15 ms·

The British court has ruled that the British sale to Saudi Arabia is not unlawful. Is this the same British court that has ruled that the findings of the Unite

by pluma 9y ago

The British court has ruled that the British sale to Saudi Arabia is not unlawful. Is this the same British court that has ruled that the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Assange's UK-imposed situation being a gross human rights violation is invalid? Somehow I don't trust the UK courts when it comes to international human rights violations. Especially if you consider that May famously said that human rights will have to be neglected if they stand in the way of fighting terrorists.

corin_ 9y ago
It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. Even before the Brexit referendum she was on the record, when she was Home Secretary, as wanting to leave the European Court of Human Rights. “The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said. “So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-lea... Her reaction to the terrorist attack(s) is just her finding a new excuse to justify what doing what she wanted to do already. A horrible, horrible person.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. This has been her reaction to every single terrorist attack going back years and years. Note there's been talk about a "British Bill of Rights" along these lines for years, and there's still no proposal for how it would differ to the ECHR beyond removing jurisdiction of the ECtHR.
  - corin_ 9y ago
    Thanks for the correction / additional info. :)
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "there's been talk about a "British Bill of Rights" along these lines for years" Some would say it already exists... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA
peteretep 9y ago
> Somehow I don't trust the UK courts I trust them like I trust the BBC. They're equal opportunity offenders. ref: http://newsthump.com/2017/07/07/bbc-accused-of-being-lefty-right-wing-pro-remain-brexit-propaganda-channel/ http://newsthump.com/2017/07/07/bbc-accused-of-being-lefty-r...
- pluma 9y ago
  That article seems to be satirical. I'm not sure what you're arguing.
  - Zhyl 9y ago
    It is satirical, but the point stands. The article points out that the right wing - prominently the Conservative Party and elements of the press - accuse the BBC of having a socialist bias to the point of misrepresenting conservative viewpoints. (Example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32537024 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32537024) Likewise, the left wing - notably papers such as the Guardian and the Independent - accuse the BBC of giving too much exposure to right win parties. (More farage examples:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/bbc-complaints-ukip-election-coverage-bias https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/bbc-complaints... http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/why-nigel-farage-question-time-so-often http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/why-nigel-farag...) The comment you are replying to is responding to criticism that the UK courts are 'not to be trusted' when it comes to human rights. The response is that the UK courts aren't trying to dismantle human rights - more that they are trying to find the best compromise and reach a fair middle ground. Human rights and, in this case, anti-arms trade activists will see this as being sympathetic to the arms trade. In other cases, the courts will frustrate those in the arms trade for being too restrictive. For example, it took 15+ years to be able to deport Abu Qatadar, a known hate preacher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada#Persona_non_grata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada#Persona_non_grata
    - peteretep 9y ago
      Exactly, thanks for explaining.
staofbur 9y ago
Technically speaking this is lawful under the interpretation of the law. That doesn't make it desirable, ethical or morally acceptable on any level. At the same time, in any very complex set of overlapping rules, it only requires finding a suitable expert to extract the conclusion you decided on up front.
- pluma 9y ago
  This is literally the Nuremberg defense: the crimes committed by the Third Reich were mostly legal under German law at the time they were carried out -- and in many cases refusing to carry out those orders would have been a crime under those laws.
  - k-mcgrady 9y ago
    Isn't the Nuremberg defence more as a defence to breaking the law because you had to follow orders?
    - pyroinferno 9y ago
      Yes, OP is an idiot.
      - sctb 9y ago
        You're not welcome to post like this on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mikestew 9y ago
      The Nuremberg judges apparently had an easier job specifically because Nazi Germany was reluctant to codify many offenses as law. "I didn't want to break the law" is apparently a better defense in such circumstances than "just following orders".
  - ascorbic 9y ago
    The main outcome of Nuremberg was international agreement that certain crimes are so serious that they go beyond any national law. That's not what this case was about.
ascorbic 9y ago
The UK courts have never ruled on the report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. They've never been asked to. The report was made years after the last time Assange's case was in front of the courts. Theresa May may have said that, but the courts don't agree, and the UK is still party to the ECHR.

by pluma 9y ago

corin_ 9y ago

It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. Even before the Brexit referendum she was on the record, when she was Home Secretary, as wanting to leave the European Court of Human Rights. “The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said. “So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/uk-must-lea... Her reaction to the terrorist attack(s) is just her finding a new excuse to justify what doing what she wanted to do already. A horrible, horrible person.

gsnedders 9y ago
> It was recently that Theresa May talked about removing human rights to fight terrorism (I can't remember after which attack it was, but one of the ones in the past few months) - but her bad track record goes back further than that. This has been her reaction to every single terrorist attack going back years and years. Note there's been talk about a "British Bill of Rights" along these lines for years, and there's still no proposal for how it would differ to the ECHR beyond removing jurisdiction of the ECtHR.
- corin_ 9y ago
  Thanks for the correction / additional info. :)
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "there's been talk about a "British Bill of Rights" along these lines for years" Some would say it already exists... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

peteretep 9y ago

> Somehow I don't trust the UK courts I trust them like I trust the BBC. They're equal opportunity offenders. ref: http://newsthump.com/2017/07/07/bbc-accused-of-being-lefty-right-wing-pro-remain-brexit-propaganda-channel/ http://newsthump.com/2017/07/07/bbc-accused-of-being-lefty-r...

pluma 9y ago
That article seems to be satirical. I'm not sure what you're arguing.
- Zhyl 9y ago
  It is satirical, but the point stands. The article points out that the right wing - prominently the Conservative Party and elements of the press - accuse the BBC of having a socialist bias to the point of misrepresenting conservative viewpoints. (Example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32537024 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32537024) Likewise, the left wing - notably papers such as the Guardian and the Independent - accuse the BBC of giving too much exposure to right win parties. (More farage examples:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/bbc-complaints-ukip-election-coverage-bias https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/30/bbc-complaints... http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/why-nigel-farage-question-time-so-often http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/why-nigel-farag...) The comment you are replying to is responding to criticism that the UK courts are 'not to be trusted' when it comes to human rights. The response is that the UK courts aren't trying to dismantle human rights - more that they are trying to find the best compromise and reach a fair middle ground. Human rights and, in this case, anti-arms trade activists will see this as being sympathetic to the arms trade. In other cases, the courts will frustrate those in the arms trade for being too restrictive. For example, it took 15+ years to be able to deport Abu Qatadar, a known hate preacher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada#Persona_non_grata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada#Persona_non_grata
  - peteretep 9y ago
    Exactly, thanks for explaining.

staofbur 9y ago

Technically speaking this is lawful under the interpretation of the law. That doesn't make it desirable, ethical or morally acceptable on any level. At the same time, in any very complex set of overlapping rules, it only requires finding a suitable expert to extract the conclusion you decided on up front.

pluma 9y ago
This is literally the Nuremberg defense: the crimes committed by the Third Reich were mostly legal under German law at the time they were carried out -- and in many cases refusing to carry out those orders would have been a crime under those laws.
- k-mcgrady 9y ago
  Isn't the Nuremberg defence more as a defence to breaking the law because you had to follow orders?
  - pyroinferno 9y ago
    Yes, OP is an idiot.
    - sctb 9y ago
      You're not welcome to post like this on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mikestew 9y ago
    The Nuremberg judges apparently had an easier job specifically because Nazi Germany was reluctant to codify many offenses as law. "I didn't want to break the law" is apparently a better defense in such circumstances than "just following orders".
- ascorbic 9y ago
  The main outcome of Nuremberg was international agreement that certain crimes are so serious that they go beyond any national law. That's not what this case was about.

ascorbic 9y ago

The UK courts have never ruled on the report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. They've never been asked to. The report was made years after the last time Assange's case was in front of the courts. Theresa May may have said that, but the courts don't agree, and the UK is still party to the ECHR.