Thursday, 26 January 2012

European Court of Human Rights ...

According to a report in the Frankfurter Algemeine, the daily newspaper Mausi reads and the Monk struggles through with dictionary in hand, carried an article today that claims Mr Cameron, the PM of the UK at present, is not alone in having serious reservations about this court's interference in "sovereign" affairs of member states. There are now a number of people becoming seriously concerned at the manner in which this court is being used to overturn matters which are reserved for EU Members sovereign Parliaments, or to interfere in the administration of justice.

Even, it is reported, the Bench of Judges in the ECHR are concerned and recognise that the problem lies in the constitution and remit of the court, not in the rulings, which, after all, must be framed within the parameters of their remit. It is now being seriously suggested that this court needs to be reconstituted and its remit made narrower so that conflicts cannot arise between the interests of the sovereign member states and the overall intent of the Convention on Human Rights.

Calls are being made from German, French, and other states for this to happen soon. All the member states are saddled, as is the UK, with people they know are criminals, but can't deport, because of rulings in the ECHR. There are other matters as well, like the "right" to vote being granted to prisoners serving sentences. This has caused more than a few Teutonic expletives in Germany. There are other examples as well, where a nation's legal system, or its right to govern in accordance with the wishes of the majority of that country, have been, and are being, challenged in the ECHR with the consequent loss of sovereignty for the nation concerned.

Mr Cameron was loudly mocked for his stance recently over Abu Qatada and the ECHR ruling, but it would seem he is not alone in Europe on this issue. Perhaps the Brussels Bureaucrats will get their act together and sort it out instead of meddling in other matters they have no right to.

1 comment:

  1. This is what we get for trying to establish the principle of 'universal justice'. I often debated with my students the differences between 'justice' and 'legality'. The way each nation state reflects justice in their legal framework is different, usually for valid reasons. where there is a 'supreme court' overlooking these various systems, they rarely understand the underpinning rationale behind the original judgements. They therefore apply an unconditional razor of 'fairness'. The result is that the old testament solution of "an eye for an eye..." (Ex. 21:23, 24) Is interpreted as the firmly new testament "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mat. 5:39) Neither is right, neither is wrong, but to supplant one with the other in the interests of 'fairness' is mixing apples and oranges.

    To continue the fruit based simile;
    Knowledge is knowing that Tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad.