Injunctions, super-injunctions ?

[RandBlade]

And you were wrong. The rulings were made by a British court based on a British law. The European Court of Human Rights has not entered into the debate at all. If the democratically elected and sovereign British Parliament wants to exercise it's sovereign authority to change the law then the British courts would have to respect that. And no external court would have entered the debate still though at that point the individual I'm banned by an inane court case from naming could appeal to the ECHR though since the ECHR is categorically NOT sovereign over British laws even if he won his case we would have to consider whether we wanted to change the law (a la prisoners votes). The ECHR is not a Supreme Court and does not get the final say.

[Flixy]

And you were wrong. The rulings were made by a British court based on a British law. The European Court of Human Rights has not entered into the debate at all. If the democratically elected and sovereign British Parliament wants to exercise it's sovereign authority to change the law then the British courts would have to respect that. And no external court would have entered the debate still though at that point the individual I'm banned by an inane court case from naming could appeal to the ECHR though since the ECHR is categorically NOT sovereign over British laws even if he won his case we would have to consider whether we wanted to change the law (a la prisoners votes). The ECHR is not a Supreme Court and does not get the final say.

Well pardon me for being confused by some guy who started in this thread by entering the ECHR into the debate..

I believe that I will be commiting a crime if I quote the Opening Post.

What a moronic system. The appeals court was right to reject the injunction and I can't believe the Supreme Court upheld it. This all spins from an overvigorous interpretation of European Court of Human Rights interpretations of the European Convention of Human Rights and goes completely against our traditions. I disagree with it 100%.

Pretty much yes. A tradition of free press.

We need to replace the flawed ECHR with a guarantee that Free Press being the most important issue like America's First Amendment.

[RandBlade]

The problem is the "overvigorous interpretations" as I said, not the Court or the Convention which have never ruled this way.

Hence why the article can be published in Scotland but not England, let alone the fact it cal also be published in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany or anywhere else for that matter. ONLY England and Wales have this issue, so it is for our Parliament to clean up our own mess. Until 1997 the ECHR was not part of English law, we can clear it up by repealing or amending that Act and making it clearer that free speech is protected. Though we don't even need to go that far, a simple Act explicitly instructing the right to free speech takes priority would suffice even if the ECHR were kept word for word in English law ... indeed even if the Court were to in future rule this wrong way.

[Hazir]

Again the same rubbish about the Convention not being English law prior to your parliament copying it into formal national legislation.

By the act of ratification the Convention became British law, that means it also was and is the law of the land in England. There is little wrong with the Convention nor in its application at large. What is problematic is that in England you try to apply the same rules in a different way than is the general norm. It's a senseless approach of the matter untill you revoke your ratification. Your parliament can not undo the obligations under the Convention by any material legislation on human rights.

As for the matter at hand; I can not see the Court in Strassbourg ruling in favour of injunctions pertaining to repress what is already common knowledge. The British state would have to prove that this bridle on the free press is necessary rather than ridiculous.

[Dreadnaught]

The hell if I can find coverage about this outside of the UK ironically...so looks like reports of an affair can't be discussed?

[Hazir]

Probably it's because nobody gives a hoot about this couple's sex life and the English discussing the fact they can't talk about it without disregarding rulings forbidding them to do so.

[RandBlade]

There is nothing senseless about interpreting laws in our own way Hazir, that is what sovereign nations do. I couldn't care less if you interpet something different to us.

[Aimless]

The EU has not itself acceded to the ECHR but it has enshrined those rights in its own laws and where British laws or their implementation may conflict with those EU laws you are obligated by your own laws to refer the matter to the ECJ if there is any uncertainty as to what the EU law is. If the EU law is clear and British law is in conflict, then you are, by your own laws, required to disapply the conflicting British statutes. Once the EU accedes to the ECHR you may be forced to refer this sort of thing to the ECtHR I guess.

The above applies if this is best characterized as a problem resulting from incorrect or overzealous interpretation of either the ECHR or the EU charter of Fundamental Rights. Even if this is instead characterized as being a problem with British law only, if your highest court rules in a way that conflicts with EU law it may be appropriate to take this higher up to the EU level, however it's possible that you may avoid that by having your parliament change the law before that happens.

Something that strikes me as a little funny is that the aforementioned European Communities Act of 1972 and its subsequent application in effect gives the EU supremacy over British laws, rather than Parliament. Even with parliamentary sovereignty, you would have to repeal that act in order to implement laws that conflict with EU laws. Parliamentary sovereignty also does not free you from your various treaty obligations.

[RandBlade]

Again the EU is not a party to this dispute and lacks standing here. The ECtHR is not an EU body, it is a Council of Europe one. Even if we vote to Leave the EU on June 23 we would (unless decided separately) remain an ECHR signatory like such famous European democracies Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

The 1972 Act gives the EU (and the ECJ) supremacy over British laws by virtue of the powers it is given by Parliament, in theory Parliament can repeal that at any time. The ECtHR has no such supremacy - and the EU one is restricted to those areas that are under the areas granted to the EU as its powers, which it isn't certain whether this would be or not.

As for Parliamentary sovereignty, of course it doesn't free you from treaty obligations. But it is possible to deliberately violate your treaty obligations. If Parliament passes a law that explicitly contradicts an earlier Treaty then domestically the law stands as the new law supercedes the prior Treaty. Treaties do not override subsequent laws that deliberately and explicitly contradict them. Internationally that may not be popular with our partners but that doesn't change matters. This may not be the case in all nations, but is in ours and is in others too (for instance I believe the US Federal government - but not State governments). Incidentally in theory we could if we wanted Remain in the EU and explicitly override EU supremacy by passing a law to do so, repealing or amending the 1972 Act. That would cause a headache in international relations but as far as domestic courts are concerned what Parliament decreed would be the law. I am not for an instant suggesting we do that, just that it is theoretically possible though it would be a terrible idea.

[Hazir]

There is nothing senseless about interpreting laws in our own way Hazir, that is what sovereign nations do. I couldn't care less if you interpet something different to us.

@LF; I give up.

[Loki]

Rand, just because the British parliament has the legal right (domestically) to violate its international obligations doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so (as you yourself acknowledge). That means that it's stupid for the British parliament to pay a high cost by violating its international obligations when this case can be appealed cost-free higher up the European legal system.

[RandBlade]

There is no international obligation to appeal this higher up the system.

If Parliament were to direct the courts within our own system to apply the law properly then that doesn't affect our international obligations one jot. Especially considering Parliament would be directing the courts to interpret the law the same as our international partners do. Whereas if we appeal but lose the appeal then we are caught in a quandary of either violating our international obligations or accepting a bad ruling. Why go for the nuclear option first?

The logical answer to me to a mess you have made yourself is to clean it up yourself. The alternative should be a last resort.

[RandBlade]

Saw a discussion elsewhere that was pertinent to this discussion. Turns out that it isn't only the UK and USA that views its international obligations through domestic laws first and foremost.

The highest part of international law is surely the UNSCR, with virtually all nations (including all EU states) subject to the UN. Yet the ECJ has decreed that it can override the implementation of UNSC resolutions: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume...-court-justice

I have no theoretical problem with this, though given that the ECJ is no more a nation than the UNSC is, it should be up to member nations to determine which if either gets precedence.

[Aimless]

Er, I'm pretty sure that ruling doesn't say what you think it says.

[RandBlade]

So did the court defer to the ruling by the higher up body or did it just make its own unilateral decision?

[LittleFuzzy]

So did the court defer to the ruling by the higher up body or did it just make its own unilateral decision?

It said that the process used was wrong, that carrying out such UNSC resolutions like that has to go through the courts, not just legislatures or ministries.

[Hazir]

It said that the process used was wrong, that carrying out such UNSC resolutions like that has to go through the courts, not just legislatures or ministries.

Yep, it ruled well within its jurisdiction. Funnily enough I think you could easily use this ruling as an example as to why re-legislating by lower levels of government is not desirable.

[Khendraja'aro]

Next up: Rand tries to explain to us that it's perfectly okay for the UK to reinstate torture as a truth-finding medium in court and also the burning of witches.

Because they're a "sovereign nation".

Nevermind any contracts said sovereign nation signed willingly.

[RandBlade]

If the UK wants to do that then that's possible yes.

I don't want the UK to do that but any sovereign nation can do what it pleases ultimately, "contracts" are absolutely and entirely meaningless if a country decides to revoke them. We had a contract with your nation that you wouldn't invade Poland but did that stop you? When push came to shove what use were the Munich Agreement or the League of Nations?

You may wish to be a modern-day Chamberlain shouting how you 'have in my hand a piece of paper ...' but I would rather have more credible eternal vigilence based in the sovereign systems we have evolved over a thousand years to prevent abuses rather than some figleaf that isn't even a century old that could easily be overturned.

[Loki]

In the same way that your contract with your employer is meaningless: your employer can't physically compel you to work, but they can sure as hell ruin your reputation and finances.

[RandBlade]

Exactly, well said. I'd rather have a good working relationship I trust than rely on some piece of paper that is ultimately meaningless.

[Khendraja'aro]

Do you even realize what bullshit you're spewing forth here?

Maybe you should pick up a dictionary and look up the exact meaning of "meaningless".

It's pretty pathetic that I as a foreigner have to tell you what the words you're using actually mean.

Not to mention that calling the Convention on Human Rights "meaningless" is a pretty damning indicator of your ultimately rotten character.

"Hey, you know? This agreement that maybe we shouldn't torture people? I spit on that agreement! It's meaningless!"

[RandBlade]

Stop the ad hominem attacks and try and provide a rational argument.

As for whether the Convention is meaningless or not, why not try and look at the real world evidence before your eyes?
Signatories to the Convention on Human Rights: Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey,
Non-signatories to the Convention: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

Now I know which of those nations I think human rights are better preserved. Hint: It's not Russia.

[Hazir]

Stop the ad hominem attacks and try and provide a rational argument.

As for whether the Convention is meaningless or not, why not try and look at the real world evidence before your eyes?
Signatories to the Convention on Human Rights: Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey,
Non-signatories to the Convention: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

Now I know which of those nations I think human rights are better preserved. Hint: It's not Russia.

4 of your non-sinatories are outside of Europe. The two NATO members amongst them have observer status. That is no coincidence.

From the five signatories you mention only Turkey was a member before the end of the Cold War.

Your insinuation that the Convention is meaningless falls flat on its face; not only has it established firm protections for human rights for its earlier members, it has also been instrumental in the spreading of those protections in the old Soviet block.

As for the tone of postings addressing you; given the gobsmacking stupidity you expose in pretty much every subject concerning international relations you can barely expect anything better.

[RandBlade]

Not sure what geography has to do with human rights? I couldn't give a rats ass if a nation is in Europe, Asia, Antarctica, America or on the dark side of the moon. Being a signatory to the Convention patently is meaningless because there are a great number of nations that are signatories who have shocking human rights.

While there are a number of great nations outside that have excellent human rights.

You may care for a piece of paper more. I care if a system works and ours works, Americas works, Australia's works. Russia does not, Turkey does not, Georgia does not. Despite them being in the precious club.

As for stupidity I know I've shown you to be wrong time and time again. Just like I've shown Khen to be wrong just now. Unless he thinks the sign of a great character with extraordinary commitment to human rights is to be in the exalted company of Putin and Erdogan etc?

[Khendraja'aro]

You're a flaming moron. You have not shown me to be wrong in any way because you're simply too dumb.

Moron.

By your bloody stupid logic, the laws which ban murder are meaningless because some people still murder. Effin' genius. I vote we rename you to "HerpDerp".

[RandBlade]

That's not what I said. You have a major reading comprehension fail.

If someone wants to murder then laws against it don't prevent that. So we need to be vigilant and have a properly working police and judicial system to try and prevent it and prosecute those who break the law.

To simply say that murder has been outlawed and then proceed to ignore murders that are happening is not a working system.

To have a Convention on Human Rights that includes amongst its members Russia, Turkey etc while excluding the vast majority of people who live in western rights respecting democracies is about as meaningful as having a commission on murder with Ian Brady, Rosemary West and Charles Manson amongst its members while excluding police officers.

[earthJoker]

You're a flaming moron. You have not shown me to be wrong in any way because you're simply too dumb.

Moron.

Talking too much to yourself lately?

[Hazir]

Not sure what geography has to do with human rights? I couldn't give a rats ass if a nation is in Europe, Asia, Antarctica, America or on the dark side of the moon. Being a signatory to the Convention patently is meaningless because there are a great number of nations that are signatories who have shocking human rights.

While there are a number of great nations outside that have excellent human rights.

You may care for a piece of paper more. I care if a system works and ours works, Americas works, Australia's works. Russia does not, Turkey does not, Georgia does not. Despite them being in the precious club.

As for stupidity I know I've shown you to be wrong time and time again. Just like I've shown Khen to be wrong just now. Unless he thinks the sign of a great character with extraordinary commitment to human rights is to be in the exalted company of Putin and Erdogan etc?

it has got everything to do with geography because not 100 years ago the utter breakdown of Western civilization got on its way. The western side of the alliance, the countries that really won the war chose to set up the Council and Nato as safeguards against both a repetition of a collapse of the rule of law and against Soviet aggression. The people who advocated either were rightfully convinced that the upkeep of the rule of law and democracy in Europe was the first and foremost reason to face up to Soviet aggression.

[Aimless]

So did the court defer to the ruling by the higher up body or did it just make its own unilateral decision?

The question doesn't make any sense in this context. The court reaffirmed that all laws made by bodies that are within its jurisdiction are subject to judicial review and must also be compliant with EC/EU law. It specifically did not deny the primacy of the UNSC in international law but that does not mean that EU law is directly subordinate to international law as far as EU member states are concerned, from the perspective of the EU treaty.

In principle this approach may in the future and in other cases lead to a direct conflict between the UNSC and the EU, in which case the former may be expected to prevail if the conflict cannot be resolved in any way (see for example art 103 of the UN Charter), but it's far from clear-cut because there is disagreement on the exact position of EU law in the legal hierarchy esp. in relation to UN resolutions. The position of UK domestic law, however, is more clear-cut, esp. in relation to EU law, defined both by treaties as well as by domestic laws that affirm the supremacy of EU laws and the ECJ's case law over British ones where there are direct conflicts or significant uncertainty as to what the law is.

There's some merit to Hazir's observation that, from the EU's perspective, the case you referred to is an excellent illustration of why it's dumb to re-legislate laws that have already been adopted at higher levels. However, it makes more sense for the EU to do so than it does for the UK because the EU is not itself a party to the UN charter. The UK re-legislating EU laws is just a little dumb.