Archive of topics from before June 2012. PM a mod to get one reopened.
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#117716
Or should that be Tommytank Watch?

Current unfave is Civitas. Here they are on prisoners voting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164

Director David Green said the government had been forced into the decision by the ECHR and added: "It is another example of judges acting as if they were politicians. It is judicial empire-building.

"The government should make only the smallest possible concession - perhaps by giving the vote to prisoners sentenced to six months or less. The ban should remain for all the others.


"If it leads to further legal action, so be it. In the longer term, Parliament should pass a law making the decisions of the British Parliament superior to any rulings of the European Court."


So human rights judges pronouncing on human rights law is empire building? What's politicians ignoring the law? And it's worth wasting a load of money on another legal case, so we can lose that, just so we look tough.

And member countries of the ECHR should just pass their own laws to say fuck the ECHR. Great. Well worth throwing international human rights out of the window for a minor issue like this.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#117717
Worth stating, for any thinktank mentioned, what their known affiliations are.
Civitas is not affiliated to any party, and receives no official funding. Small L liberal bias.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#117725
Yes. It's a very pure liberal position.
The greatest liberty is freedom, and the greatest expression of freedom (ie legal right granted by the state, natural rights having no existence) is the freedom to choose a government. If you do harm to other people you abrogate their liberty/rights (right to life, property, happiness etc.) and so the state takes away your freedoms/rights for a period of time. One of which is the right to partake in democracy.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#117751
So politicians deciding some people can't vote is liberal?

Is the point (apologies for my obtundity) that judges shouldn't limit politicians to make that choice?
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#117753
It's according to classical liberal thinking as espoused in 'On Liberty'. Which 2 of our political parties hold as a central tenet. Cue "Tenets are cheap today, cheaper than yesterday..." but not, apparently, for Civitas.

If you want to bandy paradigms, you could say that the British Utilitarian/Liberal paradigm has just clashed with a Franco-European-1798 Rights of Man paradigm. But you might not want to.
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Posts
#117796
Tubby Isaacs wrote:So politicians deciding some people can't vote is liberal?

Is the point (apologies for my obtundity) that judges shouldn't limit politicians to make that choice?


Are you sure that's a cromulent word?
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#117797
He's just garriflecting.
The Mail's Front Page Headline

Fuckwits. It chimes in with Otto English's piece o[…]

Unfortunately it's pretty much a constant battle w[…]

The Trump Presidency

I mean...how did he manage to get nominated in t[…]

But that's all anyone has - the fact that of the p[…]