European convention for human rights

[monkeytrousers]

This debate crops up everywhere but I haven't seen or read an objective view anywhere (but this is probaly due to only reading the paper once a week since DS was born).

As a leftie () I'm instinctivly for it. Why is it getting so much bad press (as I'm pretty sure it's helped alot of people including some Metmumers)?

a lot of basic rights stuff seems to wind lots of people, especially right-wingers, right up - see arguments about whether prisoners should be allowed to vote.

But I think the main reason it gets bad press is because most of the press barons are anti-EU generally and they think it's a good stick to beat it with.

It gets right on my tits actually.

(I mean the constant eu bashing gets on my tits, not the convention)

because it stands up for poor people against the interests of the rich, who control most of what is said in the media?

tell me more about it

imo, the idea of a european union has always been a good one. (but then I hold out hopes of a star trek-esque world government - an end to borders, one standard for all, everyone equal chances etc etc) I like the principle of emphasising the rights of every human being and working towards ending abuses and making sure all people have the basic protections etc - all good.

But we dont hear about it like this. The media doesnt encourage debate on all this, it does not sell papers. what sells papers are stories of the burgler who broke into an oaps house and then sued her because she had breeched his human rights by not helping him out to the van with her tv, thus he strained his back and was unable to burgle for 6 weeks - and he won and she had to pay his loss of earnings and for his emotional distress.

Now I know I have just made that up, but what I mean to illustrate is the daft way 'human rights' is bandied about and the the euro conv on hr is accused of being nothing more than a way to reward wrongdoing, stupidity and all sorts of daft stuff!

I know too though, that people do use 'human rights' to get away with all sorts, to get their own way, and to get money! And when that is what you read day after day over your cornflakes it does makes you forget the real issue which is protecting people from actual abuse and exploitation.

the main points of the convention

They are all fairly sensible imo, but open to interpretation to an extent by judges. By the law of averages, some of those interpretations were probably wrong.

As SP says, these are fairly sensible - a basic statement of common human rights, I think. Was very pleased they were incorporated into UK law. It saves people and the State an awful lot of time, trouble and money as you no longer have to exhaust the UK courts and then take your case to Europe.

Not as well-written as the original American constitution though, sadly.

It's very scary to understand just how much of what we read, and hence, know about politics is at the whim of a handful media tycoons, and that any debate to inform us of this is ignored. (John Lloyd's book 'What the Media are doing to our Politics' made a very small splash in the broadsheets last year then was quickly brushed under the carpet.)

On an even more depressing note, DP has just finished reading Jared Diamond's 'Collapse' that (without invoking any biblical overtones) predicts the beginning of the end of western civilization within 25-50 years. War, genocide, the horror we see in the third world on our doorsteps as the repercussions of dwindling resources kick in..And it's our children that will have to fight - as we'll all be pretty old by then we won't stand a chance. When it comes from someone as respected, lucid and prosaic as him it really does make me worry.

Not the convention of Human rights I know, but they're connected as poor (and I think anyone not super rich will be levelled to this status - upper middle classes too)take the brunt of the losses.