Only 4'4" so don't be put off by Simon Webb being a leftist. He crisply makes the point that the European Convention on Human Rights is OK, it is just the judicial interpretation that is at fault.
I draw a different lesson from the facts presented. Laws written as vague principles hand over power to judges. Come back thirty years later and the judiciary is staffed by different people. Previously pedants, happy to follow strict rules. Now, power hungry activists, eager to use the power unwisely delegated to the courts. The European Convention on Human Rights has been a disaster because it has changed the job of a judge, and changed who wants to do it.
I'm not following your reasoning here. The biggest problem that I see with Human Rights is that the terse statements mean everything or nothing. Take the UN Declaration
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Governments in the West have abolished marriage. Penalties for adultery are gone. "No fault divorce" is just a sneaky way of gutting marriage. Because the name is re-used for the residual social institution Article 16 is upheld in name, but nothing else. Article 16 means nothing.
Are you saying that they own you because they get to chose the wording of the rights, and the interpretation of rights. Then you find that your rights are merely what they say your rights are, neither more nor less?
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 22, 2023 17:54:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] happytoes
[ - ] happytoes [op] 0 points 1.8 yearsAug 22, 2023 19:56:50 ago (+0/-0)
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Governments in the West have abolished marriage. Penalties for adultery are gone. "No fault divorce" is just a sneaky way of gutting marriage. Because the name is re-used for the residual social institution Article 16 is upheld in name, but nothing else. Article 16 means nothing.
Are you saying that they own you because they get to chose the wording of the rights, and the interpretation of rights. Then you find that your rights are merely what they say your rights are, neither more nor less?