• New Year Predictions 2017

    Here’s my New Year Predictions…

    1. Trump will become President of the USA later this month but won’t manage to survive for 4 years. (And don’t be rejoicing anyone, take a look at his VP).
    2. No significant progressive change will be proposed by the bishops of the Church of England in relation to LGBT issues.
    3. A solid majority in all houses of the Scottish Episcopal Church synod in favour of opening marriage to same-sex couples. (But I’m not predicting whether or not it will be enough to pass the legislation).
    4. SNP to lead the next administration of Glasgow City Council after the elections in May but possibly in coalition with others.
    5. Lib Dems will claim they’ve turned the corner after the local elections. Greens will continue to make very little progress in a political situation that seems almost designed for them to thrive. UKIP will do badly in Scotland. And is there another party?
    6. #Brexit will be triggered. And we will all end up the  poorer for it. Especially those already poorer.
    7. Success for the TIE campaign – I expect that they will make significant progress in getting more inclusive education in Scotland’s schools. By the end of the year I expect there will have been progress either in new Scottish Government guidelines or proposed legislation.
    8. Wikileaks-esque publication of details of membership of a large pornographic internet site and consequent sackings, suicides and divorces. (It is only a matter of time).
    9. François Fillon to win the French Presidency but Le Pen to do frighteningly well.
    10. The end of the beard. (Oh, I know I’ve predicted this before but how long can this hirsute tyranny go on? How much longer can good looking men keep their faces covered. Come along boys, enough is enough. Lather up.)

     

2 responses to “Human Rights Petition”

  1. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Kelvin

    I strongly agree with your sentiments and intend to sign the petition. As a practising barrister I can say that the incorporation of the Convention has had a hugely beneficial effect across society – especially in creating a rights aware culture amongst the judiciary.

    I have successfully relied on the Convention to (1) ensure that the state continues to support destitute asylum seekers whilst they are appealing an asylum support decision (2) prevent the removal of a mentally unwell Brazilian amputee who is awaiting further surgery in the UK (3) ensured that those detained under immigration powers are not held in “ordinary” prisons and (4) prevented the deportation of a Turkish national for a crime committed whilst a child. The Convention naturally “benefits” those on the edges of society – whose cause might be unpopular. That does not mean, of course, that it is unworthy. Quite the opposite.

    I have of course relied upon the Convention in cases which stretch the reach of the various articles. That is how the law develops. Judges do not embrace such claims uncritically. Unfounded and weak claims are rejected as such and so the public perception of an “out of touch” judiciary is misplaced. Thank God for the Judges who – if they were to follow the whims of public opinion would “string em up”, “bring back the birch” and “throw away the key”!

    The Human Rights Act 1998 still retains parliamentary sovereignty in any event. This means that Parliament can still introduce laws that are in breach of the Convention. All that a Judge can do when faced with such legislation is declare it to be “incompatible” and that is it. This may create political pressure (especially at a European level) but it means that the “Queen in Parliament” is still sovereign.

    In addition the HRA 1998 has become entrenched as an almost constitutional statute. Repeal or significant amendment would not create less litigation. On the contrary, as the Daily Mail might put it, lawyers would have a “field day” arguing about when a particular right ceased to exist under the ECHR in the UK and the extent to which rights survived repeal or amendment. It would create a legal mess, a constitutional back-step and a political nightmare.

    In fairness though a solicitor did ask me if they could bring a case to challenge a refusal by the police to allow a man more regular smoke breaks on the basis of his Convention rights (he was being questioned for murder)…I reminded the solicitor that the drafters of the Convention had in mind the ashes of Auschwitz when drafting the Convention and advised him to, as they say in Ulster, “catch yourself on!”

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Thanks Steven. It us really helpful to have your perspective and some concrete examples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • The Five Marks of Mission (Useful or not?)

    Following on from my diatribe about the word Missional the other week, here’s another thing. Are the Five Marks of Mission which are so very often discussed in Anglican circles as useful as people presume? Here I would have to say that I believe in them all. I think they are all lovely, vital, necessary…

  • Sermon – The Proud Young Man

    I was preaching today for the first time in about six weeks and had a lot of fun doing so. You can hear what I had to say here or read it below. There is something terribly tricky about young men who get excited about religion. I remember a number of years ago. I was…

  • Coming Out as Congregation

    Today is a day that is sometimes known as National Coming Out Day. (The nation originally was the USA, I think, but this one has spread a bit around the world and still keeps the same name). Rather than write anything personal, this time I think it is worth noting that institutions need to come…

  • Top 10 Best Questions To Ask A Local Person When Travelling

    1 – Where can I find the most spiritual place in the city. 2 – What is the taste of the city and where can I get some? 3 – What’s the best place in town that visitors never go to? 4 – Where would you go to get the definitive photograph of the city?…