• A sermon for Y’All

    Here is a sermon that I preached on Sunday. You can find the audio here. (This one is more fun to listen to than to read, I think).

    I have learned in the course of my travels that it sometimes takes people a few minutes to atune to the way I speak. I’ve learned that people sometimes need a few sentences before they get used to my accent – the way that I speak.

    And of course, it works the other way around too.

    I am getting used to listening to the sounds of voices that I am not used to hearing. And of course, coming to here, the first time I’ve been in the South has meant me having to listen extra carefully.

    Before I came on this here I decided to lose weight and get fit. Over the course of a year I managed to lose 30 pounds. What I hadn’t realised was that when I came to the South, the hospitality would be such that I would put those 30 pounds back on. During breakfast.

    Whilst I was eating that first breakfast, I had something to ponder. For the very first night that I was here I had the strangest of dreams. I’ve been up at Sewanee, the University of the South. It is a beautiful university and an excellent seminary and I was their guest. That first night, I dreamed that I had encountered angels. It is a strange dream to have these days though it would not have been particularly unusual in Biblical times. [Indeed, one might think that a very great deal of John’s Revelation, part of which we heard this morning, was just such a dream].

    Anyway, I woke up on my first full day in the South absolutely sure that I’d encountered angels in my dreams. And as I came to, I desperately tried to remember what they had been saying. I knew that something was important. I tried and tried.
    However, to this day, I can’t remember anything of the conversation.

    I do remember one thing though. (more…)

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

  • Blog count

    Another 10 days or so and the blog will have had 20000 hits since I started at the end of August last year.

  • Voting Systems

    So, there will be Single Transferable Voting in the next elections for councillors in Scotland – the bill finally passed through the parliament yesterday. [Note the use of the definite article in the last part of that sentence – it contains within, the entire ambiguity of the constitutional settlement]. Liberal Democrats have achieved one of…

  • Vet day

    Tilly due at the vet today for her annual check-up. Another bout of all in wrestling to get her there, I suppose.

  • Bishop Watch

    Surprising things I have seen bishops do in the last 2 weeks: 1 – Attempt to celebrate holy mass in brown shoes 2 – Try to concelebrate uninvited from 20 yards away from an altar (retired bishop) 3 – Pray the daily office during a dull synod debate. (All the more impressive as I was…