Andrew Adams.

re elsaq’q fear that Swiftian lawyers will get to the qualification of the rights and tear them to shreds as in;

……“may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary”………….

No this won’t happen as judges are compelled to interpret the meanings of these article within the jurisprudence of the history of the European Court.

I.E they actually have to read all the cases that have come before the court and apply the interpretive line of reasoning (the precendents in our sense) no to apply prexisting freedom limiting cases from British precedents.

So the judges have to be on their toes and the early cases they tried to fiddle with a ECHR principle ‘the margin of appreciation’ which is intenede to allow a flexible margin for imple,enting a principle in respect of their legal system (where they may collect evidence through a prosecuting magistrate prior to charge etc).

On Law Lord thought hr had found sudicial-political wiggle room for fundge by domesticating this as the ‘judicial area of discretion’.

Well he got his wrists slapped as they don’t let you make up very English fudges like that.

Judges have to be on the ball as the ECHR convention rights have been incorporated into domestic law but they must still be applied in the same way as at ECHR,

A higher court hear must seek to give effect to a UK law in the broadest way to meet the purpose of the EC right.

If it cannot be done they cannot strike down a statute of parliament (as the US Supreme Court could) they can merely declare an incompatability and boot it back to parliament to change.

There still remains an appeal directly to ECHR Strasbourg if domestic avenues have expired.

The reason that we had so many adverse judgements against us at Strasbourg was not because we had such wretched rights in comparison but because our unwritten constitution with a notion of Parliament being the highest law making body without a bill of rights and constitution to frame and restrain it;

Simply meant that we did not have a good internal constitutional court to oversee these issues.

Now that we have seen the HRA running I would argue more strongly for a written constitution, as Scotland, N>Ireland and even Wales have a clearer constitutional framework.

Worse we do not have a conctitutional court to rule on the conflicts of laws that are arising between the Nations (I think by default it would fall on the Privy council selected bt Royal prerogative, and if my memeory serves me wesl from Tudour/Stewart England and Scotland the Privy councilealmost left us at permanent war.

So

We need

A constitutional settlement for;

the regions and nations (federated?) of the UK (and what the hell is the Isle of Mann and the Channel Islands?).

A written constitution and its methods of entrenchment requiring a quorum in both houses.;

Declaring all matters to be justiciable and not decided by the mandate of royal prerogative, absolute Kingship kindly left over for Gorden Brown by James i/IV

Setting out the duties of the prime minister, parliament and the executive and

the nature of the bicameral chamber (a unicameral chamber would be madness in a multi-nation state)

House of Representatives

House of Commons

A Bill of Rights (which would like other such instruments but crusty types can declare it a true English descedent of Magna and her carta)

A Conctitutional Court

A supreme court (they can have the same building different wigs or codpieces or whatever)

But we will just carry on the fudge drawing things up on doilys in the house common room until they get cleared away by the T ladies and they forget again Until one day they find even Wales is leaving on the 5 pm train.

Oh Well England I am sure the very sensible liberal C of E will hold us all together with a spot of Sharia and Immams and Gurus and Buddhist Abbots Lords spiritual and the listening to the interfaith dialogue on the interstate, initiative they will be planning.

Now once upon a time Liberty would have been defending the rights of British people to freely associate and to communicate their views freely , Shami Chakrabarthi said that on her watch rights would come home and would be understood as applying to everyone not just the seminars thay have held with the Muslim Initiative on ‘religious freedom’ and such.

Indeed – any where on public property that in doing so you’re not obstruction others.

Freedom of expression is an inaleinable right – it should be pervasive, and not relegated to some designated spot.

I think every town or city should have a recognised forum of this kind, a space for people to freely set up their soap box, so I’m sorry that Liverpool Council seem bent on using the law to close theirs down. They should indstead recognise the idea and set aside a centrally situated space. With so many pedestrianised streets nowadays, the claim is that that everywhere must be an unobstructed pavement, even one 100 yards wide.

The HRA is a mechanism for giving people redress under the ECHR in the British courts so yes, the get outs in the ECHR still apply to the HRA. That doesn’t make it useless but it does have its limits and it certainly hasn’t prevented much of New Labour’s illiberal legislation. Personally I would be in favour of a more tightly drawn bill of rights, although I appreciate the constitutional difficulties which David mentions. If parliament could just amend it at will then it would rather defeat the object but neither could it be set in stone – there would have to be some kind of mechanism for making changes.

Seriously though, there were some JFJFP and PSC among other groups up at the bombed out church earlier, maybe they decided to move there instead. Or are they always there (only been in Liverpool a week)?

Two“Around 12 different organisations, including the Socialist Party, the CNWP, the Stop the War Coalition, CND, Animal Rights, the SWP, Cuba Solidarity, a cycling group, Merseyside Anarchists and the Fight ID Cards campaign With the possible exception of a cycling group and Cuba Solidarity, it sounds just the place to test Napalm, and that will deal with the litter problem as well.

Three Is my memory going with old age, or is it not a “Liberal Democrap” council trying to enforce this illiberal restriction. Why the next thing you know is that the local liberals will be denying that asbestos fiber kills – Like they did at Rochdale !

GW

Indeed, but they can all be challenged in the courts.