Joint Committee on Human Rights
Arron Fitzgerald, 08 Sep 2006 16:26:42
Dear all
All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to parliament.
I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this committee, the website is :
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature to do so.
Arron
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
rovacs, 08 Sep 2006 23:44:58
A long quote from an letter on the human rights angle. This looks at the issue of exemptions to the Convention Articles-specifically 8 and 10. There is material here from Mr.Rabinder Singh's paper dealing with the critical human rights issues of necessity and clarity and if the legislation is rationally connected in any way to the issues which it seeks to address;further there is discussion which seems pretty important in all this,of Law Lords judgements which have domestically defined what necessity means and how strong it has to be if you plan laws which interfere massively with personal privacy. Of course an incompatibility judgement can be ignored,but it would create big problems. If the Committee could see how irrational and HR offending this odious mess is before legislation is created it may be a way for sanity to be restored to all this. Looking at the good sense of the Law Lords makes me think they might be good allies in fighting this crud from New Nazi.
Letter extract follows-
Article 8-The right to personal privacy of the citizen and freedom from state interference with it.
"1)Everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life,his home and correspondence...
2)There shall be no interference by a public authority with this right except such as in accordance with the law and is NECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY...FOR THE PREVENTION OF DISORDER AND CRIME,for the protection of health or MORALS or for THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF OTHERS."(my emphasis)
The Government admits there is no connection that can be proved at all between "extreme violent pornography" and any actual material harm to society/individuals in the Home Office Consultation Paper of 2005. The words used by the Goverment to describe this material are pejorative adjectives which amount to "we want to do this because some people find it distasteful". Well calling things distasteful is not evidence of harm-it is subjective opinion,and the Convention does not permit exemption from its Articles on the basis of subjective opinions and flurries of pejorative adjectives,but on proof of harm,of established "necessity"(more on that crucial word "necessity" later). The very fact that no similar democratic society has introduced,or plans to introduce such legislation as this,shows categorically that THEY(whether Convention members or not)feel no crying need for it. In order to not have such a law declared incompatible with the Convention,the Government would have to prove to the Court,that unlike these other nations,the UK has a burning necessity(that word again!)for such laws-proof positive we are different. Can it?
Article 10-The article dealing with freedom of _expression.
"1)Everyone has the right to freedom of _expression.This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to RECEIVE AND IMPART INFORMATION AND IDEAS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM A PUBLIC AUTHORITY regardless of frontiers.."(My emphasis).
The "get outs"about individual nations being allowed to exercise certain restrictions,granted exemptions in some matters,are on the same grounds,basically proven necessity,like Article 8. Thus we have the situation again,where to uphold such a law as that being proposed as permissable under the Convention,it would be up to the UK Government to prove necessity. The Court would query why such legislation is needed so badly in the UK. It would fall to the Government to establish why,to provide proof,solid evidence why the UK is different to all these other Convention signatories,establishing its case concretely before the Court if it has any chance of such laws being incompatible. Yet in its own Consultation Paper Paper on the matter,the Government admits that it cannot do this. "It is unable to-
a)Establish a connection between the material proposed being criminalized and "real life" crime-or anything else.
b)Recognises no other country has introduced or has plans to introduce such legislation-that is to say feels any "need" for it whatever. The document admits the UK Government stands isolated in this.
Back now to what this does for "John Citizen",that poor soul who may end up flung in jail and labelled a perverted sex fiend by these proposed laws. What can the Convention do to protect his liberties and liberty? Yes it does do something to help protect him against bad laws his Government may slam thoughtlessly onto the Statute book,which may not only stop him doing things,but have him imprisoned for years for doing what is guaranteed he can do as a citizen of a nation pledged and legally bound to uphold the Convention. That Human Rights Convention says that any legislation dealing with this area of law,must be clear and precise,so individuals may REGULATE THEIR BEHAVIOUR accordingly,meaning they can adjust their behaviour to save them from being charged as criminals under any domestic law impinging on the issue the Convention is there for-to help ensure basic human rights are adhered to in its member states. I hope I have made it obvious,that in respect of the bulk of this internet "extreme violent porn" this is virtually impossible. The whole thing is fraught with problems of definition,context,what is "real" what is "unreal",what is "fact" and what is "fantasy". One can reasonably contend that without a "blanket" criminalization of anything involving sex at all,trying to have clarity about what precisely is being "done" in the majority of this material, whether the material is really "extreme violent porn" or not,is impossible-to both "end user",who is threatened with prison for transgressing,as well as the prosecuting authorities who have to attempt to make something of this contrived babel of imprecision and illogic. Thus individuals and even the law's "upholders" would find themselves utterly unable in practice,to know if the material is actually illegal under the law or not. Clear and precise-that is what the Convention insists such legislation must be-the individual "user" must be left in no doubt about whether by utilizing such material they are breaking a law. If the Government ends up passing legislation using definitions given in the Consultation Paper like "Grievous bodily harm" and "Serious sexual violence" or even just "serious violence", I hope I have shown how impossible it is to "prove" what level of actual harm an "image" or piece of film actually illustrates(and remember,we are not talking about a "real" scenario,but a piece of fiction-as the document,absurdly does not acknowledge the crucial distinction between what is fact and what is fantasy!).
It might be "serious sexual violence",it might not be. Unless the legislation passed abandons unprovable generalizations such as "serious sexual violence" and specifies say-
"It is now illegal to view an image in a sexual context of a man having his penis cut off"( and of course such a phrase as "in a pornographic context" would have to be added in the legislation,because of the fact that in this-as in many such specific named criminalized images,it is quite possible for a person to be shown having such things done to them in a totally "non sexual" context-say during a medical operation!).
But under the examples given in the Consultation Paper,with most of such material,the viewer can read whatever they like into the results-the "'medical consequences"of the violence being shown(See my section concerning definitions).
Thus under the Convention,the legislation being proposed looks far too imprecise to the citizen(and to the authorities instructed to enforce it) to be acceptable for "exemption" as well. The nature of the material makes it virtually impossible for the user to know if by looking at certain images they may risk prosecution. Legislation and prosecution works on the basis that "ignorance of the law is no defense". But unless very precise actions,such as I gave in the example above,are specified,the proposed legislation fails to satisfy the requirements under the Convention to be so clear and precise,so an individual would be in no doubt about what they are and are not allowed to see,and when they are breaking the law. Imprecise phrases about the level of violence are not only subjective,but as,I have shown earlier,can't honestly and precisely be applied at all to the vast majority of this material. Even definitions used in law to apply to real life criminal injury,such as "grievous bodily harm",have no meaning when applied to fictional scenarios,where the consequences of violent acts can never be proven or known(of course they are not "real" anyway!)and are entirely subjective in the individual viewers mind-phantoms,airy nothings-yet seriously invoked by these proposals as justifying sending people to prison for years! Using words like "offensive" as justification for such legislation won't wash either. What may be "offensive" and "unacceptable" material to one person,might be entirely inoffensive, innocuous and perfectly acceptable to another. Phrases like "offensive" or "unacceptable" or "disgusting","abhorrent" etc are entirely subjective,thus a user of the material may find he is watching something totally "acceptable" to him but "unacceptable" to the man next door. Putting any of these sorts of adjectives into such severe restrictive criminal legislation-and attempting to use them as a justification for exemption from the articles of the Convention,would not meet the requirements of proof,necessity etc demanded if such exemptions are to be granted by the Court. It certainly fails the clarity test,such phrases being utterly subjective,in no way making it clear precisely what is actually "illegal" and thus leaving the citizen quite unable to judge whether viewing something may criminalizes them or not. So to sum up,lack of precision and clarity in a law-such as is being posited in the Consultation Paper-is manifestly unfair to citizens-therefore incompatable with the articles of the Human Rights Convention.
Precedents and cases-.
Mr.Rabinder Singh QC,in his submitted opinion on the Consultation Paper in relation to the Human Rights Convention, gives details of domestic and European Court of Human Rights cases pertinent to the issues of "necessity" and imprecision which detail why such legislation as is being proposed over "extreme violent pornography" will probably prove quite unacceptable to the Court responsible for upholding the articles of the Convention-the rules which member states are bound to abide by. Such a precedent of imprecision negating UK law,is that of Hashman and Harrup v the UK(2000). In this case the UK regulations stipulated "good behaviour" and used a definition "right in the judgement of contemporary fellow citizens". Such terminology was found acceptable by the ECHR as too imprecise and subjective. Yet the Government's proposals for "extreme violent pornography" legislation are couched in far more starkly subjective terms than this. In fact the entire thing is being judged in terms of moral abhorrence,with a lot of generalized commentary about the possibility that such material well maybe/might cause this or that,but ultimately admitting that it has no proof whatever to give factual backbone to all the subjective opinionating it goes in for. As "Hashman and Harrup" shows,this is insufficient grounds for having such wide ranging and severe legislation,impacting on fundemental human rights which the Government has agreed to uphold as a Convention signatory. Moral abhorrance is not proof,subjective unsupported opinions are not proof,saying "maybe it might cause this" is not proof. This is doubly the case where a single solitary Government attempts to "go it alone" and introduce legislation no other comparable one feels any need for whatsoever!. One is left wondering if the proposers of this legislation have actually studied the Articles of a Convention,which the Government itself piously made supreme over any domestic legislation by enshrining it in the Human Rights Act in 1998. Cases have already established what is actually acceptable when using a phrase like "necessity"(which the UK Government would have to prove before the European Court for such proposals to remain compatible with the rules). These precedents establish-within the UK itself-that "necessity" does not mean merely "useful" or "desirable",but meeting a pressing social need. It should also be proportionate to the aim being pursued-that is,that the state must show it has very strong,sound reasons indeed for interfering in areas of private life and personal liberty. Mr.Rabinder Singh QC quotes the judgement on "necessity" by the Noble and Learned former Law Lord,Lord Steyn. Lord Steyn states it means-
"(Whether) the legislative objective is SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO JUSTIFY LIMITING A FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT.
The measures designed to meet the legislative objective are RATIONALLY CONNECTED TO IT..."(My emphasis).
To quote Mr.Rabinder Singh QC-
"Where the interference involves an intimate area of private life WEIGHTY REASONS are required for its justification(Dudgeon v UK 1982)(My emphasis)
Now where are these "weighty reasons" in the case of "extreme violent pornography?" The Government has..er.. well none really!.
In its own document it accepts that fact,it cannot evidentially justify limiting a fundemental right on the grounds of necessity,as it is totally unable to provide any proof whatever that the right to view certain material without being criminalized is absolutely needed due to some important detremental affect the material is having-for example,creating a huge swathe of sex crimes-real life ones-which are jeopardizing the safety and security and health of UK citizens. It mentions as an "objective" regarding combatting actual criminality,another conjured up "real life" offense,venturing the opinion that maybe the production of this adult material is through some people being forced to take part in it against their will. Then admits it really has no proof whatever that this adult material is actually produced in this way. It talks of the "objective" of minimizing the extent of the availability of such violent porn material on the Net,and then admits no other country comparable to this one intends behaving in a similar way-making a mockery of any claim that independent action like this by the UK would make any real impact at all on the amount which is out there-if it would at all,and with what comes next I hope to prove it wouldn't(though other countries aren't going to do it anyway,reducing the whole of this to an empty exercise in error and wishful thinking-"Well they could join us-oh please do President Chirac,Chancellor Merkel.President Bush-we're going to be lonely on our own,looking so ridiculous-come and be fools with us in this prison of prudery we've shut ourselves into!"). We can see quite cleary when it comes to supply of pornography,that child porn flourishes and the amount of material around defeats the authorities attempts to destroy this mountain of muck-despite its being illegal and users who are caught being heavily punished over a large part of the world! The Government provides no evidence whatever that these "objectives"-mere tilting at "imaginary windmills"-could be furthered by the existence of "anti violent porn" legislation in the(isolated)UK.
But let's look a bit more closely at one of those objectives,one of those "imaginary windmills",for again,as with so much of this,it is anchored in the quicksands of fallacy. An "objective" has been created out of a non-existent problem-they know it,and admit it! The Government is forced to concede that it has no real evidence at all that this extreme violent pornography is produced using "involuntary" participants and therefore,like child porn is being created through criminality. People are not being harmed,forced to do things,being victimized in a criminal operation in making this material. So the Consultation Paper substitutes for evidence opinions and unprovable generalizations that this might be the case with some of the material being produced. Coulds and maybes,assertions unsupported,are not acceptable "evidence" that something has any reality and is actually going on. Yet here this insubstantial ghost grows like topsy and the phantom is transformed into an "objective"! Here we are being told,this Government is setting out to try to stop something happening,which it can't give reasons for anyone to credit is really happening at all-the Government being incapable of proving it's happening-and this is then erected into one of the pillars on which legislation is proposed to criminalize innumerable unhappy citizens,imprison them and label them "sex offenders"- to supposedly help curtail some illegal activity the Government has no evidence is actually occurring in the first place!. Good grief! Oh well,we might as well give another good (non-sexual) hammering to that other "imaginery windmill" which strides around calling itself an "objective" in the minds of the proposers of this legislation. Again,by admitting the fact that the UK is basically alone among advanced democracies in proposing criminalizing extreme violent porn,the Government nay says(well they have to! Can't substitute adjectives,wispy generalizations and "opinions" there!)one of its own stated objectives-though it doesn't seem clear to them that they're doing this. It talks about it's hopes of getting other Governments to go along and give a hand--providing no evidence that these wiser nations could or would be so absurd as to do so. Well-you could imagine the laughter from Paris and the glower of incredulity on the faces of the Justices of the US Supreme Court! Making it illegal in one country would have a negligible effect on its availability on the Internet. Let the example of child porn,which I brought up earlier illustrate the utter fallacy of the notion that "banning" and criminalizing the users of something will inevitably impact heavily on it,reducing the supply-it doesn't even happen when nearly all countries criminalize it-the idea that one doing it would make any difference whatever is totally absurd,the child porn situation shows this position is utterly. If child porn isn't enough to go on,think of the worldwide criminalization of drugs-boy has THAT cut down their supply and reduced the number of addicts and users!
No other country comparable to this one would wish to look so prudish,silly and authoritarian as to follow in the footsteps of such proposals as this-and if they are members of it,they know full well that such laws contravene the Human Rights Convention. Thus the proposed legislation fails to pass the tests given in Lord Steyn's judgement,that the legislative objective is "sufficiently important" to justify criminalizing aspects of an individuals private life,nor can it be shown that legislation is "rationally connected" to the stated "objectives" of reducing the amount of this material available and thus help to combat a crime-they being an epidemic of real life sex offenses directly attributable to extreme violent internet porn and the criminal production of some of the material-both matters the Government document shows it has no evidence really exist at all. So not just the measures but the "objectives" themselves defy all rationality!. A law to tackle problems that aren't there,using the legislative equivalent of an atom bomb to do it! But then to heap yet more illogic on illogic,the Government proposals don't just say-"well we'll make it illegal to view the stuff made by criminal methods as that's putting a viewer in line as an accessory to a nasty real life crime",no,it proposes to lump any(barely existent) "real" material with total fantasy involving actors!. Proposing up to 3 years in prison as a maximum penalty for viewing it!.
If all this doesn't drive a coach and horses through Lord Steyn's "Sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundemental right" and "measures must be "rationally connected to the stated objective",I don't know what does!
So it is proposed to possibly introduce legislation,substantially interfering in areas of private life,introducing criminal law where it has not been before,with no established "problem" to justify it,and no established connection whatever between the "extreme violent porn" which may be criminalized and actual real life crime epidemic whatever-the Government itself admitting it cannot deny any of this with proper evidence!.Pursuing sexual wraiths in this way,which high UK legal judgement asserts is quite unacceptably totalitarian in a society which can truly call itself a "free" one,would leave the UK Government lawyers twisting in the wind,if an attempt was made to justify it under the Articles of the Convention on Human Rights. The Government's utterly woeful and inadequate substitute for "weighty reasons" are subjective moral opinions,bald statements about certain things not being acceptable and substituting provable solid reasons to back up such words with feeble wide "well possibly" type generalizations about "harm" and the connection such material has to actual criminality here in the UK and elsewhere,with no evidential basis at all-as it has none to give.
The Court has pronounced on these matters,and its judgements will not be happy reading for anyone wishing to pass legislation such as is being proposed. The judgements aver that signatories to the Convention must "Convincingly establish" their grounds for having any legislation which interferes with a citizen's right to free _expression-which encompasses the right to view material too. This right applies to material which might "offend","shock" and "disturb" the "state" or any section of the domestic population(Mueller vs Switzerland 1991). Any interference from the state and its agents must be on "CONVINCINGLY ESTABLISHED GROUNDS"(my emphasis)(Barthold v Germany 1991). Can this be done here with the proposed UK laws? After all that has been said,one may confidently give the opinion(this time backed by real evidence!)"no". The Government itself proves this in the paucity of real evidence it provides as its "justification" for the proposed laws(to meet "objectives" that are themselves unreal airy supposition). No evidence of harm,no proven social need,no evidence this material has any bearing on real life crime,no proof that it would "save" individuals being forced to engage in a criminal activity through making such material(no evidence at all that criminality is actually involved in its production at all),no evidence that such legislation in the UK alone-and others have no plans for any-would lessen the availability of this material-which most of the rulers of advanced democracies don't regard as criminal and dangerous anyway.
Author wrote:
> Dear all
> All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to parliament.
> I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this committee, the website is :
> http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature to do so.
> Arron
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 12 Sep 2006 12:55:13 ***
rovacs, 09 Sep 2006 11:11:04
Aaaron-good you dug out the Committee I mentioned but wasn't clear about.
One of the things I think it's critical they understand is that this is legislation over which the "objectives",the reasons for it are so floored to be nonsense-see the letter I enclosed. Phantom I think mentioned they might try to fight HR claims on appeals to our fine repressive traditions about sexual material-but but-is this the actual main thrust of the "objectives" they tell the public about in the CP. Okay there's "no place in our society" type subjective moral blethering is there,but it seems to me this is being "sold" on-
A supposed real life murder and this stuff is produced by criminal methods in many cases and could be causing people to become sex criminals for real.
It will help cut down the availability of the stuff.
It's illegal anyway this closes a loophole.
Now it seems to me if those can be discredited as justifications for legislation committing big HR abuse,that really knocks the ground from under them. And most all of it can be. In fact we have statements from them which admit as much-lots from the wretched CP itself. It seems in the end a human rights abuse of this magnitude cannot rest on subjective opinion or a unique form of criminalizing private individuals in ways never dreamt of never mind done before-to address a problem nobody else in the developed world thinks is one anyway. For we have never-until Blair-locked private people up like this either because of subjective opinions about obscenity or for laws which controlled distribution of offending stuff. If they want to stop distribution get started on blocking technology or international agreement-THAT is what conforms with the actual "tradition" of how things were done here-the evil disgusting principle which underlies this legislation actuallty OFFENDS profoundly against the way we do things here! The Committee get told that once such idiocy is accepted as legitimate,reading their favourite book might land THEM in prison because a goofball like Goggins decides he doesn't think it "belongs in our society". What actually don't belong here are people who make laws dictating what a freeborn Englishman-to use the old term-may look at,Anthony the blessed and his goons,who bring our law into a human rights area the law never ventured. The sole exception child porn is there because it's to do with being accessory to a real serious crime-serious,deadly serious Tone. The justifications for blagging what might be seen as a human right to possess this nasty garbage are far stronger. Even distributing adult violent fictional porn is not on par with child sexual abuse Mr.Goggins! So we see this human rights abuse of Blair's offends against the principle of proportionality which our friends who defend human rights in the Convention etc say is a critical point of being "compatible". Is the scale of the "abuse of rights" proportionate to the actual "problem" said abusers(Blair Govt)claim they have to tackle. Well really-can this possibly be said-especially as-
Nobody else needs it.
The situation has existed for years and provided no pressing "necessitating" problems they can prove.
Once the "real crime" garbage of the Government case is demolished this stands before the Committee and the HR courts as what it is,a lazy unjustified way of trying to control distribution of material in the UK-which no other nation thinks it worth a fig to control in like manner-by massively abusing human rights and thus "incompatible". They're even having to increase the tariff for producers and distributors in order to hide the ludicrously draconian nature of the "possession" maximum penalty!!!!
Some thoughts anyway.
Author wrote:
> Dear all
> All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to parliament.
> I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this committee, the website is :
> http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature to do so.
> Arron
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 12 Sep 2006 12:56:53 ***
rovacs, 11 Sep 2006 16:17:41
See following message.
Author wrote:
> Dear all
> All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to parliament.
> I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this committee, the website is :
> http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature to do so.
> Arron
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 11 Sep 2006 16:22:21 ***
rovacs, 11 Sep 2006 16:30:58
Confession-I wrote this to bring focus back on it;to shift it higher on the list. I think it is very important indeed. It seems that this Committee should get as many people contacting them as possible. My strong belief is this proposal is utterly entirely incompatible. The reason there has been no info. forthcoming from the Home Office as to the advice they have had on the human rights angle is I suspect there has been none of any substance given to them. Locking people up on the grounds of subjective disapproval rather than firm evidence of need is incompatible with human rights guarantees. This drives a coach and horses thru it. The whole thing has its evidential basis in "might" and a bunch of anecdotes and fabrications. To my mind the Committee should be sent info. at the right time concerning the charges the likes of Salter have been making and their lack of any basis in the facts. Discredit the nonsense being peddled by shoddy rentamouths trying to make a name for themselves. Doing this disproves the basis for legislation. A pity more hadn't done this when wars are concerned. Legislate in haste,regret at leisure.
People may have opinions on the best time to contact the Committee(Green paper stage?),but it should be deluged with objections and detailed reasons why this is incompatible and a disgusting attack on the liberty of the people of this country and been brought forward supported by a gerry built foundation of misinformation and deceit.
...I will contact the Committee office and see what they recommend the public does about submitting input concerning legislation. An interesting side result of this would be this. If the Committee do not recommend that the legislation either be scrapped or massively amended(eg only to cover "real" material,which might be a reasonable compromise)their deliberations would give a good indication of the basis this Govt. says the legislation is "compatible" with human rights. This "basis" would be therefore the big area to target for a "showdown" in the human rights courts later.
Author wrote:
> Dear all
> All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to parliament.
> I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this committee, the website is :
> http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature to do so.
> Arron
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 11 Sep 2006 16:56:28 ***
rovacs, 12 Sep 2006 16:10:31
The Joint Committee advises Parliament,rather than "Government" of its opinion as to the "compatibility" etc of legislation with human rights committments/obligations. Parliament are of course free to take or leave that advice-but even if the Committee came out with severe reservations about such legislation and Parliament effectively ignored it,this would be crucial evidence to present later to the human rights courts. Parliaments own human rights Committee had been ignored etc.
Evidence from the public to Committee would be in writing. A "proper" letter rather than email may be the best way. They can be contacted with opinions and anaysis even at an early stage like this. The material should be sent to Committee Clerk Nick Walker. Again,one could probably say that the more expressed concerns about these proposals they get,the better. Giving clear details as to how it is felt such legislation breaks the HR Convention guarantees,without the strong necessities needed for exemption from the Articles to be "compatible".
Most relevant Articles are it appears 8 and 10,privacy and freedom of information respectively.
Important points concerning this legislation and its lack of human rights compatibility.(The paper by Mr Rabinder Singh QC is obviously crucial here and using it in putting together a letter to the Committee and referring to it,seems essential)-
1.It's "based" shakily,coming out of just one criminal case-and that is under Appeal.
2.Skewed and shoddy "Consultation Paper" from the Home Office asking about a "foregone conclusion"(does this break Consultation rules and regs?). Comparisons of adult and child material in this paper were wrong and totally illogical. This seriously misled the public about the quite different nature of adult and child material and about the grounds possession of child material has been criminalized upon. Calls for criminalizing possessors of adult material are subjective moral opinions,in the case of child porn it is because possessors of the material inevitably are accessories to child abuse.
3.Govt.ignored results of its own Consultation and the minister has subsequently seriously misled the public about the respondent results of the Consultation,where responders came down strongly against such a law. He has publicly stated they favoured one.
4.Propagandists for the legislation are lying and misrepresenting the facts about the material in question-snuff movies,real victims etc. People are being told often this is real murder/violence-it isn't. The "Consultation Paper" misleads as to the realities. Some MPs are doing the same.
5.No evidence of necessity due to "real life" harm has been established by Govt. Govt. admits it has no evidence of harm. When asked Minister Coaker repeatedly ducked questions about whether there was any evidence of real harm caused by the material. This is in contrast to child porn,criminalizing possession due to the serious crime. Downloading encourages real life child abuse,the sexual exploitation of non consenting minors. This makes a downloader accessory to a serious crime. This is not the case at all with adult material,ceretainly not fictional material-which it overwhelmingly is. The adult criminalization is on the basis basically of subjective opinions-moral distaste "no place in our society" etc.
6.There has been no public demand for such a law,just from a few "pressure groups". Press and public reception when legislation was announced was muted and there was a great deal of hostility-press articles,forums etc.
7.No other country comparable feels any need for such a law-why are we different?
8.The UK's history of control of sexual material by legislation was based on targetting the publish/distributor. This is what the Obscene Publications Act does. We have no history of criminalizing the reader/owner of such material who is purely a private user. A law criminalizing possession therefore greatly offends against and perverts the legal approach taken in this country and seriously takes away freedoms long enjoyed here-and does it for no reason of strongly established necessity that is essential to be compliant with human rights obligations.
9.Human rights obligations demand that there be CLARITY as to what is forbidden and criminal and what is permissable. This is so the individual may be able to properly understand what they should be doing so as not to transgress the law. At present the definitions are far too vague and ill thought out to be able to do this. Indeed it may be said that because of the very nature of the material and the fact that this is a "virtual" offense, without the kind of evidence available in cases of real harm,it will be extremely difficult to establish clarity in the case of levels of violence and indeed as to if a representation is "pornographic" or not. The evidence will often be too poor and therefore it will come down to "subjective opinion". Appalling as law and probably quite unacceptable on human rights grounds.
10.Strong possibilities of many serious miscarriages of justice.
11.There is evidence that in drawing up these proposals,the Government did not give due consideration to the huge impact they have on human rights and the obligations governments must honor regarding these. There is no evidence in the published material from the Govt. as to how such a law can be compatible with these obligations.
...and so on....
Author wrote:
> Confession-I wrote this to bring focus back on it;to shift it higher on the list. I think it is very important indeed. It seems that this Committee should get as many people contacting them as possible. My strong belief is this proposal is utterly entirely incompatible. The reason there has been no info. forthcoming from the Home Office as to the advice they have had on the human rights angle is I suspect there has been none of any substance given to them. Locking people up on the grounds of subjective disapproval rather than firm evidence of need is incompatible with human rights guarantees. This drives a coach and horses thru it. The whole thing has its evidential basis in "might" and a bunch of anecdotes and fabrications. To my mind the Committee should be sent info. at the right time concerning the charges the likes of Salter have been making and their lack of any basis in the facts. Discredit the nonsense being peddled by shoddy rentamouths trying to make a name for themselves. Doing this disproves the basis for legislation. A pity more hadn't done this when wars are concerned. Legislate in haste,regret at leisure.
> People may have opinions on the best time to contact the Committee(Green paper stage?),but it should be deluged with objections and detailed reasons why this is incompatible and a disgusting attack on the liberty of the people of this country and been brought forward supported by a gerry built foundation of misinformation and deceit.
> ...I will contact the Committee office and see what they recommend the public does about submitting input concerning legislation. An interesting side result of this would be this. If the Committee do not recommend that the legislation either be scrapped or massively amended(eg only to cover "real" material,which might be a reasonable compromise)their deliberations would give a good indication of the basis this Govt. says the legislation is "compatible" with human rights. This "basis" would be therefore the big area to target for a "showdown" in the human rights courts later.
> Author wrote:
> > Dear all
> > All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to parliament.
> > I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this committee, the website is :
> > http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> > There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature to do so.
> > Arron
>
>
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 12 Sep 2006 16:17:14 ***
Paul Tavener, 12 Sep 2006 17:58:55
Author wrote:
"...I will contact the Committee office and see what they recommend the public does about submitting input concerning legislation."
Please keep us informed about developments. I would be willing to write in as well if this was any help, although it might be best to reserve most effort until the Government have something concrete that can be shot at. Perhaps as soon as a green paper is printed?
This document may be of interest:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/239/23902.htm
it would be well to read through it for background information which can then be used in any letter, such as:
"55. By pre-legislative scrutiny we mean the examination of the human rights implications of Government policy before it is set out in the text of primary legislation, as well as examination of policy under development which may not need to be implemented by primary legislation. We see the purpose of such work as being to draw the attention of Parliament and the Government at an early stage to potential human rights pitfalls in relation to a proposed policy course. If our pre-legislative scrutiny work is successful we would expect to see a reduction in the number of human rights compatibility problems in any ensuing primary legislation. This would essentially cover Green Papers, White Papers and draft bills. On occasions it might even encompass announcements of intention by Government Ministers before publication of any document containing written proposals. As noted above, we do not plan to attempt comprehensive scrutiny of such policy and draft legislation: we will confine ourselves to those proposals which raise the most significant human rights issues, and it is probable that we will subject such pre-legislative material to the sifting process proposed for primary legislation."
"7.3 Professor Hiebert has suggested that the JCHR's effectiveness should be assessed not just by its "direct influence" (such as amendments to Bills) but by its "indirect" effect on both the public and officials as part of its "central role in" the scheme of the HRA which establishes a "dialectical relationship" between the executive, legislature and judiciary[155]. For this purpose, in addition to direct criteria like those above, the JCHR should be judged for:
viii) "creating and abetting an awareness within Parliament of the implications" of rights legislation
ix) encouraging "civil society" to participate in public debate about the appropriateness or justification of government action
x) create expectations that governments should explain and justify their actions[156]. "
This may also be of interest
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/239/23909.htm
Jon Fuller, 13 Sep 2006 03:34:02
This is a good line of enquiry.
Please remember that I wrote to every member of the Public Accounts
Committee and found it a worthwhile line to pursue. While they fobbed me off
to the NAO in connection with this appalling waste of public money (the
consultation paper and exercise) members of the committee forced Goggins to
write to me. He didn't answer many of my points but I did think it
worthwhile.
This committee will, I suspect, have a greater interest in our cause than
the PAC. Another point - please note that you're more likely to get a
response from the Lords on this list - they have no democratic legitimacy
and are more inclined to justify their existence by replying to you. On an
entirely different issue I wrote to 24 or so members of the House of Lords
around a year ago - got about a 50% response rate !
Here's the list of members: -
Member Constituency Party
Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Chair) Hendon Labour
Mr Douglas Carswell MP Harwich Conservative
Mary Creagh MP Wakefield Labour
Nia Griffith Llanelli Labour
Dr Evan Harris MP Oxford West & Abingdon Liberal Democrats
Mr Richard Shepherd MP Aldridge-Brownhills Conservative
Lord Bowness Conservative
Lord Campbell of Alloway Conservative
Lord Judd Labour
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Liberal Democrats
Lord Plant of Highfield Labour
Baroness Stern Cross Bench
And, to echo another point made recently. Make sure that for every
contribution you make to this discussion group you've made at least 5
external representations !
Cheers.
Jon
mrlucky@fastermail.com, 13 Sep 2006 03:34:02
>Subject: [backlash] RE: Joint Committee on Human Rights
>
>
>Confession-I wrote this to bring focus back on it;to shift it higher on the
>list. I think it is very important indeed. It seems that this Committee
>should get as many people contacting them as possible. My strong belief is
>this proposal is utterly entirely incompatible. The reason there has been
>no info. forthcoming from the Home Office as to the advice they have had on
>the human rights angle is I suspect there has been none of any substance
>given to them. Locking people up on the grounds of subjective disapproval
>rather than firm evidence of need is incompatible with human rights
>guarantees. This drives a coach and horses thru it. The whole thing has its
>evidential basis in "might" and a bunch of anecdotes and fabrications. To
>my mind the Committee should be sent info. vat the right time concerning
>the charges the likes of Salter have been making and their lack of any
>basis in the facts. Discredit the nonsense being peddled by shoddy
>rentamouths trying to make a name for themselves. Doing this disproves the
>basis for legislation. A pity more hadn't done this when wars are
>concerned. Legislate in haste,regret at leisure.
>People may have opinions on the best time to contact the Committee(Green
>paper stage?),but it should be deluged with objections and detailed reasons
>why this is incompatible and a disgusting attack on the liberty of the
>people of this country and been brought forward supported by a gerry built
>foundation of misinformation and deceit.
>
>Author wrote:
> > Dear all
> > All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee
>on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to
>parliament.
> > I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this
>committee, the website is :
> >
>http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> > There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual
>members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that
>the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility
>concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of
>Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature
>to do so.
> > Arron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
>To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
>Report abuse
>http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5781
rovacs, 13 Sep 2006 14:33:53
Did a bit of research on Lord Campbell,a member of the Joint Committee. Seems where privacy,freedom of speech and liberty are being interfered with without due cause he is a severe critic of such measures. He has opposed ID cards strongly,curbs on free speech in relation to religion,"draconian" measures on smoking in public places for example. I have really only looked at Lord Campbell and only superficially so far,but from what I have seen he is someone who takes invasion of privacy and civil liberties-when it is not justified to do so-very seriously.
Good on him.
Author wrote:
> This is a good line of enquiry.
> Please remember that I wrote to every member of the Public Accounts
> Committee and found it a worthwhile line to pursue. While they fobbed me off
> to the NAO in connection with this appalling waste of public money (the
> consultation paper and exercise) members of the committee forced Goggins to
> write to me. He didn't answer many of my points but I did think it
> worthwhile.
> This committee will, I suspect, have a greater interest in our cause than
> the PAC. Another point - please note that you're more likely to get a
> response from the Lords on this list - they have no democratic legitimacy
> and are more inclined to justify their existence by replying to you. On an
> entirely different issue I wrote to 24 or so members of the House of Lords
> around a year ago - got about a 50% response rate !
> Here's the list of members: -
> Member Constituency Party
> Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Chair) Hendon Labour
> Mr Douglas Carswell MP Harwich Conservative
> Mary Creagh MP Wakefield Labour
> Nia Griffith Llanelli Labour
> Dr Evan Harris MP Oxford West & Abingdon Liberal Democrats
> Mr Richard Shepherd MP Aldridge-Brownhills Conservative
> Lord Bowness Conservative
> Lord Campbell of Alloway Conservative
> Lord Judd Labour
> Lord Lester of Herne Hill Liberal Democrats
> Lord Plant of Highfield Labour
> Baroness Stern Cross Bench
> And, to echo another point made recently. Make sure that for every
> contribution you make to this discussion group you've made at least 5
> external representations !
> Cheers.
> Jon
m: mrlucky@fastermail.com, 13 Sep 2006 14:33:53
> >Subject: [backlash] RE: Joint Committee on Human Rights
> >
> >
> >Confession-I wrote this to bring focus back on it;to shift it higher on the
> >list. I think it is very important indeed. It seems that this Committee
> >should get as many people contacting them as possible. My strong belief is
> >this proposal is utterly entirely incompatible. The reason there has been
> >no info. forthcoming from the Home Office as to the advice they have had on
> >the human rights angle is I suspect there has been none of any substance
> >given to them. Locking people up on the grounds of subjective disapproval
> >rather than firm evidence of need is incompatible with human rights
> >guarantees. This drives a coach and horses thru it. The whole thing has its
> >evidential basis in "might" and a bunch of anecdotes and fabrications. To
> >my mind the Committee should be sent info. vat the right time concerning
> >the charges the likes of Salter have been making and their lack of any
> >basis in the facts. Discredit the nonsense being peddled by shoddy
> >rentamouths trying to make a name for themselves. Doing this disproves the
> >basis for legislation. A pity more hadn't done this when wars are
> >concerned. Legislate in haste,regret at leisure.
> >People may have opinions on the best time to contact the Committee(Green
> >paper stage?),but it should be deluged with objections and detailed reasons
> >why this is incompatible and a disgusting attack on the liberty of the
> >people of this country and been brought forward supported by a gerry built
> >foundation of misinformation and deceit.
> >
> >Author wrote:
> > > Dear all
> > > All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee
> >on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to
> >parliament.
> > > I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this
> >committee, the website is :
> > >
> >http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> > > There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual
> >members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that
> >the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility
> >concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of
> >Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature
> >to do so.
> > > Arron
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> >visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> >To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> >Report abuse
> >http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5781
rovacs, 13 Sep 2006 20:07:18
Extract from Ch 42 Section 19 Subsection 1 of the "Human Rights Act" 1998 regarding the need for a statement with regard to the compatibility with said Act of any Primary legislation by the Minister responsible for that legislation.
"Parliamentary procedure-Statements of compatibility
19. - (1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill-
(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights ("a statement of compatibility"); or
(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate."
Author wrote:
> Did a bit of research on Lord Campbell,a member of the Joint Committee. Seems where privacy,freedom of speech and liberty are being interfered with without due cause he is a severe critic of such measures. He has opposed ID cards strongly,curbs on free speech in relation to religion,"draconian" measures on smoking in public places for example. I have really only looked at Lord Campbell and only superficially so far,but from what I have seen he is someone who takes invasion of privacy and civil liberties-when it is not justified to do so-very seriously.
> Good on him.
> Author wrote:
> > This is a good line of enquiry.
> > Please remember that I wrote to every member of the Public Accounts
> > Committee and found it a worthwhile line to pursue. While they fobbed me off
> > to the NAO in connection with this appalling waste of public money (the
> > consultation paper and exercise) members of the committee forced Goggins to
> > write to me. He didn't answer many of my points but I did think it
> > worthwhile.
> > This committee will, I suspect, have a greater interest in our cause than
> > the PAC. Another point - please note that you're more likely to get a
> > response from the Lords on this list - they have no democratic legitimacy
> > and are more inclined to justify their existence by replying to you. On an
> > entirely different issue I wrote to 24 or so members of the House of Lords
> > around a year ago - got about a 50% response rate !
> > Here's the list of members: -
> > Member Constituency Party
> > Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Chair) Hendon Labour
> > Mr Douglas Carswell MP Harwich Conservative
> > Mary Creagh MP Wakefield Labour
> > Nia Griffith Llanelli Labour
> > Dr Evan Harris MP Oxford West & Abingdon Liberal Democrats
> > Mr Richard Shepherd MP Aldridge-Brownhills Conservative
> > Lord Bowness Conservative
> > Lord Campbell of Alloway Conservative
> > Lord Judd Labour
> > Lord Lester of Herne Hill Liberal Democrats
> > Lord Plant of Highfield Labour
> > Baroness Stern Cross Bench
> > And, to echo another point made recently. Make sure that for every
> > contribution you make to this discussion group you've made at least 5
> > external representations !
> > Cheers.
> > Jon
rom: mrlucky@fastermail.com, 13 Sep 2006 20:07:18
> > >Subject: [backlash] RE: Joint Committee on Human Rights
> > >
> > >
> > >Confession-I wrote this to bring focus back on it;to shift it higher on the
> > >list. I think it is very important indeed. It seems that this Committee
> > >should get as many people contacting them as possible. My strong belief is
> > >this proposal is utterly entirely incompatible. The reason there has been
> > >no info. forthcoming from the Home Office as to the advice they have had on
> > >the human rights angle is I suspect there has been none of any substance
> > >given to them. Locking people up on the grounds of subjective disapproval
> > >rather than firm evidence of need is incompatible with human rights
> > >guarantees. This drives a coach and horses thru it. The whole thing has its
> > >evidential basis in "might" and a bunch of anecdotes and fabrications. To
> > >my mind the Committee should be sent info. vat the right time concerning
> > >the charges the likes of Salter have been making and their lack of any
> > >basis in the facts. Discredit the nonsense being peddled by shoddy
> > >rentamouths trying to make a name for themselves. Doing this disproves the
> > >basis for legislation. A pity more hadn't done this when wars are
> > >concerned. Legislate in haste,regret at leisure.
> > >People may have opinions on the best time to contact the Committee(Green
> > >paper stage?),but it should be deluged with objections and detailed reasons
> > >why this is incompatible and a disgusting attack on the liberty of the
> > >people of this country and been brought forward supported by a gerry built
> > >foundation of misinformation and deceit.
> > >
> > >Author wrote:
> > > > Dear all
> > > > All parliamentary legislation undergoes scrutiny by the Joint Committee
> > >on Human Rights for compatibility with the ECHR, before it is introduced to
> > >parliament.
> > > > I therefore believe that we should target lobbying efforts at this
> > >committee, the website is :
> > > >
> > >http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights.cfm
> > > > There is a contact page, but it warns against contacting individual
> > >members. I intend to contact the Committee's clerk, and forewarn them that
> > >the government has suppressed serious and credible ECHR incompatibility
> > >concerns in its consultation report. I will also send them a copy of
> > >Rabinder Singh's opinion, once I have ascertained that it is not premature
> > >to do so.
> > > > Arron
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > >visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > >
> > >To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > >
> > >Report abuse
> > >http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5781