And here’s an example of that in action
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/66.html

On a quick skim of that case, it would appear that Supreme Court did not apply the ECHR ruling because the facts were different, not because they disagreed with the ruling. However, subservient may be too strong a word, but in practice it seems to have turned out to be a vertical relationship. However, I should draw your attention to my final sentence of my first paragraph. There is an awful lot of simplistic analysis spouted by all sides to this debate and it is complicated.

How can we have a “horizontal relationship” with a ratified treaty?

Surely we are either following the convention or we are not?

Is the plan to claim that we are sticking to the convention but we’ll be coming up with our own interpretation of what it really means rather than going with the European Court’s judgements?

Is that how it works for other international law? i.e. “We’re sticking to our interpretation of the Geneva Convention, not yours”?

Let’s not forget this is the government whose leader just said this:

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach

Think I’d rather have European courts available to look out for my human rights in the face of that kind of pseudo-fascist nonsense thanks.

noltae – Member
Was wondering if TIPP is kicking in already ?

Surfing the net last night on my phone the data connection was buffering like crazy on all my bookmarks – but when I went on YouTube it was streaming perfectly … ?TTIP isn’t net nutrality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

How can we have a “horizontal relationship” with a ratified treaty?

By enshrining equivalent rights (and maybe more) clearly and unambiguously in national law, this will then frank most of the obligations under the ECHR. One of the many complications is what do you do with the precedent already in existence.

Is that how it works for other international law?

It is for bilateral treaties, multi-laterals are more complicated obviously.

By enshrining equivalent rights (and maybe more)

I think it is pretty clear that they are not doing this because they want to guarantee more rights than the ECHR!
After all, there is nothing to stop them doing that already.

And wasn’t the whole purpose of the Human Rights Act? To incorporate the rights and precedents from the convention into UK law?

(Cherrypicking a little for brevity) it says:

Interpretation of Convention rights.
A (UK) court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any—

– judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights,

– opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention,

– decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or

– decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention,

…

Interpretation of legislation.
So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

…

Acts of public authorities.

(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

…

Declaration of incompatibility.

If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.

In this section “court” means the Supreme Court; the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; the Court Martial Appeal Court; in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary; in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court or the Court of Appeal.

That all seems like good stuff to me.

To summarise (as I understand that): when UK courts deal with a question relating to Human Rights Convention then they must consider precedent from the European Court. Legislation and public authorities must abide by the Convention. Our courts can rule that something is incompatible with the Convention.

Think I’d rather have European courts available to look out for my human rights in the face of that kind of pseudo-fascist nonsense thanks.

Yep exactly. That’s the whole point of external international oversight.

Otherwise you are potentially left complaining to the British judiciary about the British judiciary.

I think it is pretty clear that they are not doing this because they want to guarantee more rights than the ECHR!

I wouldn’t be so sure and also we may wish to put a more British emphasis on them where two rights conflict: freedom of speech and privacy being one area.

And wasn’t the whole purpose of the Human Rights Act? To incorporate the rights and precedents from the convention into UK law?

It may have been the intent but it is not necessarily what has been achieved, to date the UK judges appear to have been more deferential than intended. Some say this is changing, the Tory prosposal is designed to force that change.

to date the UK judges appear to have been more deferential than intended

You don’t think domestic judges understand parliamentary sovereignty? Maybe we should send along a first year law student to explain it to them 🙄

For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.

That really does sound like the sort of thing even Putin would baulk at saying

We cannot have rights that parliament can remove and ignore as they just cannot be trusted. I imagine every country that has signed the ECHR has failed it at some point.

Cameron is being a dick here tbh nd making us equivalent to some tin pot dictators ..worse even FFS if Putin can live by whyTF cant we

The real question is ‘How different would things be if Labour had the majority in Her Majesty’s Government’?

Of course, there would be minor changes, but don’t forget for a moment that GCHQ/NSA didn’t just appear overnight and Labour have been every bit as complicit in the real world erosion of Human Rights (which is by all accounts only a very recent addition in terms of history)

From 2007:

What Jack Straw Forgot to Mention

• Race and Religious Hatred Act 2006 bans incitement of hatred on religious grounds.

• The justice minister Jack Straw proposes new laws which would ban incitement of hatred for the disabled and on the grounds of a person’s sexual orientation.

I’ve got no problem with that. In fact laws to protect people from incitement of hatred is vital imo in any democratic society.

Cameron is being a dick here tbh nd making us equivalent to some tin pot dictators ..worse even FFS if Putin can live by whyTF cant we

Don’t worry, we’ll have Belarus (Europe’s last military dictatorship) for company, the only other European country not bound by the ECHR.

to date the UK judges appear to have been more deferential than intended.

According to who?

I wouldn’t be so sure and also we may wish to put a more British emphasis on them where two rights conflict: freedom of speech and privacy being one area.

God, no. Those are two areas where I’d 100% prefer the EU. One thing that always strikes me when I visit the UK is the amount of cameras and radar there is, compared to Spain. Legally it’s just a lot harder to film someone here, on a practical level you have far more privacy. Likewise freedom of speech: I haven’t seen arrests here for claiming you’re going to blow up an airport if your girlfriend’s flight is delayed.

Which isn’t to say it’s perfect, but it certainly feels a lot freer than the police state the UK is sleepwalking into.

Don’t worry, we’ll have Belarus (Europe’s last military dictatorship) for company, the only other European country not bound by the ECHR.

I bet their justice minister is nicer than ours as well.

You don’t think domestic judges understand parliamentary sovereignty? Maybe we should send along a first year law student to explain it to them

Leveson appears to agree

“Some early decisions by the then House of Lords did veer to the view that ‘Strasbourg has spoken, that’s the end of it’, but we’ve matured in our approach to the European court, and that court has learnt from us as well.”

And there are a number of judges who seem to uncomfortable with ambit of the ECHR

here and

here.

As I have said previously it is complicated, just because there are judges on one side of the debate, for different reasons, as above does not mean they are right, likewise judges on the other side of the debate aren’t necessarily right. However, a simplistic analysis that the evil Tories want to get rid of our human rights is frankly rubbish, it is far more nuanced.

EDIT:

God, no. Those are two areas where I’d 100% prefer the EU. One thing that always strikes me when I visit the UK is the amount of cameras and radar there is, compared to Spain. Legally it’s just a lot harder to film someone here, on a practical level you have far more privacy. Likewise freedom of speech: I haven’t seen arrests here for claiming you’re going to blow up an airport if your girlfriend’s flight is delayed.

I was referring to the ability for the freedom of speech to trump the right to privacy which appears to be less prevalent in some European jurisdictions.

Of course the other thing an evil genius would do is silence any dissent.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ – still down today, 9th of June. 😯

Yay democracy.

Funnily enough the petition on change.org calling for a referendum before they abolish the Human Rights Act, currently has over 235,000 signatures!

Well over the 100,000 target that would prompt a Commons debate IF the petition was on the official government site. 😕

“Frankie Boyle”. Oh dear.

Funnily enough the petition on change.org calling for a referendum before they abolish the Human Rights Act, currently has over 235,000 signatures!

Well over the 100,000 target that would prompt a Commons debate IF the petition was on the official government site.

Well it’s not as if it is going to happen without both Houses debating it.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ – still down today, 9th of June.

Yay democracy.
remember

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Well it’s not as if it is going to happen without both Houses debating it.

Yeah internal debate and whip-led voting.

No plans for a public referendum on it though, are there?

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Indeed, but I find it hard to believe they’ve just forgotten about that website for some reason.

really?

Well yeah, I suspect there is a Tucker-esque character somewhere sagely advising that “If you *$&*(&£$ balloon heads want to get these %$&*%5^% bills through then make sure that )%””&*^& website stays offline” 😀