frank theriault wrote:
Comments interspersed:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:24:46 +0100, John Forbes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frank, Britain is part of the European Union, and part of the deal is that
the European Court of Human Rights is the supreme court for issues of this
sort.
I understand that. It doesn't make it right. It's an erosion of the basic sovreignty rights of a country to allow an external court make decisions that affect its citizens. I'm assuming that Britain has some powers of appointment of the judges, but still, I imagine that the majority of the judges will be non-British appointees. Maybe some people think it's okay to have such international tribunals making decisions that may affect their daily lives, but I wouldn't.
The same sort of thing applies in federal countries like Australia,
Canada, Brazil, India and the USA.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. If a country isn't a signator to
the treaty or agreement, it doesn't apply to them. What do Oz,
Canada, Brazil et al have to do with this?
Although Britain only recently adopted the European Convention on Human
Rights (and then, only partially), it was, I believe, British lawyers who
drafted it back in the 40s.
That may be, but that still doen't make it democratic. Who appointed
these lawyers? All I asked was if there was public debate on the
matter. Not just about joining the EU, but about signing this Human
Rights treaty. And, if there was debate, was it commonly known that
an external court would make decisions that would have an impact upon
your citizens. If not, then this is not a democratic organ. That's
all.
I imagine that any alleged breach of this law is likely to result in the
injured party suing the other party for damages. Our courts are a little
stingier than American courts when it comes to awarding damages, and I
imagine that any prima donna who brings actions frivolously is likely to
be awarded the traditional halfpenny for his or her pains.
I worry about someone who's ~not~ a celebrity taking me to court
because he sees a photo I took of him on Photo.net or in PUG. Maybe
they'll lose, maybe their damages will be minimal, but I'll still get
dragged into a needless legal proceeding. Alarmist? Perhaps.
Personally, I don't think it's going to be a major problem.
I hope you're right.
cheers,
frank
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
