|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 4, 2014 13:02:52 GMT
The government has promised to take British law out of the perniciously anti-democratic institution the ECHR
All this silly talk by Labourites and and associated sentimental pinkos to the effect that it would make Britain a pariah in the 'world community' putting us on a par with Russia of Bongo-wongoland is simply puerile nonsense
It all simply boils down to the question. 'do you believe in democracy?'
If you do sincerely believe in democracy - democracy as the will of the people, the majority of people in a society - then there can be no question that it can be other than those same people that determine what is lawful and unlawful. To take the law-making out of those people's hands and give it to an institution that has no accountability to the people to whom their legal decisions apply may be admirable in many ways , but it cannot be argued that it is democratic
That is all there is to it really
Do you believe in democracy?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesa/rosa on Oct 4, 2014 16:01:02 GMT
Yes! With all its faults (like capitalism, too) it is still better than the alternatives.
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58 
|
Post by aqua on Oct 4, 2014 22:31:14 GMT
I think you're both taking the piss, myself!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesa/rosa on Oct 6, 2014 12:40:45 GMT
So you think there are better systems, tried and available, than democracy and capitalism, aqua?
Please share your apercus with us.
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 6, 2014 14:26:58 GMT
The government has promised to take British law out of the perniciously anti-democratic institution the ECHR All this silly talk by Labourites and and associated sentimental pinkos to the effect that it would make Britain a pariah in the 'world community' putting us on a par with Russia of Bongo-wongoland is simply puerile nonsense It all simply boils down to the question. 'do you believe in democracy?' If you do sincerely believe in democracy - democracy as the will of the people, the majority of people in a society - then there can be no question that it can be other than those same people that determine what is lawful and unlawful. To take the law-making out of those people's hands and give it to an institution that has no accountability to the people to whom their legal decisions apply may be admirable in many ways , but it cannot be argued that it is democratic That is all there is to it really Do you believe in democracy? Quite honestly, there are such serious paradoxes, inconsistencies and nonsenses in what the government appear to want to do that I’m not surprised that your first sentence seems to show some confusion. I dare say, however, that they are simply posturing so that they look as hard-line (and stupid) as UKIP, for electoral reasons. Your reference to Russia is puzzling as they are a member of the Council of Europe, and signed up to the ECHR (both Convention and Court). Britain is the one out of all the 47 member states that would be seen as potentially dissing the ECHR, and would not be respected for it internationally. I believe in democracy as a principle, but in human rights too. Some practices of polities calling themselves democracies trample on human rights. If the will of the people, the majority, is that there should be a death penalty (which it still may be, and certainly was overwhelmingly 50 or 60 years ago), then count me out of being a supporter of this particular strand or effect of ‘democracy’. As you’re often pointing out, British governments ride roughshod over democratic principles when it’s a matter of their political convenience or advantage. This can impact on individuals’ human rights. The British judiciary might occasionally be too close to the government mindset or groupthink. Why not have a more obviously objective final court of appeal in Strasbourg? So you think there are better systems, tried and available, than democracy and capitalism, aqua? Please share your apercus with us. Please see above. (Why on earth would I need to comment on capitalism?) |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 6, 2014 14:43:58 GMT
I think you're both taking the piss, myself! They are, aqua. Don't waste time on them. |
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 6, 2014 18:23:10 GMT
Quite honestly, there are such serious paradoxes, inconsistencies and nonsenses in what the government appear to want to do that I’m not surprised that your first sentence seems to show some confusion. I dare say, however, that they are simply posturing so that they look as hard-line (and stupid) as UKIP, for electoral reasons. Perhaps they are posturing They have been on about this reform for some time however We will see Your reference to Russia is puzzling as they are a member of the Council of Europe, and signed up to the ECHR (both Convention and Court). Yes I can see that you are puzzled In fact I was quite foolishly paraphrasing Mr Clegg Britain is the one out of all the 47 member states that would be seen as potentially dissing the ECHR, and would not be respected for it internationally. Who cares? Before 1997 Britain's law did not incorporate the ECHR and are we really a better place today than in 1997? I believe in democracy as a principle Then you are surely not a democrat? Democrats believe in democracy in practice In principle or practice? Some practices of polities calling themselves democracies trample on human rights. Yes I agree that this can happen in practice. It can also happen in practice that Human Rights legislation can trample on Human Rights If the will of the people, the majority, is that there should be a death penalty (which it still may be, and certainly was overwhelmingly 50 or 60 years ago), then count me out of being a supporter of this particular strand or effect of ‘democracy’. Yes I can see your objections here. Does this assume there is some wiser counsel than what the majority want? That a governing elite knows what is better for the majority than do the majority? (As an aside I have never quite understood the liberal position of revering the sanctity of life of convicted murderers yet happily allowing the killing of innocent children in their hundreds of thousands) As you’re often pointing out, British governments ride roughshod over democratic principles when it’s a matter of their political convenience or advantage. Indeed - I agree wholeheartedly This can impact on individuals’ human rights. Indeed undemocratic regimes are notorious for ignoring human rights - one of the most important human rights IMO is the right to a democratic government The British judiciary might occasionally be too close to the government mindset or groupthink. Yes may be so, but if the governemnt is a truly democratic government is this such a bad thing? Why not have a more obviously objective final court of appeal in Strasbourg? Do you seriously maintain that the Strasbourg Court is immune to Group think? I know that you do not |
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 6, 2014 18:27:07 GMT
I think you're both taking the piss, myself! They are, aqua. Don't waste time on them. Who is this absurdly posturing pustulant woman wit her puerile one-line interjections a la Spesh? |
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 6, 2014 22:17:02 GMT
I think you're both taking the piss, myself! They are, aqua. Don't waste time on them. Thank you for your counsel, jean. But if I cared about wasting time, I wouldn't be here at all - unless you'd recruited Blair and other war criminals. I'm sure we could have a whip-round. No? |
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 6, 2014 22:33:13 GMT
.
|
|
aqua
WH Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by aqua on Oct 6, 2014 22:58:30 GMT
7 hours ago aqua said:
If the will of the people, the majority, is that there should be a death penalty (which it still may be, and certainly was overwhelmingly 50 or 60 years ago), then count me out of being a supporter of this particular strand or effect of ‘democracy’.
clee said:
Yes I can see your objections here. Does this assume there is some wiser counsel than what the majority want? That a governing elite knows what is better for the majority than do the majority?
(As an aside I have never quite understood the liberal position of revering the sanctity of life of convicted murderers yet happily allowing the killing of innocent children in their hundreds of thousands)
.....
aqua said in reply:
Not a governing elite - far from it. Common sense of common people, detached from the emotion and turmoil engendered by particular events.
(But it's not an aside, is it? It's bloody Catholic propaganda relying on misuse of imputed parallels and words! But you never know. Pope Francis might call your bluff one day!)
|
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Oct 7, 2014 16:52:22 GMT
Not a governing elite - far from it. Common sense of common people, detached from the emotion and turmoil engendered by particular events. And who shall select these 'common people', and should these 'common people' be sackable if they produce erratic judgements that fly in the face of common sense and contradict democratic decisions? (But it's not an aside, is it? ActualLy it was - not much to do wIth the pros and cons of the ECHR It's bloody Catholic propaganda relying on misuse of imputed parallels and words! That is not my opinion as you are well aware But you never know. Pope Francis might call your bluff one day!) I doubt it - and I am not bluffing |
|
