Is this like a ECtHR checklist of recent cases involving the UK? Because I'd be down for that.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 21, 2015, 01:21:32 PM

The right of prisoners to have the vote.

Not to sound like the filthy ECtHR apologists that I'm sure some of you take me for, but I assume part of the reason you're including this are the ECtHR Hirst and Green v. UK judgments? If so, you should know that the Court does not think prisoners should have an unlimited right to vote. In a similar case in Italia (Scoppola v. Italy), the Court ruled that having restrictions on prisoners' right to vote is most definitely allowed. You just can't have them indiscriminately and apply them as a blanket ban. So while it is perfectly possible to state that prisoners convicted for years are not allowed to vote, you can't just indiscriminately and automatically forbid anyone in prison (which includes those under detention or people who are only sentenced to a few days or weeks in jail) from voting.

Either way, yes I do think prisoners have the right to vote within reason. While a murderer sentenced to life in prison should not be able to still have a say in what goes on in the country's politics, I don't think that you should rob someone who just so happens to be in jail at the time of the elections from his chance to issue a vote.

Quote

The right of prisoners to have children via artificial insemination.

Dickson v. UK? I do think that prisoners have this right, but that it is far from absolute and can be limited under several circumstances. An outright ban on this should not be okay, however.

Quote

The right of individuals who promote hatred and intolerance to not be deported if their original country will not respect their human rights.

Othman v. UK and Saadi v. Italy? If there are sufficient grounds to assume that their rights will most definitely be harmed and that they will be subjected to torture, then yes, they should not be deported. This should be judged in facto though. Also, aut dedere aut iudicare. If you don't want to give them over because of the trial in another country, you can put them on trial yourself. I must say that this is a tough one though, especially when people promote hatred and intolerance. Not quite figured it out myself.

Quote

The right to not be sentenced to life in prison.

Hutchinson v. UK? A life sentence without review should not be possible, no. Not that a life sentence that actually lasts an entire life should not be allowed, but there should still be the possibility of later review and reassessment.

So basically, yes, they have all these rights. Although none of them are absolute and can be restricted if proportional, pertinent and providing certain safeguards. It's a case-by-case scenario.

I can see your arguments, and you obviously have a better degree of nuance than I do on the matter, which is why I neglected to mention my own opinions in the OP.

My main problem with the ECtHR is its judicial activism. As I understand each issue in turn, the Convention deliberately excluded issues of franchise and how far it should extend, yet the Court determined it feel under the Convention's remit; the right to artificial insemination was justified under Article 8, yet the originators of the Convention had absolutely no intention of that when framing the article; and the case of whole-life tariffs was Vinter and Others v. UK (2013) wherein the Court ruled 16-to-1 that whole-life tariffs violate Article 3.

I agree that the UK ought to remain in the Convention, but I don't see why our own courts shouldn't have primacy in its interpretation. Our legal system is obviously different to most of Europe's in its common law--and I think, judicial restraint. Why should our justice system be subjected to the acitivism of courts in Strasbourg?

The right of prisoners to have the vote.

- They don't deserve it

The right of prisoners to have children via artificial insemination.

- LOLno if you're in prison doing nothing then who's going to pay for the child? The tax payer? Nah fuck off

The right of individuals who promote hatred and intolerance to not be deported if their original country will not respect their human rights.

- Straight deportation. If you're promoting violence then you should fuck off.

The right to not be sentenced to life in prison.

- Yeah, bullets to the head are so much cheaper

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 21, 2015, 03:13:07 PM

I can see your arguments, and you obviously have a better degree of nuance than I do on the matter, which is why I neglected to mention my own opinions in the OP.

My main problem with the ECtHR is its judicial activism. As I understand each issue in turn, the Convention deliberately excluded issues of franchise and how far it should extend, yet the Court determined it feel under the Convention's remit; the right to artificial insemination was justified under Article 8, yet the originators of the Convention had absolutely no intention of that when framing the article; and the case of whole-life tariffs was Vinter and Others v. UK (2013) wherein the Court ruled 16-to-1 that whole-life tariffs violate Article 3.

I agree that the UK ought to remain in the Convention, but I don't see why our own courts shouldn't have primacy in its interpretation. Our legal system is obviously different to most of Europe's in its common law--and I think, judicial restraint. Why should our justice system be subjected to the acitivism of courts in Strasbourg?

I'll probably write a longer response tomorrow. My exam period just started and I'm now condemned to getting through around 2500 pages of course materials in a pretty short period of time. It's getting late and I already spent way too many hours studying the national procedural autonomy in relation to the actions anullment in front of the European Court of Justice, so I don't feel like writing much more now.

But anyways, you have a good point. One that is shared by several legal scholars and authors. Judicial activism of inter- and supranational courts and their limits (or lack theoreof) has been a hot legal topic for years. You are definitely not alone in feeling that way, and I very much understand where you come from. I personally don't think that judicial activism should have no boundaries either. The ECtHR is not democratically elected and still holds real power that can directly affect the member states.

But, I also think that its activism and interpretation of the ECHR as a living instrument is somewhat necessary. It's true that this was not intended, but the same goes for several other things. Back in 1950, the drafters of the Convention didn't predict the internet to this scale either. They didn't expect things like highly technological databases retaining a person's fingerprints, retina scans and DNA, nor did they in a million years forsee that marriage between two men / women would ever become a reality.

Yet, while they never foresaw these applications, they did realize that things would drastically change. So they did what all good legislators do. They made their provisions sufficiently neutral. They drafted them in broad and general terms that still retained the essence of the right, but also allowed for it to be applied to things that didn't yet exist. And this is not something that only happens with the ECHR or even on an international scale. Every national legislator does the exact same. Law is unique in the sense that you can never fully anticipate what will happen, yet that at the same time, you kind of have to. Because otherwise, the current state of affairs will always be ahead of the laws and result in period of impunity and situations that aren't governed by law. Because of this, laws need to find the fine balance between broad and general enough on the one hand, while still providing enough legal certainty on the other. And that is an extremely difficult task.

And seeing how I already wrote way too much, I'm just gonna sum the rest up by saying that if the UK denies the Court's primacy, other countries will follow and the ECtHR will probably end up being a void and pointless institution that plays a merely advisory and non-binding role that every single country will ignore when it goes against its government's best interests. The power of the Court lies in its primacy. To repeat basically what I said in the other thread: the court has your back. When something happens and your own legal system, government and judicial branch decide not to recognize what happened because it suits them better, the ECtHR is an objective and independent organ that can set things right. Something that it has done dozens of times. It's obviously impossible to tell what would've happened otherwise, but I am more or less convinced that the British state and courts would've had no issues tossing aside the Court's opinion if it wasn't binding.

Would it not be more prudent to reform the Court, then? I could see myself supporting it if it were more like a restrained court of equity, that only intervened when our own judicial systems clearly violate the spirit of the Convention.

The right of prisoners to have the vote.

The right of prisoners to have children via artificial insemination.

The right of individuals who promote hatred and intolerance to not be deported if their original country will not respect their human rights.

The right to not be sentenced to life in prison.

i) Depends - a serial killer or other massive offender is not really going to participate in society well (they've demonstrated it already), but that guy who forgot to pay his TV license? Yeah, he might actually be worth having a vote for.

ii)Same again as i). Just because they are in prison for a certain reason doesn't mean they are a totally shit parent, and should be restricted to having kids in any other way than a natural method. Of course, this kinda depends on the crime.

iii)Freedom of opinion, even if it is a shitty opinion. Again though, falls under the crime - a psuedo terrorist is nothing more than a barking dog. A convicted terrorist however...well, they didn't care about the human rights of others, so fuck 'em.

iv)That right should only be granted when it doesn't suit the crime. Forgetting to pay taxes or something a bit less "victim-y" shouldn't get life sentences ever, though a murderer should have that as the maximum penalty (and for worse crimes, a higher likelihood of life imprisonment without parole or sentence reductions)

No life imprisonment? Seriously, they're probably going to commit the same crime if they're antisocial or stuff like that.

Quote from: Sandtrap on May 21, 2015, 01:57:41 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 21, 2015, 01:54:02 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 21, 2015, 01:44:43 PM

Actually, I'd like an example of this.

Can't think of any specific examples and be confident in my analysis of them, but there was a big hullabaloo in the British media about not being able to deport certain hate preachers because they could be tortured in the country they were sent back to.

Right. So lets set this down in laymans terms. Their home country hates them so much that they'd get tortured on return. So basically it's a reverse of this image.

Spoiler

Countries are dumping their garbage on the ones that take in immigrants. Hoo boy.

Out of interest--because I really want to know--if I put a gun to your head and forced you to vote in the Canadian federal elections, who would you vote for and why? I really can't put my finger on where you lie politically.

And I know you normally reject the establishment wholesale as self-interested and incompetent, which is fair enough, but I want to know which party you think represents you the most. Even if only minimally.

Well, since I don't vote, I don't keep up with much information in regards to political parties. At all, in fact. I don't even remember all of their names. And, their are different kinds of votes. There's provincial elections, and then prime minister elections.

Provincials determine the person who governs you province, or sector of the province. And the PMs, obviously, are for the Prime minister. Frankly, the provincials don't mean shit when you're a guy in a field. They ain't gonna turn everything hunky dory. Nor the PM.

But, I am, recently, keeping track of people. I know that Steven Harper needs to get right the fuck out of office. Personally, I'm thinking of Trudeau's son.

He's young, although that can lead to mistakes. But at the same time, since he's young, he might have an ear for the younger crowds of people in the country, and therefore, we just might stand a chance of turning things around with him.

But I'd have to look into it more. Personally, Meta, I don't give a shit about the parties. I care about the head honcho and his supposed values because he calls the shots.

They get locked up in a cell away from civilization. That would be the general idea of a prison.

1. Death penalty
2. Death penalty
3. Death penalty
4. Death penalty

Quote from: aTALLmidget on May 22, 2015, 12:09:55 AM

1. Death penalty
2. Death penalty
3. Death penalty
4. Death penalty

I take it you're opting for the illuminati and their population control schemes then?

There's no beating the Illuminati, so it's best to join 'em and work your way up the ranks

A prisoner can't properly care for a child I have no idea why it would be thought to be proper they allowed to have them.
Unless of course we're talking about their spouse outside of prison wishing to raise a child, in which case I think it's fairly reasonable it could be arranged.