Injunctions, super-injunctions ?
Does anybody here understand anything about why the British legal system goes to such extremes to safeguard the privacy of Elton John and his spouse David Furnish? And is there anybody who believes it really matters all that much whether or not it is known that mr Furnish has engaged in extra-marital activities?
Congratulations America
Apparently it matters to you. . .
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I believe that I will be commiting a crime if I quote the Opening Post.
What a moronic system. The appeals court was right to reject the injunction and I can't believe the Supreme Court upheld it. This all spins from an overvigorous interpretation of European Court of Human Rights interpretations of the European Convention of Human Rights and goes completely against our traditions. I disagree with it 100%.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The tradition being "If you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" or what?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Pretty much yes. A tradition of free press.
We need to replace the flawed ECHR with a guarantee that Free Press being the most important issue like America's First Amendment.
I may be missing some recent news but how is this the ECHRs fault? We're in Europe, we don't have super injunctions here. And as far as I know the courts have regularly ruled that celebrities (or public people anyway) have less right of privacy.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It matters because of what is examplified by Rand's reaction to this thread. Because he may very well be right in his opinion that he would be breaking the law by quoting my opening post. I am not because of where I am and where (I presume) the server of this board is placed. The judges who ruled this way must be aware of this.
What is there right about a system that works out this way? Why is the pretend privacy of someone who happens to have the means to hire a bunch of expensive lawyers more important than the right to free speech? This thread shows very clearly that something is rotten in the rulings about this case.
And Rand indeed is right in thinking that this has got to do with an idiotic interpretation of the ECHR (the right to a family live). But the interpretation appears to be national rather than by the court in Strassbourg.
Congratulations America
It doesn't even apply to the whole UK. It applies to England and Wales only, Scottish media can and have freely printed who it is. In a survey one opinion pollster carried out more than a third surveyed in England and Wales could name who the story was about yet so-called "privacy" is more important than free speech
Anyone invoking a "won't somebody think of the children" defense should automatically be disbarred.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes, the First Amendment that's probably the most misinterpreted one in the world.
Also, I'm not seeing how this is the ECHR's fault when it's your moronic local courts who ruled thus.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
He just said himself it's only in England and Wales so obviously it's not a European thing...
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I blamed our courts, not even Scotland has this. We've been signatories to the ECHR since the beginning but until 1997 when the ECHR was incorporated into English law our courts were not ruling this way. We need to pass a local act putting free speech first and foremost.Yes, the First Amendment that's probably the most misinterpreted one in the world.
Also, I'm not seeing how this is the ECHR's fault when it's your moronic local courts who ruled thus.
But the same legislation doesn't lead to this kind of rulings in other parts of Europe. So the problem isn't the law but its application in England and Wales.
I know France has some pretty draconic privacy laws, but it only protects actual privacy. It doesn't help people who's dirty laundy was exposed in a legal way to repress the story.
Congratulations America
Which is why we need to pass a local act with Parliament instructing the English (and Welsh) Courts to prioritise free speech as we always did in the past before this badly misinterpreted law was passed.
Not sure what's so weird about this suggestion ...
The suggestion puts the horse behind the cart. It makes a lot more sense to kick up cases like this to Strassbourg. Given that the English law is supposed to be in accordance with the Convention a Strassbourg ruling would settle this matter for good. A change in the law might just cause new inconsistencies and more illogical rulings.
Congratulations America
No that is the fundamental difference between you and I. The Court there is no better or worse than Courts here and could give the wrong ruling too and then short of leaving it what are we supposed to do?
The problem was made by us, it can be fixed by us. There is no need whatsoever for anyone else to get involved.
The difference is that you lack a fundamental understanding of the function of the convention in the legal body. The rulings are a clear example of the failed first attempt to 'fix this yourselves'
But by creating this intermediate level of human rights legislation you actually created a mess. The solution is not creating a bigger mess by declaring one sided that one of your basic rights takes precedence when such a fixed precedence has not been established at the higher level. It would be opening up the situation where judges pick and choose the legislation they prefer.
Congratulations America
Judges are picking it at the moment, I am saying Parliament should.
Your parliament can't. As you saw with the introduction of the human rights act, the problems started once you replicated the Convention in national law.
Congratulations America
Yes it can. That the problems started then underlines that it can, you seem to have failed to understand a key principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty: That which Parliament has done, Parliament can undo.
Say, you really don't understand how a judicial / legal system works, do you?
If a local judicial interpretation of an enactment of a federal law goes against your sensibilities, you appeal to the next higher court. And if you fail to appeal, then you can think about changing the laws. Not before.
You don't go around and create new laws/acts/whatever on a drop of a hat just because you didn't like what a judge said. Because that's the way Erdogan, Kaszinski and other wannabe-dictators are doing it.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
You made not one but TWO critical failures there: The UK is not a subservient part of a Federation, it is a country. The Council of Europe is not a Federation in any way. Also the ECHR is not a federal law, it is an international treaty.
If the Supreme Court of the UK makes a mistake then it is perfectly within the rights of the UK Parliament to change the law to set the UK Courts straight. Only if a body outside the UK gets involved do we need to consider changing Treaties (not laws) that we have signed.
As for changing the law if the courts make a law you don't like, of course you can do that. It is the duty of Parliament to set the law and if the courts create case law that is inappropriate then it is the duty of Parliament to set a new law. Then the courts follow the new laws. That is a proper judicial/legal system. Dictators get involved with individual cases so that the law is applied unevenly rather than setting matters of legal principle, that is different.
Given that you have bound yourselves to the Convention your blabbering about sovereignty is just that for as long as you remain members of the Council of Europe.
Any law passed by your parliament is just adding to the confusion. For the simple reason your parliament can't change the Convention or the rules for its interpretation. Having a unique set of rules would not survive rigorous scrutiny if those rules would be deemed unnecessary.
And just so that you know : unnecessary is a legal term here.
Congratulations America
You seem to be under a critical misunderstanding that this problem has stemmed from Strassberg, despite all evidence being to the contrary.
Besides, any law passed will not be "adding to the confusion" it will be the law. If Parliament insists it is the law then it remains the law even if the European Court of Human Rights rules otherwise, unless or until our Parliament changes the law. See for example prisoners voting - European Court of Human Rights says it should be a right, Parliament says its not, therefore its not.
You really don't understand how this whole "member of the EU" thing works, don't you? Moron. You can't pick and choose.
Get out already and burn your economy to the ground completely, you bunch of dicks. The rest of Europe is kind of fed up with you island apes and your childish behaviour.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
ECHR = Council of Europe != EU.
Moron
Unless all of a sudden you think Russia is part of the EU. Moron.
As for our economy, unlike "the rest of Europe" we aren't trying to burn our economy to the ground like you idiots are doing with Greece etc, you're just jealous about how successful we are.
If the problem is an overzealous and idiotic interpretation of the ECHR then the appropriate solution is to take this to the next level in order to determine what the appropriately zealous and less idiotic interpretation is. There is a court that can help you do that. Your proposed ad hoc solution is seriously weird man.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No its not weird, the highest level in our land is Parliament. Taking it to Parliament is taking it to the next level, the highest level.
Who do you believe is the highest authority on how the ECHR should be interpreted?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I see you are living in a parallel reality where the UK has not ratified the Convention.
In reality the Convention also is the law of the UK. And it can not be changed by unilateral action.
The rubbish you got taught about parliament not being bound by the decisions of its priors is also rubbish; any too sudden move taking away rights of citizens in whatever field thinkable will not hold up in court.
Last edited by Hazir; 05-25-2016 at 08:54 PM.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote