Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
William Joyce said:
HopeandGlory said:Have to disagree - we do have this freedom in the UK - whether or not anyone listens is a different matter . . .
William Joyce said:
If I remember correctly, there are limits on speech in both countries and in times of 'extremis' UK has the precedents in place to make limitations much easier. Here is one link that backs that up in degrees, I'll look further at some things I have on comparative governments:roomy said:We Brits live in the most free society in the world, no one can deny this.The Americans have a very sound base for freedom with their constitution but it is such a shame that it only applies to those that are deemed worthy.We in Great Britain extend our courtesy and laws to all others with no distinction made for race colour or creed, in all honesty does the same rule apply in the USA?
roomy said:We Brits live in the most free society in the world, no one can deny this.The Americans have a very sound base for freedom with their constitution but it is such a shame that it only applies to those that are deemed worthy.We in Great Britain extend our courtesy and laws to all others with no distinction made for race colour or creed, in all honesty does the same rule apply in the USA?
Said1 said:But your laws pertaining to human rights are not protected by a constitution, written or otherwise. They are common laws, like any other. If laws past by your legislature conflict with human rights laws, well that's that then, eh?
Said1 said:But your laws pertaining to human rights are not protected by a constitution, written or otherwise. They are common laws, like any other. If laws past by your legislature conflict with human rights laws, well that's that then, eh?
Diuretic said:Tony Blair is doing his nut over legislation that he introduced which incorporated the European human rights legislation into British legislation. Now he wants to undo what he did. Bloody hypocrite.
Dr Grump said:The Constitution can be amended. It is not sacrosanct...
Said1 said:However, the point still stands. Any laws pertaining to human rights in the UK are common laws. How often has the constitution been amended to make concessions for new common laws, out of curiosity?
Abby,would you like to s'plain the difference?
Kathianne said:27 amendments. first 10 immediately after ratification, Bill of Right. Of the other 17, 3 are 'reconstruction amendments; 1 initiated prohibition, another took it out; 1 added to limit presidential terms, after FDR went for 4.
Not easily changed, purposefully.
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983 dealt with Aboriginal rights.
Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation) permitted future changes to the distribution of seats for Parliament to be done by ordinary statute.
Constitution Amendment, 1987 (Newfoundland Act) extended education rights to the Pentecostal Church.
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (New Brunswick Act) made English and French both official languages in New Brunswick.
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (Prince Edward Island) cleared the way for the "fixed link" bridge to replace ferry services to P.E.I.
Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1997 (Newfoundland Act) allowed the Province of Newfoundland to create a secular school system to replace the church-based education system.
Constitution Amendment, 1997 (Quebec) permitted the province to replace the denominational school boards with ones organized on linguistic lines.
Constitution Amendment, 1998 (Newfoundland) allowed the province to abolish the denominational school system.
Constitution Act, 1999 (Nunavut) provides for representation in the House of Commons and the Senate for the Nunavut Territory.
Constitution Amendment 2001 (Newfoundland and Labrador) officially changed the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Said1 said:However, the point still stands. Any laws pertaining to human rights in the UK are common laws. <snipped>
Diuretic said:Just a tiny point. There are a few statutes that pertain to human rights in the UK. One of them said hello to Uncle Tony just last week.
Government angry that it can't deport hijackers.
After Mr Justice Sullivan, in a carefully worded judgment, accused the government of "an abuse of power...at the highest level" and insisted the Afghans should remain in Britain until it was safe for them to return to their own country, John Reid, the latest entrant through the revolving doors of the Big Brother house, has confirmed that the government will appeal the "inexplicable" decision by Sullivan J not to allow the deportation of nine Afghans who hijacked a plane and flew to Britain six years ago.
Sullivan J's judgment is perfectly 'explicable' to all but the dullest of minds. It was carefully worded and applied the Human Rights laws brought in by the Prime Minister's government in a fair and impartial manner.
Mr Justice Sullivan, perhaps anticipating a dissenting judgment from Lord Protector Blair, said "Lest there be any misunderstanding, the issue in this case is not whether the executive should take action to discourage hijacking, but whether the executive should be required to take such action within the law as laid down by parliament and the courts," Blair went on to hyperventilate... "It's not an abuse of justice for us to order their deportation, it's an abuse of common sense frankly to be in a position where we can't do this,"
The problem is one of law. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated directly into English law in the Human Rights Act 1998, requires judges to interpret any existing English legislation in the light of the ECHR. (I provide the link just in case any advisers to Tony Blair read this piece and have difficulty remembering this legislation because no note was taken during the fireside sofa chatwith Tony when the HRA 1998 was considered).
The European Convention on Human Rights came about for a very good reason. I quote from our own Ministry of Defence website: "This is one of the earliest and most important treaties passed by the Council of Europe, a group of nations invited by Sir Winston Churchill to come together after the Second World War to stop such atrocities and acts of cruelty happening again."
In the great scheme of things, the matter of the Afghan hijacking may be a minor episode - but we simply can't take the 'common sense' approach advocated by The Great Protector in a vain attempt to cuddle up to the great British Public - because once we start to ignore or interpret our way around laws intended to protect human rights we start to slide down the slippery slope to convenient atrocity of greater magnitude. Sullivan J expressed the view that the abuse of power by the Home Office was the perfect example of a minister “being given an unfettered administrative discretion to depart from published policy whenever he thought that it was appropriate to do so”.
And now we learn that Tony and David want to relieve themselves of the inconvenience of some parts of the Human Rights Act
The Observer (14 May) gave an excellent analysis of the Human Right Act furore by commenting on Tony Blair's plans to overhaul the legislation to put the rights of the people ahead of those of criminals. As I am not a specialist in matters of Human Rights law, I am delighted to quote from the Observer.
" Anthony Lester, the human rights lawyer and Liberal Democrat peer, was particularly scathing about Blair's response to the Afghan ruling: 'The Human Rights Act was one of the first constitutional reforms of this government, but the Prime Minister persists in undermining public confidence in the rule of law and the protection of human rights by the senior judiciary,'
and.. The Observer's own leader expresses, far better than I could hope to, the need for us to watch what Blair is attempting to do.
William Joyce said:
Besides this, there are many other free speech issues in the U.S., including patent laws, campus codes and free speech in the workplace (protecting employees' rights to criticize their bosses or their companies without being fired)."Indecent" Speech Could Land You In Prison. Under Section 223 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), indecent speech via telephone, fax, or e-mail is punishable by up to 2 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Under this law, an explicit love note e-mailed to your spouse, discussions of abortion, or even using one of the "seven dirty words" banned by the FCC could land you in prison. Fortunately, this section of the CDA was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998. But virulent attempts to pass similar laws to censor the Internet and other electronic communications continue.
Under the Child On Line Protection Act any materials deemed "harmful to minors" would be banned from cyber-space, effectively re-instituting the CDA. Similar provisions are also contained in the 1999 Juvenile Justice Bill passed by both houses of Congress and now in conference committee to reconcile differing Senate and House versions.