Human Rights

[P]

Just wondering if the 'human rights' issues in France are as mad as they are in the UK.

Here it seems that if someone is robbing a person and that person refuses to hand over his wallet then it infringes the robbers human rights - alright, maybe a little exagerated but some of the cases that have gone on are amazing.

Paul

[RumziGal]

Yes, when you scratch the surface things are just as crazy.

[Danny]

[quote user="P"]

Just wondering if the 'human rights' issues in France are as mad as they are in the UK.

Here it seems that if someone is robbing a person and that person refuses to hand over his wallet then it infringes the robbers human rights - alright, maybe a little exagerated but some of the cases that have gone on are amazing.

Paul

[/quote]

Paul, I haven't heard of this. Can you let us know where this has happened? Which cases are you referring to ?

Danny

[Clair]

[quote user="Jane and Danny"]Paul, I haven't heard of this. Can you let us know where this has happened? Which cases are you referring to ?Danny[/quote]

Danny, I think Paul's example is meant as a tongue in cheek illustration of human rights legislation taken too far...

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="Clair"][quote user="Jane and Danny"]Paul, I haven't heard of this. Can you let us know where this has happened? Which cases are you referring to ?Danny[/quote]

Danny, I think Paul's example is meant as a tongue in cheek illustration of human rights legislation taken too far...
[/quote]

So if it is not a real scenario why is he quoting in the first place and then asking for comments on it? 

Here in France if you have not got a ticket for the Metro they break your arm, typical No, but a real case.

As a matter of interest has a Forum closed down somewhere where all the "I wonder", "What if" and "Have you had an out of body experience" type matters were discussed or is it just a holiday week and folk are bored?

[Danny]

Clair, he did say "some of the cases that have gone on are amazing" so I would be interested in knowing what cases he was referring to.

Danny

[David]

    The French have got most of the Human Rights Act down to a 'T'.

As a Police Officer, I had to complete an exam on the Act and having the legislation written down in understandable English was a Revelation.

Member States can ignore various parts of the Act so that is does not conflict with what they consider to be their Law. We, the British, however, decided that everything should apply to us and look where it has got us. Nightmare.

David

[Deimos]

[quote user="Jane and Danny"][quote user="P"]

Just wondering if the 'human rights' issues in France are as mad as they are in the UK.

Here it seems that if someone is robbing a person and that person refuses to hand over his wallet then it infringes the robbers human rights - alright, maybe a little exagerated but some of the cases that have gone on are amazing.

Paul

[/quote]

Paul, I haven't heard of this. Can you let us know where this has happened? Which cases are you referring to ?

Danny

[/quote]

Maybe where he says "alright, maybe a little exagerated " is the give away.  I read it and appreciate fully what the OP is asking about. I assumed that the question relates to the UK issues where the victim defends his/her self and then ends-up being prosecuted for assault against the perpetrator.  A few years ago there were a number of cases in the UK where people were burgled and threatened with baseball bats, etc. and the perpetrator then caught ended-up suing the victim who was defending themselves or their property(cannot remember specific details but I do remember loads of politicians going on about "the madness".

Unfortunately I do not know enough about the situation in France to comment (and my speculation would add nothing useful).

Ian

[P]

Sorry that I gave a hypothetical exagerated example

So an example from BBC online News:

And the government says that it plans to extend police asset recovery powers so they can seize and forfeit criminals' "lifestyle" goods, like cars. (these are for career criminals)

These could also be extended to jewellery, plasma TVs and lap tops - although the review notes the possibility of a human rights challenge.

The Home Office says currently police can seize cash or "cash equivalents" - like travellers cheques, but can only freeze, not recover, other assets......... - therefore, if you steal a load of money and buy a Bentley you could have it seized. But they are concerned that if you buy an expensive piece of jewellery with someone elses money the authorities think that your human rights may have been contravened if they take it away.

 

As a couple of people have commented justice in the UK seems to be weighted on the criminals side - and some of the decisions make my blood boil.

 

For example, school children can insist on wearing the full face veil whereas, my understanding, France has said this is not acceptable.

Paul

[Llwyncelyn]

David are you absolutely sure that the UK has adopted the whole of the Human Rights leglislation?

Again my best mate was until he recently retired a DC Superintendent and in charge of CID training at a large UK force and he is coming to stay on Thursday.  Again he was special branch and all of that.

I feel sure that he would say the UK did not adopt all of the legislation only certain bits or at least changed those that we did not like.

He hates the fluffies of todays world.  I challenge those who do not comply with PACE especially those who do not recognise a vulnerable person under the Act.  I say that having challenged such a matter in the Court of Appeal. 

With rights come responsibilities be you a Police Office a road sweeper or someone who stacks shelves in supermarkets.

rdgs

[Iceni]

What would happen if a member country chose to ignore the EU HR legislation ?

John

not

[Quillan]

[quote user="P"]

For example, school children can insist on wearing the full face veil whereas, my understanding, France has said this is not acceptable.

Paul

[/quote]

Something badly portrayed in the UK press I am afraid. Religious symbols of any kind from any religion are not allowed to be openly shown in schools by children and teachers or by government officials. I believe a small crucifix on a neck chain is OK provided it can't be seen and is restricted to a particular maximum size. This I believe goes back to Napoleon's time where religion was separated from the government and county and any power it had was taken away from it.

[londoneye]

You can't change bits of the Human Rights Act which you don't like, but there is a  'margin of appreciation' which is  accorded to member states, which is effectively a limited discretion to determine exceptions to the rights (not for all rights though).

Other than that, there is nothing to stop (in theory) a member state interpreting the Human Rights Act in a way which is different to Strasborg jurisprudence, but it is generally accepted that the interpretation should not be less liberal than that afforded by Strasborg.     I am sure Llewellyn (oops spelling !) can explain better than I, and will correct me if I am incorrect and have forgotten too much about the Act already !

[Llwyncelyn]

You are spot on and interpretation is the key to all of this and that is why and in the very early days lots of cases were going (and are still going) to the European Court of Human Rights for a definitive approach.

Of course and very obviously a sad sad story was the appeal this week by the young lady who had split with her partner suffered cancer and thus could not have any children and then argued in exceptional circumstances such as hers that her Human Rights were not being recognised.

Sadly she lost and at this stage I just wonder who paid for the costs and which must have run in hundreds and hundreds of thousands.  One would think that the young lady could not have afforded it from her own resources.  A test case so someone must have paid for all those bewigged guys and girls have to get paid.

However equally and for cases such as these the Bar does operate a pro bono basis.

I just wonder what Lord Denning MR would have made of all of this.

[londoneye]

I also would have like to have seen Lord Denning's view.    However, certainly in the field of employment law, Lord Mummery is doing a fine job, albeit perhaps more of an adovatre of the HRA than Lord Denning may have been !

[londoneye]

gosh, sorry about the spelling there - who said 'never post after half a bottle of red' (probably a lot of people)!

[Chancer]

[quote user="Llwyncelyn"]

You are spot on and interpretation is the key to all of this and that is why and in the very early days lots of cases were going (and are still going) to the European Court of Human Rights for a definitive approach.

Of course and very obviously a sad sad story was the appeal this week by the young lady who had split with her partner suffered cancer and thus could not have any children and then argued in exceptional circumstances such as hers that her Human Rights were not being recognised.

Sadly she lost and at this stage I just wonder who paid for the costs and which must have run in hundreds and hundreds of thousands.  One would think that the young lady could not have afforded it from her own resources.  A test case so someone must have paid for all those bewigged guys and girls have to get paid.

However equally and for cases such as these the Bar does operate a pro bono basis.

I just wonder what Lord Denning MR would have made of all of this.

[/quote]

What human rights were not being recognised? the right to have children? surely that is dependant on being able to.

Or was it that she wanted to have children despite being terminally ill? sorry to ask but your text is confusing to me,if it had either an "and" or a "who had" between "her" and "her partner" then I could work out who was ill but still not what human rights were being denied to her and by whom.

I hope that that makes sense, it wasn't easy to phrase!

[Tresco]

This is a report on the outcome of the case, J.R.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2054306,00.html

[Deimos]

With regard to the person who has just spent loads of somebody's money taking her "case" through every court going despite continually losing - I am at a complete loss. She became ill, took some measures to protect against the effects and made an agreement with another person (her then partner) and was (or should have been) aware of the legal terms of what she was doing. Under the terms of that agreement and laws, her partner could withdraw his permission. That was the case when the embryos were made and the case when she wanted to use them. Nothing changed except she decided she wanted to ignore terms of the agreement and law and spent loads of court time and money being told the same again and again.

A terrible waste of time and money and I would like to know where the money came from (how many people's entire tax bills have been spent telling this person that her original agreements and laws cannot be changed just be cause she wants them to).

I actually do feel sorry for her, but I think she should have maybe accepted decisions at a much earlier stage. Everybody seems to run to the "It's my Human Right to ...". How does one compare her "Human Rights" against those held under terrible conditions on a small part of Cuba. Do we need to get things in perspective a bit ?

Ian

[Russethouse]

 I get the feeling that maybe her case was used to highlight a whole lot of issues surrounding embryos and their ownership.Someone has to be a test case and I may be wrong, but without cases such as this, would old laws ever be reviewed and updated ?

 

 

[Deimos]

Test cases - fine. However, take it to court (and lose), then appeal (the lose), try to appeal to the House of Lords (refused), European Court of Human Rights (lose) then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (again lost).

It also seems strange asking a court to rule against a law. It was not what I would call a "test case" (e.g. where somebody sues a drink manufacturer because they got fat drinking all the sugar, etc.). The law seemed black and white - just she did not like it when it was not in her favour.

As a test case it is also not particularly "useful" as medical technology has moved on and the need for keeping embryos is evolving to keeping eggs - thus the problem goes away. How much better would it have been to spend all this money on medical research to help people in a similar position.

Ian

[Tresco]

The judges themselves said it was a 'morally and ethically difficult case'. Remember the case of the conjoined twins who were separarated even though one was certain to die (and both, if they weren't)?

No doubt soon it will be possible to freeze the eggs (befere fertilisation), but for this woman these were her only eggs, and they had already been fertilised. For her this problem won't 'go away'.

While on balance I agree with the outcome, I thought what this person had to say was pertinent.

'Anna Smajdor, a researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College, London, said Britain was "obsessed with the idea that shared genes are the essence of parenthood".

"Ms Evans' ex-partner does not want to be a father and this apparently gives him the right to destroy these embryos simply because they contain some of his genes," she added.

"There is something deeply amiss here. Ms Evans is not allowed to have her embryos implanted without her ex's consent, yet he - effectively - is allowed to have them destroyed without hers."

From this article on the day of the ruling.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,,2053940,00.html

[Quillan]

I think that the system should have been a bit more proactive when this sort of technology became available. Surely the people 'in charge' could have sat down and thought about the ramifications of what could happen at a later stage when people/couples have stored embryos then split up. Perhaps something that said if you split up during the storage time then the embryos are automatically destroyed.

I too feel sorry for the woman but if her ex partner said no then that should have been the end of it and as has been said it should have been stopped dead and all that court time and money could have been better used elsewhere.

Perhaps now that the technology is becoming available to store just eggs for this sort of thing it won't happen in the future.

I always thought that as human beings one of the things we are blessed with is the ability to see the difference between right and wrong. If this were really true then then would be no need for human rights laws but sadly we don't and so we need these laws. Mind you these laws seem to be a bit of a joke as very few of the abusers take any notice because they lack 'teeth'. Just look at the USA and China to name but a few.

[cooperlola]

Whilst I would love to be able to agree with your idea that we know right from wrong instinctively, Quillan, it just ain't the case, is it? In this case, many of us have different ideas as to the morality or otherwise of what has happened here.

And the law is not a straightforward thing and develops over time as we develop.  I believe that I am right in thinking that, for instance, there is a very famous case in US law "Roe v Wade" which basically gave American women the right to choose to have an abortion for the first time and the findings of this case have stood ever since.  Without one very brave woman and her lawyers standing up for her rights, millions of women in the States would not have the legal protection which they now do, thanks to her.

 

[Deimos]

[quote user="Tresco"]

'Anna Smajdor, a researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College, London, said Britain was "obsessed with the idea that shared genes are the essence of parenthood".

[/quote]

With regard to the issue of the embryos themselves, my understanding is that UK law does place some importance on the genetic father. Thus, whilst now she may want nothing for her ex-partner (other than his "genetic contribution"), what is to stop her subsequently going to the Child Support Agency (or whatever it is called these days) as he is undoubtedly "the father" and to demand financial support from him. Whatever she may agree now about "no support from the father", we have seen her regard for laws and in a few years time when she discovers the financial difficulties being a single parent, how long until she was back in court trying to overturn her previous "no support" agreement.

[quote user="Tresco"]

"There is something deeply amiss here. Ms Evans is not allowed to have her embryos implanted without her ex's consent, yet he - effectively - is allowed to have them destroyed without hers."

[/quote]

I don't see this as he is having them destroyed. He is saying he has withdrawn his permission to have them used. Other regulations are them coming into play with regard what is done with the embryos (regulations far beyond his control) - an important distinction. Another aspect is that she effectively gave her permission when the embryos were made. By agreeing to the laws and agreements whereby either person could withdraw their permission for the embryos to be used - effectively she was agreeing that her partner could withdraw his permission and that she could not override this. It was clearly defined when the embryos were made. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Also, there is often a tendency to side with "the poor unfortunate woman". (the PC brigade) The "rights" or emotional aspects of the bloke in the situation seems of less relevance to many. Were the embryos to be used, this guy would have a child there. He would know this, the mother would know this, the child would subsequently know this, etc. A child he has nothing to do with, is unable to participate in his/her upbringing, etc., a child who would probably not know his/her father. Whilst he might not have wanted the child under the new circumstances, it would still have a massive emotional aspect to have one (all be it against his will).

Ian