... Amnesty claims
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-leading-the-charge-against-basic-human-rights-amnesty-claims-10067989.html?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=20150225135600&utm_campaign=Amnesty
QuoteBritain is leading the charge against basic human rights, Amnesty claims
Increased surveillance in Britain, along with the reduction of access to justice, have contributed to one of the worst assaults on human rights in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall, according to a damning assessment by Amnesty International.
In its annual State of the World's Human Rights report published today, Amnesty says the Coalition had rushed through legislation such as anti-terror measures and invasive surveillance powers without adequate time for parliamentary debate.
The NGO condemns David Cameron for not only "leading the charge" in attacking the European Convention on Human Rights, but also for passing legislation that, while designed to increase public safety, has come at the cost of basic civil liberties.
The Prime Minister has confirmed that a future Conservative government would also repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, with a view to limiting the influence of the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the Convention.
Amnesty's report warns that those draft proposals threaten significant restrictions on rights. At the same time legal aid cuts "continue to restrict access to justice".
In its assessment Amnesty says the influence of "nationalist, thinly veiled xenophobic attitudes" was particularly evident in increasingly restrictive migration policies and anti-EU tirades, with human rights a particular target.
The report says: "The UK and Switzerland led the charge, with ruling parties in both countries openly attacking the European Court of Human Rights and discussing withdrawal from the Convention system. In short, at no time since the fall of the Berlin Wall had the integrity of, and support for, the international human rights framework in the Europe and Central Asia region appeared quite so brittle."
Referring to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force last July, extending the reach of authorities' interception powers, the report says "sufficient safeguards were not in place to ensure that such surveillance was authorised and carried out in conformity with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression".
Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK, said: "The UK is going in the wrong direction on rights, protections and fairness. Public safety is paramount, but not at the cost of basic civil liberties.
"Twice this year GCHQ spies have been rumbled breaking the law. We should all be concerned about waking up in a surveillance state, without having a proper public debate about it first. The UK talks the talk on the global stage on human rights but this year's summary shows they need to tend to their own garden."
The shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, told The Independent: "The belligerent attitude of the Tories towards human rights, access to justice and the rule of law is doing real damage to our international reputation."
The global report also condemns world leaders for failing to intervene in conflicts such as Syria, Gaza and Ukraine, in what it calls a "catastrophic year" for millions of people caught up in violence.
Amnesty called on the UN Security Council to renounce its veto power – wielded solely by the five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – to make it easier for peacekeeping forces to be deployed to prevent genocide or mass atrocities.
QuoteThe global report also condemns world leaders for failing to intervene in conflicts such as Syria, Gaza and Ukraine, in what it calls a "catastrophic year" for millions of people caught up in violence.
Amnesty called on the UN Security Council to renounce its veto power – wielded solely by the five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – to make it easier for peacekeeping forces to be deployed to prevent genocide or mass atrocities.
You know what each of those situations needed? NATO airstrikes and UN peacekeepers. That never fails.
Shark has been jumped.
Thank God the ACLU is sane.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:01:55 PM
Thank God the ACLU is sane.
That's because it's all lawyers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2015, 02:08:46 PM
That's because it's all lawyers.
I think it's because they have an agreed upon text, the Constitution, that guides their positions. Amnesty can just make up whatever shit they want to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:01:55 PM
Shark has been jumped.
How so?
If there is a lack of legal aid, that certainly could hamper the access to justice for people who do not have money. That seems a reasonable thing to decry if you're a human rights organization.
The proposed British Bill of Rights to replace the current bill of Human Rights coupled with a withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights seems to be just what they're saying, an attempt to undermine the European Convention on Human Rights. That too seems quite reasonable for a group like Amnesty International to call problematic.
Criticism of anti-terror and surveillance measures seems pretty solidly within AI's remit, and not particularly outlandish either.
That anti-immigration and anti-EU sentiments shades into xenophobia at times does not seem particularly outlandish either, and if both sentiments are on the rise then it seems reasonable enough for AI to point it out in their report. That's the kind of thing their report is supposed to be about.
As for millions of people suffering in Syria, Ukraine, and indeed Gaza that seems pretty factual; for an organization like AI to call for world leaders to work towards preventing that kind of suffering seems pretty standard.
Where's the shark jumping, exactly?
Syt's thread title - or rather the Independent's headline which he quoted - is a little misleading, also. The actual quote (from the article):
"The UK and Switzerland led the charge, with ruling parties in both countries openly attacking the European Court of Human Rights and discussing withdrawal from the Convention system."
Unlike what the headline implies, the report is not saying that the UK is somehow ahead of Russia or Iran or Qatar in abusing human rights; they are talking about undermining the existing international human rights legal framework, which the current UK government is in fact looking to disassociate themselves from.
QuoteAs for millions of people suffering in Syria, Ukraine, and indeed Gaza that seems pretty factual; for an organization like AI to call for world leaders to work towards preventing that kind of suffering seems pretty standard.
What a bullshit spin. That is not what that said.
They were calling for military intervention. Asking that the UNSC remove the veto so we could send in more peacekeepers? In war zones? You send in peacekeepers when the war is over. And if they are talking about a Chapter VII intervention...well do I really need to elaborate? Do you see why that would be insane in all three of those scenarios? But maybe the article is being misleading on what AI was actually asking for.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:19:00 PM
How so?
Fair enough, a lot of it is Independent spin.
But you have to admit that the idea of ending the UNSC veto so that peacekeepers could rush to Ukraine and Syria is deeply, deeply retarded.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:23:28 PM
Syt's thread title - or rather the Independent's headline which he quoted - is a little misleading, also. The actual quote (from the article):
"The UK and Switzerland led the charge, with ruling parties in both countries openly attacking the European Court of Human Rights and discussing withdrawal from the Convention system."
Unlike what the headline implies, the report is not saying that the UK is somehow ahead of Russia or Iran or Qatar in abusing human rights; they are talking about undermining the existing international human rights legal framework, which the current UK government is in fact looking to disassociate themselves from.
Yeah I was going to address that separately. The title of the article is not what AI said, it said the Brits and the Swiss are leading the charge opposing the ECHR. So bullshit clickbait title.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 02:26:50 PM
QuoteAs for millions of people suffering in Syria, Ukraine, and indeed Gaza that seems pretty factual; for an organization like AI to call for world leaders to work towards preventing that kind of suffering seems pretty standard.
What a bullshit spin. That is not what that said.
They were calling for military intervention. Asking that the UNSC remove the veto so we could send in more peacekeepers? In war zones? You send in peacekeepers when the war is over. And if they are talking about a Chapter VII intervention...well do I really need to elaborate? Do you see why that would be insane in all three of those scenarios?
Given the Independent's spin in the headline, I don't think we should judge what Amnesty's report said based on last paragraph in the article.
In fact... looking at the actual report, this is what it says re: the Veto:
Quote from: Amnesty International's 2014-15 Annual ReportThe above list - as this latest annual report on the state of human rights in 160 countries clearly shows - barely begins to scratch the surface. Some might argue that nothing can be done, that war has always been at the expense of the civilian population, and that nothing can ever change.
This is wrong. It is essential to confront violations against civilians, and to bring to justice those responsible. Amnesty International has welcomed the proposal, now backed by around 40 governments, for the UN Security Council to adopt a code of conduct agreeing to voluntarily refrain from using the veto in a way which would block Security Council action in situations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The report is here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report-201415/
So it seems it's the Independent that has jumped the shark, not Amnesty International.
Much more reasonable. :)
However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:31:08 PM
Given the Independent's spin in the headline, I don't think we should judge what Amnesty's report said based on last paragraph in the article.
Agreed I said that in the edit. I was explicitly going on what the article said AI said. And so were you, you were calling it 'pretty standard'.
QuoteIn fact... looking at the actual report, this is what it says re: the Veto:
Quote from: Amnesty International's 2014-15 Annual ReportThe above list - as this latest annual report on the state of human rights in 160 countries clearly shows - barely begins to scratch the surface. Some might argue that nothing can be done, that war has always been at the expense of the civilian population, and that nothing can ever change.
This is wrong. It is essential to confront violations against civilians, and to bring to justice those responsible. Amnesty International has welcomed the proposal, now backed by around 40 governments, for the UN Security Council to adopt a code of conduct agreeing to voluntarily refrain from using the veto in a way which would block Security Council action in situations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The report is here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/annual-report-201415/
That seems straight forward that they think UN Chapter VII interventions are the way to go.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:33:27 PM
Much more reasonable. :)
Does it? What sort of Security Council action should have been taken in those circumstances? Besides that this idea would almost certainly lead to the total elimination of the UN, and I still think it has its uses.
QuoteHowever, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? :hmm:
And why every 'genocide' protocol doesn't work. Unless somebody able and willing to do something about it unilaterally declares it such. Not sure what the solution is to that.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:32:41 PM
So it seems it's the Independent that has jumped the shark, not Amnesty International.
If you say so. Calling for UN interventions in these three circumstances seems pretty shark-jumping. If they mean more interventions in general well...even that is precarious.
However the Independent is most certainly shit judging by the headline. No argument there.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 02:39:01 PM
Does it?
It am!
Much more reasonable than the wacko stuff in the Independent article.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:33:27 PM
Much more reasonable. :)
However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? :hmm:
Yeah, there's a certain amount of political sausage making inherent in that process that perhaps is not completely addressed by Amnesty International's somewhat idealistic approach.
I expect their answer is along the lines of the European Convention of Human Right and the European Court of Human Rights, which I expect is one of the reasons they're down on Cameron for wanting to withdraw from those.
And that, I suspect, is the reason for the Independent's hatchet job (well, that and the click-bait).
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:41:16 PM
I expect their answer is along the lines of the European Convention of Human Right and the European Court of Human Rights, which I expect is one of the reasons they're down on Cameron for wanting to withdraw from those.
They could probably come up with a ruling in 3-5 years, if the matter were particularly pressing.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 02:40:38 PM
If you say so. Calling for UN interventions in these three circumstances seems pretty shark-jumping. If they mean more interventions in general well...even that is precarious.
I'll give you that it's somewhat idealistic to hope and call for that the UN live up to its lofty ideals of protecting and promoting human rights and intervening to prevent atrocities and genocide.
I don't rate that as shark jumping, though. Amnesty International's entire purpose is to call for groups, governments, and organizations to live up to the lofty ideals they claim to have regarding human rights et. al., and to call them out where they fall short.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:43:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:41:16 PM
I expect their answer is along the lines of the European Convention of Human Right and the European Court of Human Rights, which I expect is one of the reasons they're down on Cameron for wanting to withdraw from those.
They could probably come up with a ruling in 3-5 years, if the matter were particularly pressing.
Oh you cynic you :lol:
Once again, well-wishers appear to wish that the UN acted like a real international sovereign ... at least to prevent atrocities. Sounds great in theory.
No-one ever seems to consider that the use of power ain't that simple, that it is effectively impossible to make the UN truly sovereign over situations involving atrocities but not otherwise, that pretty well any situation involving conflict these days has well-wishers finding atrocties committed by all sides (even reasonable people disagree over what consitutes an "atrocity", and the UN ain't even made up of reasonable people, but of diplomats), and that any system that depends on its members essentially volunteering ther services cannot act as a sovereign in the first place.
It is pretty obvious who, if the UN veto was ever lifted in situations involving "war crimes", would be among the first on the chopping block - that would be Israel, the world champion war crimes committer ... if one goes by the UN. :D
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:45:38 PM
Oh you cynic you :lol:
Hardly. Those institutions being the way they are, they would undoubtedly include appeal mechanisms, requirements of evidence, etc., etc.
Our politics is unbelievably stupid on the subject of human rights :bleeding: :weep: :Embarrass:
Slightly off topic:
You know what is grinding my gears? Hate speech laws.
You may go back to your amnesty thingy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2015, 03:32:41 PM
Our politics is unbelievably stupid on the subject of human rights :bleeding: :weep: :Embarrass:
Is your government still video recording everybody?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:33:27 PM
However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? :hmm:
The UN Security Council. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 03:41:21 PM
Is your government still video recording everybody?
That's not what I meant :P
I'll never understand the objections to CCTV.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2015, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 03:41:21 PM
Is your government still video recording everybody?
That's not what I meant :P
I'll never understand the objections to CCTV.
Huh. And you don't mind the NSA stuff either :hmm:
If you have a problem with human rights abuses it must really be serious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2015, 03:47:27 PM
I'll never understand the objections to CCTV.
Most people have an expectation of not being seen when they walk out in public.
If they don't have an expectation to be seen, they wouldn't spend so much money on clothing.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 03:48:35 PM
Huh. And you don't mind the NSA stuff either :hmm:
I don't think either come close to human rights issues. Civil liberties at best - and even then they're a piss-poor example.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2015, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 03:48:35 PM
Huh. And you don't mind the NSA stuff either :hmm:
I don't think either come close to human rights issues. Civil liberties at best - and even then they're a piss-poor example.
I am well aware we could not disagree more on this issue.
So what is it that Britain is doing that goes beyond this sort of thing?
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 03:57:30 PM
So what is it that Britain is doing that goes beyond this sort of thing?
I'd guess attempting to withdraw from the European Human Rights Convention and the European Court of Human Rights and replace it with a homegrown British Human Rights act taking local sensibilities into account and avoiding pesky oversight by someone not answerable to Her Majesty's Government.
The report by Amnesty International mentions that, as it happens.
The Tories want to abolish the Human Rights Act which doesn't give courts the right to overrule Parliament but requires that they interpret legislation in accord with the European Convention on Human Rights (and they should take a more purposive approach to interpretation), if that's impossible then they issue a declaration of incompatibility. When that's happened the government has changed legislation to make it compatible with the HRA.
The Tories have this mad idea that this has somehow led to unelected judges (often European judges) overruling Parliament which is nonsense and constitutionally not very possible. So they want to abolish that and pull the UK out of the ECHR which is part of the Council of Europe and includes countries like Turkey and Russia and was written by British lawyers after WW2. Despite the fact that the UK has the best record of big European countries in terms of cases the European Court of Human Rights takes, and finds against that country.
They want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights (you'll note, of course, that we already have a Bill of Rights and the rather more famous one across the Atlantic explicitly allows judges to overrule the legislature - but today's Tory party is incredibly ignorant and indifferent to our constitution, see the EU referendum bill, fixed term Parliaments etc) which leads naturally to Lord Bingham's question of which of the European Convention's human rights would Britain be opting out of precisely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
But we've got a weird tabloid-driven panic about the whole thing :bleeding:
From the report on the UK:
QuoteIn October, Prime Minister Cameron confirmed that, if elected, a Conservative Party government would repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, with a view to limiting the influence of the European Court of Human Rights. Draft proposals threatened significant restrictions on rights.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/united-kingdom/report-united-kingdom/
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 04:17:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 03:57:30 PM
So what is it that Britain is doing that goes beyond this sort of thing?
I'd guess attempting to withdraw from the European Human Rights Convention and the European Court of Human Rights and replace it with a homegrown British Human Rights act taking local sensibilities into account and avoiding pesky oversight by someone not answerable to Her Majesty's Government.
The report by Amnesty International mentions that, as it happens.
Yes I read the article Jake. I was wanting to know what specifically bothered Sheilbh.
But withdrawing from treaties and wanting sovereignty protected does not necessarily mean you are going to abuse human rights.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2015, 04:18:39 PM
But we've got a weird tabloid-driven panic about the whole thing :bleeding:
Sounds depressingly familiar.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 02:44:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 02:40:38 PM
If you say so. Calling for UN interventions in these three circumstances seems pretty shark-jumping. If they mean more interventions in general well...even that is precarious.
I'll give you that it's somewhat idealistic to hope and call for that the UN live up to its lofty ideals of protecting and promoting human rights and intervening to prevent atrocities and genocide.
I don't rate that as shark jumping, though. Amnesty International's entire purpose is to call for groups, governments, and organizations to live up to the lofty ideals they claim to have regarding human rights et. al., and to call them out where they fall short.
I just want to note that I was only in disagreement with AI on this one issue. It is Yi saying they may or may not have jumped the shark.
In terms of particular annoyances at human rights I'm very pissed off at the commercial arm of the Ministry of Justice (WHAT? :blink:) doing deals providing British expertise in punishment services to, say, Saudi Arabia:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/ministry-justice-contract-saudi-arabia-prison
:ultra:
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 04:19:37 PM
Yes I read the article Jake. I was wanting to know what specifically bothered Sheilbh.
Fair enough. I just offered my guess before he answers :)
QuoteBut withdrawing from treaties and wanting sovereignty protected does not necessarily mean you are going to abuse human rights.
That's definitely what Cameron is arguing. And you're right, it doesn't mean you're going to abuse human rights.
But withdrawing from international institutions and frameworks certainly makes it easier and more tempting to do so. The whole point is to have an external body to give you a check. And withdrawing from those conventions smacks of being a tinpot dictator or Putinist pseudo-democracy. You can come up with reasons that you think justify violating international human rights conventions, sure; but redefining them so you can say "sure we're violating 'International conventions' but by our own convenient definition, everything is A-OK" is pretty shady IMO.
Dismantling and/or withdrawing from institutions that promote accountability is a step in the wrong direction.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2015, 04:26:36 PM
In terms of particular annoyances at human rights I'm very pissed off at the commercial arm of the Ministry of Justice (WHAT? :blink:) doing deals providing British expertise in punishment services to, say, Saudi Arabia:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/ministry-justice-contract-saudi-arabia-prison
:ultra:
:blink:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:33:27 PM
However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? :hmm:
Yeah, that is what I thought when I heard the news story. So instead of there is going to be a veto on whether an event falls within those categories. Not much progress.
The real problem is that the UN was created to deal with a Cold War world. It doesn't function particularly well in the present circumstances.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 04:29:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 04:19:37 PM
Yes I read the article Jake. I was wanting to know what specifically bothered Sheilbh.
Fair enough. I just offered my guess before he answers :)
QuoteBut withdrawing from treaties and wanting sovereignty protected does not necessarily mean you are going to abuse human rights.
That's definitely what Cameron is arguing. And you're right, it doesn't mean you're going to abuse human rights.
But withdrawing from international institutions and frameworks certainly makes it easier and more tempting to do so. The whole point is to have an external body to give you a check. And withdrawing from those conventions smacks of being a tinpot dictator or Putinist pseudo-democracy. You can come up with reasons that you think justify violating international human rights conventions, sure; but redefining them so you can say "sure we're violating 'International conventions' but by our own convenient definition, everything is A-OK" is pretty shady IMO.
Dismantling and/or withdrawing from institutions that promote accountability is a step in the wrong direction.
On the other hand there is no chance that any Canadian jurisdiction would think it proper that its Human Rights Code be interpreted in accordance with the law in a foreign jurisdiction. I am not sure what is so terrible about that.
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 04:31:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2015, 04:26:36 PM
In terms of particular annoyances at human rights I'm very pissed off at the commercial arm of the Ministry of Justice (WHAT? :blink:) doing deals providing British expertise in punishment services to, say, Saudi Arabia:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/ministry-justice-contract-saudi-arabia-prison
:ultra:
:blink:
The contract is "to conduct a training needs analysis across all the learning and development programmes within the Saudi Arabian prison service".
Why is that so terrible?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2015, 02:33:27 PM
However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? :hmm:
Forensinc anthropologist, once the war is over and they can safely examine mass grave sites and determine the proper cause of death.
Or the usual: international/NATO/UN observers make a report on a situation and call it war crimes or crimes against humanity, but generally refrain from calling it genocide. The stuff that usually leads to a Security council vote on actions to be taken, really. Same as now, but with a provision to restrain from using veto instead of US/China/Russia blocking any intervention outside of the French or British sphere of influence.
Quote from: viper37 on February 25, 2015, 08:12:45 PM
Forensinc anthropologist, once the war is over and they can safely examine mass grave sites and determine the proper cause of death.
Buddy of mine did that in the former Yugorapistan, back in the late '90s.
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 01:59:14 PM
QuoteThe global report also condemns world leaders for failing to intervene in conflicts such as Syria, Gaza and Ukraine, in what it calls a "catastrophic year" for millions of people caught up in violence.
Amnesty called on the UN Security Council to renounce its veto power – wielded solely by the five permanent members, Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – to make it easier for peacekeeping forces to be deployed to prevent genocide or mass atrocities.
You know what each of those situations needed? NATO airstrikes and UN peacekeepers. That never fails.
Having US planes smashing Russian armour would definitely de-escalate the situation, right?
At any rate, without a US veto, the Security Council has no legitimacy.
Quote from: Nei
At any rate, without a US veto, the Security Council has no legitimacy.
OTOH, I have no problem with the idea of Britian, France, China, and Russia give up their vetoes.
Quote from: dps on February 25, 2015, 08:50:23 PM
Quote from: Nei
At any rate, without a US veto, the Security Council has no legitimacy.
OTOH, I have no problem with the idea of Britian, France, China, and Russia give up their vetoes.
Clearly. The Britain and the Russian state are irrelevancies, China has never been a global power and France is useful, but limited.
Everybody knows Ameica is the real threat to world peace, with it's hetreonormative CIS gendered white male power structure.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2015, 09:46:21 PM
Everybody knows Ameica is the real threat to world peace, with it's hetreonormative CIS gendered white male power structure.
The fuck does Mark Harmon have to do with anything?
I laughed
With the threatened withdrawal from the ECHR by the UK I'm not overly worried that Britain will descend into an oppressive dictatorship overnight. I'm worried about the precedent this will create for countries that have in the past been unhappy with the rulings of the European Human Rights Courts, like Russia or Turkey, if a nation who was instrumental in creating the system abandons it. It will significantly lower the threshold for them to say that their definition of human rights is not represented by the ECHR and therefore they withdraw, because they refuse to have alien (decadent) values imposed on their countries.
Exactly.
QuoteWhy is that so terrible?
Well it's not clear.
There's no transparency. The MoU between the Saudis and the MoJ hasn't been released because it's 'commercially sensitive' (let's not forget we dropped an investigation into corruption into arms sales to the Saudis our of national security sensitivities), add in the flag at half mast when Abdullah died and there's a difference between being an ally which is probably justifiable and being supine. And isn't there a question of a conflict of interest if the MoJ is a commercial client of the Saudi state if, for example, another corruption investigation into British-Saudi links were to proceed?
Because of the lack of transparency we're not sure what they'll be doing. AI have rightly asked whether they'll be able to challenge any problems or abuses they may find? Let's assume that there's a possibility that this MoJ team possibly find what we'd consider malpractice in the Saudi punishment system. Are they able to challenge that or to try to prevent abuse and what is their own position in terms of human rights safeguards?
The MoJ is also probably the worst affected by the government cuts of the last 5 years and Chris Grayling a shockingly incompetent minister. I'm not convinced on principle that we should be selling the services of our civil service to try and get them to make money by providing services to other countries. But I think in the most stretched government department it's a particularly bad idea. It's worth pointing out that this 'company' doesn't have a separate profit and loss accounts and isn't trading under relevant law - it's a part of the MoJ but apparently 'commercial sensitivity' in current and future negotiations mean it's not subject to freedom of information requests.
Ultimately doesn't this also lend legitimacy to the whole system of Saudi punishment. 'We've had training in best practice from the British government'.
The whole thing stinks in my opinion and is symptomatic of many of the problems with this government <_<
Quote from: Jacob on February 25, 2015, 04:17:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 25, 2015, 03:57:30 PM
So what is it that Britain is doing that goes beyond this sort of thing?
I'd guess attempting to withdraw from the European Human Rights Convention and the European Court of Human Rights and replace it with a homegrown British Human Rights act taking local sensibilities into account and avoiding pesky oversight by someone not answerable to Her Majesty's Government.
The report by Amnesty International mentions that, as it happens.
UK Judges are not answerable to the Government. 99% of the beef with the ECHR revolves around extradition of terrorists (alleged or convicted).
And the other 1% is votes for prisoners.
Quote from: Syt on February 26, 2015, 01:20:30 AM
With the threatened withdrawal from the ECHR by the UK I'm not overly worried that Britain will descend into an oppressive dictatorship overnight.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnibler.ru%2Fuploads%2Fusers%2F7555%2F2012-09-29%2Fnavsegda-svoboda-eto-interesno-poznavatelno-kartinki_81122276.jpg&hash=1ff750a731fd9c326e8a641fb8a3ab781d516edf)
:hmm:
I expected you to go with
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mckellen.com%2Fimages%2Fr3%2Fban-15.jpg&hash=657db37f2f8ed2dde08730f47039723899cc7349)
Same shit. :P
Quote from: Gups on February 26, 2015, 03:12:54 AM
99% of the beef with the ECHR revolves around extradition of terrorists (alleged or convicted).
Please elaborate.
I think much of this is just about the Tories playing to and shoring up support with Daily Mail readers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 25, 2015, 09:52:36 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 25, 2015, 09:46:21 PM
Everybody knows Ameica is the real threat to world peace, with it's hetreonormative CIS gendered white male power structure.
The fuck does Mark Harmon have to do with anything?
The sons of Heisman Trophy winners are always relevant! :mad:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 26, 2015, 09:01:51 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 26, 2015, 03:12:54 AM
99% of the beef with the ECHR revolves around extradition of terrorists (alleged or convicted).
Please elaborate.
The ECHR and specifically the prohibitions on torture and the death penalties prevents the UK Govt from extraditing known or alleged terrorists to countries where that prohibition may be breached, including the US. Sometimes guarantees can be given by the transferee country and that may be sufficient to persuade the Court (e.g. the US has guaranteed on some occasions that the death penalty won't be imposed) but not in others, where the transferee country is not trusted to keep its promise.
This is regarded by much of the press and the public as forcing the UK to keep terrorists in the country. In many cases they are also illegally here. And in most cases they are not charged with any offence in the UK so are entirely free (but subject to our allegedly fascistic state surveillance apparatus).
Thanks Guppy.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2015, 01:36:54 AM
There's no transparency. The MoU between the Saudis and the MoJ hasn't been released because it's 'commercially sensitive' (let's not forget we dropped an investigation into corruption into arms sales to the Saudis our of national security sensitivities), add in the flag at half mast when Abdullah died and there's a difference between being an ally which is probably justifiable and being supine. And isn't there a question of a conflict of interest if the MoJ is a commercial client of the Saudi state if, for example, another corruption investigation into British-Saudi links were to proceed?
They are in the bidding process and they have said that the details of the contract will be made public if they are awarded the contract. Why would you want them to disclose the details of their bid to their competitors during the bidding process?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 26, 2015, 05:15:13 PM
They are in the bidding process and they have said that the details of the contract will be made public if they are awarded the contract. Why would you want them to disclose the details of their bid to their competitors during the bidding process?
Because so far this little section of our central government has signed commercial contracts with the following states, none of which have been made public:
Oman
Seychelles
Bermuda
Cayman Islands
China
Kosovo
Turkey
They won't release the MoU, or even the headings within the MoU. As I said this isn't a company that's an entirely separate entity. It is part of our prison and probation service and not a trading body. The government have admitted they don't and can't have a separate profit/loss account to confirm how much money its making.
I don't think the good commercial reasons that exist are sufficient to override the minimum sort of transparency we expect of centrally funded government bodies. And to be honest when it comes to working for the Chinese or Saudi prison and punishment systems, I actually think the public interest would demand higher than normal levels of transparency to make sure that we're not and not asking people to break standards on human rights.
QuoteThanks Guppy.
See Abu Qatada:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada