Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Blue 1]

Not an unfair assessment. Why would the court give the ECHR more authority over legislative matters than parliament itself which has passed bills for deportation to Rwanda? If the government cannot implement its own laws because judges are blocking them as unlawful then all that will happen is that we will either get a withdrawal from ECHR or a referendum with the government recommending to withdraw from it.

You're a clever one.

 

[Alan Whittle]

Not an unfair assessment. Why would the court give the ECHR more authority over legislative matters than parliament itself which has passed bills for deportation to Rwanda? If the government cannot implement its own laws because judges are blocking them as unlawful then all that will happen is that we will either get a withdrawal from ECHR or a referendum with the government recommending to withdraw from it.

By definition, “the government’s laws” cannot be lawful if they are not upheld by the Courts. Certainly, the government can attempt to make new laws, and have done successfully and properly in the past. Ironically the same judges and lawyers held them to be legal.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Its the High Court that has ruled. Nowt to do with ECHR.

Brutal wexing here from @roydo !!!

 

[Toffee_Loaf]

Its the High Court that has ruled. Nowt to do with ECHR.

Actually it is. They used Article 3 ECHR to find it unlawful.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

He’s still standing Arry!

 

[roydo]

Actually it is. They used Article 3 ECHR to find it unlawful.

What is the Article 3 of the ECHR guideline?


the United Kingdom, 1989, § 87). 2. Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Indeed, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a value of civilisation closely bound up with respect for human dignity


Good.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

How could anyone be intimidated by that wig wearing weirdo Fabricant? You would just laugh in his face.

 

[Toffee_Loaf]

What is the Article 3 of the ECHR guideline?


the United Kingdom, 1989, § 87). 2. Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Indeed, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a value of civilisation closely bound up with respect for human dignity


Good.

Except the judges didn't find that any asylum seekers would be subject to any such treatment in Rwanda. They said there was the possibility that asylum seekers could be sent from Rwanda back to their home country and then be subject to that treatment. So the judges are splitting hairs.

The government even produced a declaration from Rwanda that this couldn't happen and still the judges ruled in this way. Hence the government is appealing to the Supreme Court now.

If the government loses and they are unable to exercise their sovereign powers due to the courts reliance on ECHR - then ECHR will have to go.

 

[roydo]

They said there was the possibility that asylum seekers could be sent from Rwanda back to their home country and then be subject to that treatment.

And you think is a good outcome? Jeez, you are all over the place.

 

[Thomasc]

Not an unfair assessment. Why would the court give the ECHR more authority over legislative matters than parliament itself which has passed bills for deportation to Rwanda? If the government cannot implement its own laws because judges are blocking them as unlawful then all that will happen is that we will either get a withdrawal from ECHR or a referendum with the government recommending to withdraw from it.

So again, why does this make them “leftie lawyers?”

Congratulations on spectacularly missing my point.

 

[roydo]

They said there was the possibility that asylum seekers could be sent from Rwanda back to their home country and then be subject to that treatment.

I am glad you agree with me. Brainless.

 

[Toffee_Loaf]

And you think is a good outcome? Jeez, you are all over the place.

You said the decision had nothing to do with ECHR?

I've just explained that it does and why judges are overstepping their authority. They are determining UK government policy by relying on the possibility that an asylum seeker could be sent back to a country where they are mistreated - even though the UK government has a promise from the government of Rwanda this won't happen. For the tiny chance that it could happen - UK law and policy is decided by judges. A parliamentary system cannot abide judicial over reach. Parliament is sovereign, not the courts.

 

[roydo]

You said the decision had nothing to do with ECHR?

I've just explained that it does and why judges are overstepping their authority. They are determining UK government policy by relying on the possibility that an asylum seeker could be sent back to a country where they are mistreated - even though the UK government has a promise from the government of Rwanda this won't happen. For the tiny chance that it could happen - UK law and policy is decided by judges. A parliamentary system cannot abide judicial over reach. Parliament is sovereign, not the courts.

No. I said the ruling was by the UK High Court. Unless I am mistaken the rabid Tory brexetiers have not removed the ECHR legislation from our legal process yet. That is a sovereign decision taken by the UK elected government.

And even if they have/did, not wanting folk deported to be tortured (article 3) is sommet you would support, no?

Utter tool/troll.

 

[Alan Whittle]

You said the decision had nothing to do with ECHR?

I've just explained that it does and why judges are overstepping their authority. They are determining UK government policy by relying on the possibility that an asylum seeker could be sent back to a country where they are mistreated - even though the UK government has a promise from the government of Rwanda this won't happen. For the tiny chance that it could happen - UK law and policy is decided by judges. A parliamentary system cannot abide judicial over reach. Parliament is sovereign, not the courts.

You have not explained why the judges are “overstepping their authority.”
You have expressed an opinion that the judges are “overstepping their authority.”
Until you learn to differentiate between fact and your opinion you will continue to make erroneous statements.
However, since you’re here; could you explain how it is that the risk of being sent back to their own country and mistreated is, as you state, tiny?

 

[Thomasc]

Rarely do they look as evil a [Poor language removed] as they actually are. What a vile creature this is.