3 ms·

More likely it'll be limited in a judicial review, someone is bound to bring one, hopefully fairly soon. UK courts are quite happy to strike government legislat

More likely it'll be limited in a judicial review, someone is bound to bring one, hopefully fairly soon. UK courts are quite happy to strike government legislation as illegal or outrageous from time to time. Only a pity we'll soon no longer have the ECHR in the chain of appeals.

tialaramex 8y ago
Note that the ECHR is not part of the EU, and so a "hard Brexit" doesn't have any direct effect on our membership of the Council of Europe and responsibility to live up to our treaty obligations. Leaving the EU does clear an obstacle to leaving the Council of Europe, but it would likewise clear an obstacle to leaving any number of other international organisations, membership of which is mandatory or implicit for EU nations. Theresa May would indeed like to leave the European Council because she doesn't support Human Rights. Right now she isn't even able to get her own party to stop voting against her, so I suspect that it's premature to say "we'll soon no longer have the ECHR".
dingaling 8y ago
The EHCR is not part of the EU, it's part of the Council of Europe which is unaffected by Brexit. Trivium: the EU stole the CofE's forty-year-old flag when they needed an emblem.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I know, yet the Conservatives have made plain they intend to leave ECHR too. It was not mentioned as part of the campaign until the idiocy of "hard brexit" came out to play. I find it particularly absurd for the Tories to do this as it was Churchill who was a big advocate for its creation, and the 51 Tory govt that signed us up to it. Atlee's Labour, surprisingly, was against it at the time. Isn't CofE flag just Saint George's Cross? I know next to nothing of matters religious.
  - OscarCunningham 8y ago
    > Isn't CofE flag just Saint George's Cross? I know next to nothing of matters religious. In this case "CofE" is Council of Europe, not Church of England.
travisoneill1 8y ago
The same courts that put a man in prison for teaching a dog to do a Hitler salute?
- pjc50 8y ago
  Specifically, a video of him saying "gas the jews" repeatedly. The dog is a distraction.
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    It's all a distraction because nobody was harmed.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Jewish people were harmed.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  You mean fined, not imprisoned, for breaking well established limits on freedom of speech for racial hate speech? He crowd funded a fortune yet barely offered any defence, beyond "it was a joke meant to annoy his girlfriend", even after the judge explicitly encouraged him to during the trial. EDIT: The actual ruling appears to be far more reasonable and straightforward than I thought from the reporting at the time: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... You had no need to make a video if all you wanted to do was to train the dog to react to offensive commands. You had no need to post the video on your unrestricted, publicly accessible, video channel if all you wanted to do was annoy your girlfriend. Your girlfriend was not even a subscriber to your channel. Finally, before turning to sentence, I should note that although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right.

tialaramex 8y ago

Note that the ECHR is not part of the EU, and so a "hard Brexit" doesn't have any direct effect on our membership of the Council of Europe and responsibility to live up to our treaty obligations. Leaving the EU does clear an obstacle to leaving the Council of Europe, but it would likewise clear an obstacle to leaving any number of other international organisations, membership of which is mandatory or implicit for EU nations. Theresa May would indeed like to leave the European Council because she doesn't support Human Rights. Right now she isn't even able to get her own party to stop voting against her, so I suspect that it's premature to say "we'll soon no longer have the ECHR".

dingaling 8y ago

The EHCR is not part of the EU, it's part of the Council of Europe which is unaffected by Brexit. Trivium: the EU stole the CofE's forty-year-old flag when they needed an emblem.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I know, yet the Conservatives have made plain they intend to leave ECHR too. It was not mentioned as part of the campaign until the idiocy of "hard brexit" came out to play. I find it particularly absurd for the Tories to do this as it was Churchill who was a big advocate for its creation, and the 51 Tory govt that signed us up to it. Atlee's Labour, surprisingly, was against it at the time. Isn't CofE flag just Saint George's Cross? I know next to nothing of matters religious.
- OscarCunningham 8y ago
  > Isn't CofE flag just Saint George's Cross? I know next to nothing of matters religious. In this case "CofE" is Council of Europe, not Church of England.

travisoneill1 8y ago

The same courts that put a man in prison for teaching a dog to do a Hitler salute?

pjc50 8y ago
Specifically, a video of him saying "gas the jews" repeatedly. The dog is a distraction.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  It's all a distraction because nobody was harmed.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Jewish people were harmed.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
You mean fined, not imprisoned, for breaking well established limits on freedom of speech for racial hate speech? He crowd funded a fortune yet barely offered any defence, beyond "it was a joke meant to annoy his girlfriend", even after the judge explicitly encouraged him to during the trial. EDIT: The actual ruling appears to be far more reasonable and straightforward than I thought from the reporting at the time: http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meechan http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1962/PF-v-Mark-Meecha... You had no need to make a video if all you wanted to do was to train the dog to react to offensive commands. You had no need to post the video on your unrestricted, publicly accessible, video channel if all you wanted to do was annoy your girlfriend. Your girlfriend was not even a subscriber to your channel. Finally, before turning to sentence, I should note that although I invited both legal representatives to make legal submissions during the trial about the law on freedom of expression, that was done only to a very limited extent. In the absence of focused submissions on that topic by either the Crown or the defence, all I can say is that, while that right is very important, in all modern democratic countries the law necessarily places some limits on that right.