Important-the Convention on Human Rights-Incompatibility of legislation
rovacs, 31 Aug 2006 22:38:33
Below are details from the Government DEFRA website relating to an appeal the Countryside Alliance made to the European Human Rights Court regarding the compatability of Bliar's ban on hunting with dogs with the Convention.
This was I believe primary legislation like the extreme porn proposals. What this says seems critically important for this porn issue to me. Note the judgements made by the Court relating to the Convention criteria as to this case and then relate them to the imprisoning of people for viewing "violent porn" as these proposals seek to do.
1. Can this law be said to be "rationally related to its aim? I myself took many paragraphs showing the Home Office this was not a runner for a start.
2. The necessity test-is it necessary in a democratic society-well none of the others do it,why must the UK,where are the good solid justifications-why "here" is so different-come off it Bliar!
3.Do 3 years in the slammer represent "proportionality"-in the old phrase,does the punishment fit the "crime"(so called)?
4.Was there enough "evidence" for them to justify doing this on a "rational basis"-sufficient material to reach a conclusion that the "danger" etc necessitated such a law-and they had enough proof to back this up? Well I'm Mary Poppins if there was!
5. Does it infringe the right to private life? If it does it has to do it for very good reasons-which just don't exist here.
I have just had time to jot a few things down in relation to this particular example. I am one of many who went extensively into this issue in my Home Office correspondence after studying the Convention,the HRA and the official guidance to the Act-I don't believe they have a chance of justifying this lunatic law as compatible with human rights obligations.
Here we have a practical example of how the Court looks at these issues and I can't believe they won't make mincemeat of such legislation. Of course a declaration of incompatability does not mean Bliar has to withdraw primary domestic legislation,but it's hard to see how such legislation could survive and the UK remain in the Convention-which we have been in since its inception after the Second World War. Bliar's regime would be the labelled as one which ignored its serious Convention obligations and were thus human rights abusers. Would they take such a step as leaving the Convention over such an absurd issue as this? Well I regard this as highly important. It is one of the few realistic means by which such legislation can be prevented-or defeated after it appears. I suggest that it be made the cornerstone of any campaign against it. I repeat,I fail utterly to see how such legislation as this can possibly be in keeping with the Articles and general obligations of the Convention-or the domestic Human Rights Act come to that.
From the DEFRA website-The Countryside Alliance Appeal to the ECHR re the Hunting with dogs ban.
This is part of a question and answer page on the ban
Hasn’t the Act been challenged in the Courts on human rights grounds?
The Countryside Alliance and others have launched a court case on this issue, and another on whether the Act complies with European Union free trade rules, and these were heard together in the High Court in July 2005.
In its lengthy judgment, delivered on 29 July, the Court concluded that the Government had shown that "the Hunting Act has a legitimate aim; that it is rationally related to that aim; that it does not go further than is necessary to achieve that aim; that it is necessary in a democratic society; that it satisfies the test of proportionality; and that Parliament had sufficient evidential material to reach such a conclusion on a rational basis" (para. 337). The judges stated "We consider that there was sufficient material available to the House of Commons for them to conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel" (para. 341).
The Court ruled that the Hunting Act was compatible with the Human Rights Act. It held that the ban did not, as alleged, infringe the right to private life (Article 8 of the ECHR), the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the ECHR), or the prohibition on discrimination (Article 14 of the ECHR). The Government had accepted that the ban constituted an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR) to the extent that it limited the use of property such as dogs and land for hunting, but the Court agreed that that interference was justified and proportionate, and that it did not give rise to any obligation to provide compensation.
The Court also rejected the allegations that the Hunting Act was in breach of EU laws intended to protect the free movement of goods and services within the EU. It found that the ban did not interfere with the free movement of goods (Article 28 of the EC Treaty) because it imposed the same restrictions on domestic trade as it did on trade with other Member States. To the extent that the ban interfered with the freedom to provide services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) by preventing the supply of hunting services in the UK to recipients resident in other EU states, the Court held that such interference was justified and proportionate on the grounds of public morality.
The Countryside Alliance has said that it will appeal.
rovacs, 31 Aug 2006 22:40:22
Below are details from the Government DEFRA website relating to an appeal the Countryside Alliance made to the European Human Rights Court regarding the compatability of Bliar's ban on hunting with dogs with the Convention.
This was I believe primary legislation like the extreme porn proposals. What this says seems critically important for this porn issue to me. Note the judgements made by the Court relating to the Convention criteria as to this case and then relate them to the imprisoning of people for viewing "violent porn" as these proposals seek to do.
1. Can this law be said to be "rationally related to its aim? I myself took many paragraphs showing the Home Office this was not a runner for a start.
2. The necessity test-is it necessary in a democratic society-well none of the others do it,why must the UK,where are the good solid justifications-why "here" is so different-come off it Bliar!
3.Do 3 years in the slammer represent "proportionality"-in the old phrase,does the punishment fit the "crime"(so called)?
4.Was there enough "evidence" for them to justify doing this on a "rational basis"-sufficient material to reach a conclusion that the "danger" etc necessitated such a law-and they had enough proof to back this up? Well I'm Mary Poppins if there was!
5. Does it infringe the right to private life? If it does it has to do it for very good reasons-which just don't exist here.
I have just had time to jot a few things down in relation to this particular example. I am one of many who went extensively into this issue in my Home Office correspondence after studying the Convention,the HRA and the official guidance to the Act-I don't believe they have a chance of justifying this lunatic law as compatible with human rights obligations.
Here we have a practical example of how the Court looks at these issues and I can't believe they won't make mincemeat of such legislation. Of course a declaration of incompatability does not mean Bliar has to withdraw primary domestic legislation,but it's hard to see how such legislation could survive and the UK remain in the Convention-which we have been in since its inception after the Second World War. Bliar's regime would be the labelled as one which ignored its serious Convention obligations and were thus human rights abusers. Would they take such a step as leaving the Convention over such an absurd issue as this? I regard this as highly important. It is one of the few realistic means by which such legislation can be prevented-or defeated after it appears. I suggest that it be made the cornerstone of any campaign against it. I repeat,I fail utterly to see how such legislation as this can possibly be in keeping with the Articles and general obligations of the Convention-or the domestic Human Rights Act (which anchors it into the domestic legal system)come to that.
From the DEFRA website-The Countryside Alliance Appeal to the ECHR re the Hunting with dogs ban.
This is part of a question and answer page on the ban
Hasn’t the Act been challenged in the Courts on human rights grounds?
The Countryside Alliance and others have launched a court case on this issue, and another on whether the Act complies with European Union free trade rules, and these were heard together in the High Court in July 2005.
In its lengthy judgment, delivered on 29 July, the Court concluded that the Government had shown that "the Hunting Act has a legitimate aim; that it is rationally related to that aim; that it does not go further than is necessary to achieve that aim; that it is necessary in a democratic society; that it satisfies the test of proportionality; and that Parliament had sufficient evidential material to reach such a conclusion on a rational basis" (para. 337). The judges stated "We consider that there was sufficient material available to the House of Commons for them to conclude that hunting with dogs is cruel" (para. 341).
The Court ruled that the Hunting Act was compatible with the Human Rights Act. It held that the ban did not, as alleged, infringe the right to private life (Article 8 of the ECHR), the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the ECHR), or the prohibition on discrimination (Article 14 of the ECHR). The Government had accepted that the ban constituted an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR) to the extent that it limited the use of property such as dogs and land for hunting, but the Court agreed that that interference was justified and proportionate, and that it did not give rise to any obligation to provide compensation.
The Court also rejected the allegations that the Hunting Act was in breach of EU laws intended to protect the free movement of goods and services within the EU. It found that the ban did not interfere with the free movement of goods (Article 28 of the EC Treaty) because it imposed the same restrictions on domestic trade as it did on trade with other Member States. To the extent that the ban interfered with the freedom to provide services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) by preventing the supply of hunting services in the UK to recipients resident in other EU states, the Court held that such interference was justified and proportionate on the grounds of public morality.
The Countryside Alliance has said that it will appeal.