Vladimir Putin Signs Law Allowing Russia To Overthrow Human Rights Court Verdicts

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The ECHR is a joke anyway, it's because of that people like Anjem Choudary roam free on our streets, and why the justice system had such a hard time keeping Abu Hamza al-Masri locked away.

Other criminals can abuse the ECHR rulebook to their own advantage too.

Sure, it may keep us safe in some respects, but at what cost?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Adherence to international courts is completely optional in the first place. International law more or less, doesn't exist because there's no body to enforce it. If it can negatively impact a country they'll simply bow out of it. So I'm not sure what the big deal is here. This is the same action everyone would take, and I'm not one to defend Russia.

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The ECHR is a joke anyway, it's because of that people like Anjem Choudary roam free on our streets, and why the justice system had such a hard time keeping Abu Hamza al-Masri locked away.

Other criminals can abuse the ECHR rulebook to their own advantage too.

Sure, it may keep us safe in some respects, but at what cost?

Isn't choudary remanded in custody so not exactly free to roam our streets? What is the connection between him and the ECHR?
Same question what human rights are you willing to give up?

a reply to: Aazadan

I guess I can see your point there. I just see it as super telling of ulterior intentions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The thing I don't get about this move is, how will he enforce the verdict? Even if the Russian Court does not implement the rulings of the international tribunals, Russian assets will be seized in EU countries. So basically they can say whatever they want, but if they do not comply, then assets will be taken over by force, just like it was done in the Yukos case, that started this whole idea in Putins mind.

a reply to: Thill

That's an interesting perspective that I hadn't realized. Though I'm sure that Putin will have some measure of success for assets that aren't outside of the country.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Less to do with human rights and more to do with corporate greed. Would you accept a European Council telling you that you must obey their laws when you went through the legal channels already set out in your constitution?

Do I think Russia is doing this so they don't have to pay? Yes. Do I believe that the ECHR should override a countries constitution? No.

Link to read.

a reply to: superman2012

In the end, Russia will do what it will do. I certainly don't like it and find their actions shady, but then it's par the course for what is usually done.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: superman2012

In the end, Russia will do what it will do. I certainly don't like it and find their actions shady, but then it's par the course for what is usually done.

Exactly. Every country will do what is necessary when it boils down to their own rights set out in their own constitution. I remember there being a thread a long time ago about the UN going to enforce gun control in the US (not a true thread) and you should have seen the people screaming about their rights guaranteed under the constitution.

a reply to: superman2012

That thread sounds familiar actually, but even if it didn't I can TOTALLY imagine what you are describing.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Isn't choudary remanded in custody so not exactly free to roam our streets? What is the connection between him and the ECHR?
Same question what human rights are you willing to give up?

No, he's been released on bail until the hearing in January, and I wasn't just meaning him, but others like him, for example....

Jihadi preacher linked to bin Laden allowed to stay in UK despite 'extremist' views

He has been detained between four and five times at British airports under terror laws and his home searched by Special Branch officers and ‘items’ seized. He frequently travels to Yemen, a known hotspot for al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups.

But incredibly, the Home Office cannot deport the imam, who preaches at a large mosque in the north of England, because it would be a breach of his human rights to do so.

Also from the same article.....

A study, conducted by an anti-extremist think tank, the Henry Jackson Society, has shown that 28 foreign-born convicted terrorists and suspects have used the Human Rights Act to prevent their expulsion from the UK because they come from countries such as Yemen, Algeria and Egypt where they would face torture or mistreatment on their return.

And in other news....

Terror suspect let back in to UK because of Human Rights Act – so when will we scrap it?

A TERROR suspect who was banned from Britain and deemed a "serious threat" to security has been allowed back in – because of the Human Rights Act.

I don't want to give up any rights as a human, but replacing the ECHR bill with a British bill of human rights, which has apparently been discussed, could be the way forward, at least we would have say on what happens in our own country.

yea, at least Russia passes its laws out in the open.

Whereas, human rights violation laws passed by the US are buried deep in obscure thousand long page bills which rogue US Government contractors will expose years down the line when they've seen enough.

a reply to: woogleuk
The decisions not to deport to countries that use torture is a longstanding UK policy and not related to the ECHR. It is also undoubtedly the correct policy unless you are in favour of torture, there is no material difference in deporting to a country that will torture and using torture ourselves.
ECHR decisions are not binding on UK courts they just must be taken into account. Unless the UK bill of rights had different rights what would the actual difference be. The only one I can think of is that a due to parliamentary sovereignty a UK bill of rights would be entirely at the whim of the government of the day.
The articles you link to are exactly that, newspaper articles. They say human rights are stopping us do things but the give no specifics about how or why? For a site that is supposed to be so sceptical about MSN it would be strange to accept these at face value.
If you don't want certain people to be protected by human rights then you don't want those human tights at all. So it really does cone back to the same question, what rights would you be willing to give up?

a reply to: ScepticScot

I think the point being made in the article is that these people just have to claim they face that if they are deported, not whether or not it might actually happen.

It is the ECHR that prevents us from doing that, and locking them up for longer whilst they are being investigated.

Replacing it with a British bill, one that give us the same basic human rights, but also allows our courts to decide what measures can be taken to keep potential Jihadists off our streets, is one that I would be up for.

In principle the ECHR is a good thing, it could do with a few changes though, extremists, whilst still deserve some human rights, don't deserve them all.

a reply to: woogleuk
Again it is nothing really to do with the ECHR. if there is a genuine risk of torture we wouldn't deport them anyway. If there isn't a risk then we can. This remains a decision made by UK courts.
If you are in favour of removing human rights from some people who makes that decision? Would you be happy that your right not to be tortured can be decided on the whim of a politician?
Despite the the myths of a large section of the press our human rights guarantee us fairly little (no KFC or hard-core porn in prison).
What they do guarantee is a few fundamental rights that apply to everyone, even those we don't agree with.

a reply to: superman2012

Exactly. Every country will do what is necessary when it boils down to their own rights set out in their own constitution.

Every country assumes that it has the right to do what it pleases, but only weak countries are held responsible for human rights by stronger countries. When the Third Reich was crushed, the Allies held war crimes trials. Tiny Serbia was held responsible for genocide, and leaders of countries like Liberia are tried at tribunals. Putin's announcement was just a way for him to say: "Russia is not a Serbia or Liberia. We are a powerful nation." He has to say that now that it is becoming obvious that Russia is less powerful than Turkey.

I don't think it's a right descision