• Revised Commenting Policy

    I’ve posted something like this before but have had to add the final bullet point today. (And have today decided not to allow any further comments from the offender who caused me to add this last point. It seems to me that he has been warned enough).

    The following types of comments will be deleted without question.

    • Comments which appear to be legitimate but whose posters’ details point to porn sites.
    • Comments which contain homophobic epithets. I’m open to intelligent discussion but I’m not running a site which allows people to get away with silly name calling.
    • Comments which claim to prove something by quoting a single verse taken out of context from the Bible. Scripture is too precious to me to allow that. This is a place where the Bible is loved and honoured and treasured. Comments which use it as a weapon are unwelcome.
    • Comments promoting one Bible translation because all the rest are flawed. Like quite a few people who comment here, my Greek and Hebrew are a bit rusty. However, it was worth learning them as I can now make up my own mind about such matters. Go thou and study likewise.
    • Comments promoting or trying to raise money for particular missionary societies.
    • Comments disparaging women and in particular comments which undermine my female colleagues. I learn about God from them.
    • Comments trying to explain Penal Substution as a theory of Atonement. I know what it means. I know how it works. We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it. It gets boring if you try to explain it to me again.
    • Comments in which those of us who are gay are likened to murderers either in the eyes of the commenter or in the eyes of God. To be honest, when it becomes that offensive, I don’t think we are talking enough of the same language for me to want to bother carrying on listening. I’m also not in the business of providing space for that kind of rhetoric. Those who want to make such comments can do so on their own blogs but not on mine.

    As I’ve repeatedly said before, I like an intelligent argument and tend to adopt this policy as much for the sake of those others who like a sane corner of the web as for myself.

    [Most] Comments welcome.

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

  • Advent is Nigh

    Hard to believe that I am chosing Advent hymns o­nce again. Choosing hymns is hard most of the year, but not right now. Advent has good music and some very good hymns, but not many and it o­nly lasts four weeks. They slot in pretty easily.

  • Book Club

    A good meeting of the Book Club last night, discussing Iris Murdoch's The Bell. I am not sure that we ever decided what the Bell itself represented, if anything, but the conversation along the way was interesting.  I was the o­nly man there, as usual. Do men read fiction?Part of the discussion became focussed o­n…

  • Old Skills

    For reasons too complicated to go into here, I need to revive computer programming skills that I last used 20 years ago. I have a particular task, to do with mapping the local council wards, which I think can o­nly be perfomed using Prolog. I was always fascinated with this logic based language but never terribly competent.…

  • Reaping the Whirlwind

    I am interested in a metaphor that is doing the rounds at the moment. Clare Short has said that Tony Blair is now reaping the whirlwind. This is in relation to the terrorist attacks that seem to have become more likely since the war in Iraq.The metaphor comes from the Bible (Hosea 8:7) and is…