and when it's ready organise an amnesty for those who have been waiting so long. It's the least we can do.

[Barbirollians]

As for Abu Qatada- where have we ended up - another country now having in its constitution a prohibition on using evidence obtained by torture .

We would regard it as obscene were the Police allowed to use evidence obtained by torture in this country - Mrs May and her predecessors should have concentrated on ensuring our deportees get a fair trial so we can send them safely back .

I see today much Tory foaming at the mouth about whole life tariffs - a decision that strikes me as unarguably right .

[Resurrection Man]

.....
At best these people's lives, already traumatised in the main, ....

Really? You know this for a fact? Wishful thinking.