Slashdot Mirror
Judges Say the UK's Digital Surveillance Program Snooper's Charter Is Illegal (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: Judges have ruled that the UK government's digital surveillance program -- known variously as the Snooper's Charter and the Investigatory Powers Act -- is illegal.
In the case brought by human rights group Liberty, appeal judges found that the preceding Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) -- which ultimately became the Snooper's Charter -- failed to offer adequate protection to people's data. Of particular concern was the fact that private data could be shared between different agencies without sufficient oversight. Further reading: The Intercept.
In the case brought by human rights group Liberty, appeal judges found that the preceding Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) -- which ultimately became the Snooper's Charter -- failed to offer adequate protection to people's data. Of particular concern was the fact that private data could be shared between different agencies without sufficient oversight. Further reading: The Intercept.
Our judges actually care about civil liberties. You buffoons elected Trump. LOL
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your judges might, but your politicians do not give a shit about you -- just like everywhere else.
Better a patriotic American who tells us the truth crudely than a globalist who lies eloquently.
Is this even English? Whoever you are, you've got issues. The post above you talks about how a surveillance law applies to citizens but doesn't apply to government officials and you go off on a rant about, what exactly? Something about being unidentifiable while posting as AC.
They were happy to democratically enable a law that wouldn't affect them...
The "Deep state" is such a crock on conspiracy shit; it's borderline hilarious. If there is was a "deep state", then you can guarantee people who have been in government for years are a part of it. McConnel, Gingrich, etc. Even pundits like Limbaugh would be tits deep.
Our judges actually care about civil liberties. You buffoons elected Trump. LOL
Personally, I want judges that care about the law as written, not buffoons who legislate from the bench. I also prefer laws that don't impact civil liberties so Judges who care about the law can protect them. So you need two things here. Just laws that protect civil liberties and Judges that enforce the law.
Trump is appointing Judges who care about the law and won't invent rulings on laws that don't exist. I don't see how that's a bad or dangerous thing for anybody, unless you think the law is wrong. If you think the law is wrong, that's something you take up with congress who writes the law, or the president if he signed it. He may be a buffoon to you, but he's doing the right thing with the judges he's appointing.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I swear that these posts have to be some kind of veiled C&C instructions for some botnet.
Looks like a shit troll, he appears to have skipped any attempt at debate and just gone ad hominem on you... poorly at that. Either that or he's one of the rare few idiots who support the charter but can provide no reasoning to back his opinion.
LOL. Trump is nominating unqualified partisan idealogues. Just look at the case of Brett Talley.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
LOL.. I'm guessing that the Nunes memo is about to start a reckoning on the wrong side of the isle for these folks. Heads are already rolling at the FBI it seems, question is how deep will it reach and what it will expose. Seems it will be a lot to me. One is left to wonder how they will react. If past performance is any indicator it will be fun to watch so I have the popcorn ready.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You buffoons elected Trump. LOL
I'd shoot back about how you idiots voted to destroy your economy via Brexit but it's still a lesser mistake than Trump :(
Exactly. They make batshit crazy surveillance laws in the UK only to protect those that govern from their own civilians.
Alex Jones, is that you?
With FISA, such data about US citizens is never abused in the US by a government trying to stay in power.
Geez, we'd never see a US political party collude with a foreign government to fabricate falsehoods against a candidate from another party, feed that disinformation to party loyalists embedded into law enforcement and intelligence agencies, then use that false data as a pretext for wiretapping that candidate as an "insurance policy" should that candidate win.
FISA protects the US people!
Racism, stupidity, and Russian election interference 'elected' Trump.
Now it is the duty of every patriotic American to expose this traitor, and remove him from power to limit the damage of his treasonous actions like destruction of the state department (to Russia and China's delight)
Moscow Donald's refusal to enforce sanctions against Russia demonstrates his continued subservience to Vladimir Putin, whose Russian mafia money he has been laundering for decades.
I understand that many people want this traitor to keep up his Russian sponsored crime spree, and continue colluding with Russian election interference in America, but I don't let traitors or uneducated racists tell me what to do.
Sorry, but if democratically elected MPs can't pass laws which pass legal muster, that's their goddamned fucking problem.
Being democratically elected is only part of the story. Writing laws which are legal is the other part.
For the same reason that any healthy democracy should have underpinnings which say "no, you don't get to decide these people are slaves", the judiciary is there to prevent people from passing laws which say exactly that.
If you live in a country where judges can't strike down laws as illegal, then you are in a seriously fucked country where lawmakers have absolute power and can pass any stupid ass law they want ... all MPs get to fuck your daughter and your wife whenever they wish, for instance.
So, hey, if you are stupid enough to think you want to live in a country where judges can't void laws ... then please, fuck off and go live in one. I guarantee you, it won't be a nice place.
Know who wants to live in a country where the judiciary can't strike down laws? Tyrants, fascists, and mewling idiots who are too stupid to understand the function of a judicial system in society.
If you want to live in such a country, move to one, and then shut the fuck up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
More like American 'patriot' who lies to you crudely. To be fair, I prefer when idiots lie because they're not as good at it so it makes my bullshit detection process far easier.
DRIPA was repealed at the end of 2016. The UK court is merely affirming the EU's Court of Justice ruling against DRIPA back then and applying it to the IPA now. However, because Britain is leaving the EU, it's unclear as to whether the British government will simply ignore the court ruling since EU laws will no longer have sway over Britain's national security policies.
It's a bot; check some other recent threads.
democratically elected MPs
When democracy is choosing from a set of two or three cunts, any of whom will serve their respective parties' vested interested ahead of serving you, elected by a bunch of ignorant cunts primarily based on what they read in the tabloids*, I'm personally willing to give arrogant judges a bit of leeway, and a bit more respect than most MPs.
*QED - see Brexit referendum
There's a flaw in your logic that governing bodies and legal systems understand: law requires interpretation and context.
Without an impossibly exhaustive body of explicit law that covers every possible scenario and an impossibly skilled governing body to write and maintain those laws, *ALL* judges have the interpret the law as written based on its original intent, the surrounding context, historical precedent, changes in social norms, and the actual law as written. See the etymology of "judge"--it's in their title, ffs.
What you're really saying is that you want conservative minded judges to interpret law as written that matches your values. To me, that's fine, that's your power as a voter but to lie about your underlying intent and frame it under this picture of "following the law" is a joke.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
>how you idiots voted to destroy your economy via Brexit
Haha. Right.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/31/uk-economy-in-2018-steady-growth-tempered-by-brexit-politics
Fast forward to the opening days of 2018 and fresh political tumult threatens to cripple Britain once more. There are, however, some reasons to be cheerful about the prospects for the UK economy. Despite the political to-and-fro of the past year, the UK economy enters 2018 in better health than many would have given it credit for.
The post-referendum recession never materialised. Consumers have kept calm and carried on spending against the odds, and global growth and a resurgent eurozone are helping to buoy British manufacturers.
For all the doom and gloom "analysis'" about the Brexit., things are pretty much going swimmingly.
Brett Talley wasn't nominated to be federal judge, idiot. Got any other examples?
About pushing right wing Agendas. This includes the "Deep State" conspiracies being pushed right now. The issue is not so much Trump, its the US Congress, which is full of Neo-Fascists. This has been an on-going thing since the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. Basically, the way I see it, the US was on the path to being a purely secular, liberal democracy, and the right wing US Parties have used the idea of De-funding US Public institutions in an effort to try and restore the traditions, and racist ideas of the past.
Only thats not what is actually happening. What's actually happening, is the US is crumbling from within because the actual democratic mechanics of the US are disintegrating. If there is not a "Blue Wave" in 2018, that removes alot of these Senators and House Members from office, and impeaches Donald Trump, we are very likely to see the US Become an outright oligarchical dictatorship, Donald Trump isn't even the real threat here, its the Republican Politicians who won't check him, who are letting him pack right wing ideologues to the courts.
If GW Bush were as bad a Trump is, he'd have been impeached. So Trump is a symptom of the problem, the real problem is people like Paul Ryan, and his ilk. Along with people who aren't even in congress like Robert Mercer and Rebekah Mercer.
Let's be honest after all the doom and gloom news anything short of a nuclear civil war is likely to be viewed favourably...
Brexit was the everyman rejecting the lies and elitism of MPs who brought them into the (terrible) EU in the first place.
Yes, duh, that's the point: it's the professional political class and bureaucracy who persist through election cycles and are constantly moving between the revoking door of government to lobbyist/contractor.
You literally just illustrated against your own point.
Thank God for Jews!
To quote (allegedly) Andrew Jackson: Andrew Jackson, "Mr Marshall has made his decision; Now let him enforce it!"
It doesn't matter what a court rules if the executive charged with enforcing the ruling doesn't feel obliged to do so. And in this case, does anyone believe for a second that GCHQ and friends will be deterred for a minute by a court finding "Hey, this doesn't adequately protect individual rights"? They've known this will ignore individual rights from the get go. It's the whole point of the act in the first place.
The Intellectual-Yet-Idiot has a highly-inflated perception of his own intelligence, prizes pedigree, and can't understand why those he thinks are his inferiors resent his attempts to run their lives.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/no_author/the-intellectual-yet-idiot/
Amen. Now can we kick the filthy Brits off the internet? It's feeling a lot like 1776 and the tea peddling lymies are sucking too much of our atmosphere. This time I say we take the metric system with us and bring back the liter instead of just redefining their pompous language.
It is just Alexander Peter Kowalski being a retard.
He lashes out when people point out his BS and prove him wrong.
He will likely go on like this for a few more days.
He also gets mad when people rightfully point out his endless spamming.
So, you don't want a Republic then, you want a dictatorship.
See, the job of the judges is to ensure that the laws don't overreach and curtail other rights. Lawmakers are lazy idiots who want whatever whims they have to be law, and absolute.
Without judges who can strike down laws that are illegal, all sorts of draconian laws would get passed. Your 'rights' would be waved away in the same of security and expedience.
You may be stupid enough to want to live in a society where laws are absolute and the judiciary only enforces them, but that's your problem. The rest of us want to know that the courts can say "sorry, no, but you can't decree that everyone is now your slave". Because without that, that's where you'd end up.
So, if you want to live in a country where the elected officials can re-enact slavery, do the rest of us a favour and move there. Because you can't have a free society in which any law which is passed is beyond recourse.
That is the role of a judiciary, to act as a check and balance against tyrants, assholes, and idiots like you.
EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!
Yes, sleazy publishers have always screamed their headlines to sell newspapers. For some reason, remnants of this marketing practice continue in the internet age. It's a delicate balance; trying to appeal to the unwashed masses who have some reading ability without offending the educated reader with crass commercialism. In which group are Slashdot readers?
"Judges Say the UK's Digital Surveillance Program Snooper's Charter Is Illegal"
After reading that headline 4 times and failing to make sense of it, I tried to read TFS. Eventually I understood a bit more. Why Does Every Word Begin With A Capital? Let's try this again:
"Judges say the UK's digital surveillance program Snooper's Charter is illegal"
Now we see that 'Snooper's Charter' is a thing, and the rest are ordinary words. Notice that in this century, many forward thinking publishers no longer scream their headlines. Here are some: ...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.miamiherald.com/new...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
https://www.cnbc.com/
...omphaloskepsis often...
It's not about civil liberties. It's just that allowing the government to snoop on your data and communications constitutes a flagrant breach of international copyright laws and treaties.
And there go the goal posts again. DOn't you guys ever get tired from moving them around so much?
I remember when it was "No Russian meetings with anyone ever!"
Then it was "A couple of Russian meetings with one or two Trump people about nothing!"
Then it was "OK a lot of Russian meetings with several Trump people but we didn't talk about the election!"
Then it was "OK lots and lots of Russian meetings with many Trump people and we did talk about the election, but that isn't illegal!"
And now we find out that it really was "OK there were a zillion Russian meetings with literally everyone around Trump, and we talked about the election, and it's all very illegal!"
I'll take that as a "No"...
The Deep State meme is a cynical ploy.
Rather than a balance of powers as the Founding Fathers intended, Deep State arguments are intended to produce an authoritarian state where all power is vested in the political party that wins at the polls. And since there is a hierarchical organization to be won, ultimately that places all power in the hands of the President.
In the end this (partly) recreates the system of European monarchies and the Divine Right of Kings. Yes the term of the monarch is limited by the election cycle. However think about this, even in the days of absolute monarchies, the monarch would die or become unwell, or be deposed. Even monarchs had time limits of a sort.
You might say this is alarmist, but look at what the current President and his appointees have said and done. They continually undermine the judiciary and the agencies of government. They reward slavish loyalty; they regard independence of thought and action as betrayals. Personal betrayals! A person elected to government is supposed to have respect for the position and the institution, not view the government position as their due reward and entitlement. The government is not an ATM for enriching the successful candidate, nor is it power awarded to some kind of 1% Master Race.
Is this what we really want? A system of 4 year dictators? Deep State fans are either stupid, ignorant of civics, or cynical and malevolent. The whole movement undermines the Constitution.
It looks like that at least MPs data is collected by retired police officers for the perfectly legitimate purposes of gossip. Parliamentary immunity should only be relevant in terms of prosecution, not technical monitoring if the reasons of public security would really be enough for such intrusion and exception to basic and human rights. Hie have done wrong, ic say as well.
I wouldn't say that. Trump will be gone when you'll just start to feel the first consequences of Brexit.
As long as there is no accountability the judge can say that gravity is illigal, as long as nothing changes and/or heads roll, it is meaningless. Most likely this just means "We change the law till ot is legal." And that is the best outcome I expect. Most likely nothing will happen.
If you do nothing after your kid stole a cookie, besides telling it not to, he will do it again. Still no consequences? Why worry ? Take some more.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That doesn't sound too honest...
"Privacy" is not a Platonic solid. It is not a universal good. It's a catchall for any number of qualitative circumstances, any number of which can be good or bad or neutral. "Privacy" is great if you're Joe Public, and a lack of privacy would negatively and measurably effect your physical well-being. "Privacy" is an irrelevant measure if the lack thereof has no perceptible effect on your life.
As usual, European countries are putting their abstracted absolutes before real world practicality, because apparently doing anything else is *cough* *cough* Nazism.
Somehow, you can trust your country to have a standing military and police force, capable of stomping your lights out, imposing martial law, or nuking the entire world, yet you can't trust them to collect phone and email records to investigate terrorism and global espionage threats?
This decision is completely bonkers.
More accurately striking down illegal laws is enforcing the laws which limit the power of the legislature. The power to write arbitrary laws is not granted to the legislature and if they overstep they have broken the law.
If you judiciary isn't doing that than they are not enforcing the laws as written and are failing at their job by any measure.
At least is wasn't "Sold the Russians a shit-load of Uranium".
In 7 years? Yeah, get back to me on that.
Yes, but the problem is it only has to sound truthy to the drooling knuckle draggers it's intended to sound truthy to.
The people who want to believe the Republican agenda can't be implemented because of a 'deep state'? Those people don't want facts or truth, they want something which validates the stupid shit they believe.
Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Perrone, Spanish inquistion & Spain 1492 (Christopher Columbus the jew https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22C... sailed to the US for them to create it), France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above. Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud. This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Khazar/Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):
Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...
Just like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer
"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer â" so I wasnâ(TM)t lying â" and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveâ Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...
Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.
Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).
Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.
George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.
Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.
Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!
Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).
You have difficulty with facts, don't you?
Yes, he was nominated. The fact that, after an outcry, his nomination was withdrawn does not mean that he "wasn't even nominated to be a judge?" Of course he was nominated to be judge.
Trump has a long list of successful nominations (where "successful" means that his nomination was appointed). Yes, I don't deny that. What I do claim is that they are largely idealogues, where loyalty to Trump is the most important criteria.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Or sold the Iranians missles.
REMEMBER when former CIA Director and then Vice President George H. W. Bush SOLD MISSLES to sworn enemy IRAN???
I member.
Their beef is with the foreign concept of checks and balances.
Laws say what they say. Judges that come up with, "well, I think it says something else" are the worst kind of human trash. Slavery is slavery. Ignorance is ignorance. Strength is strength. Anyone who tells you otherwise needs to be hanged.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Judges in the UK can't strike down statutes. The legal system here is not like the US, where the law can evolve directly through the courts as well as through legislation. Our courts are strictly there to interpret existing laws and to deal with conflicts.
In this case, the point is that two laws were incompatible. On the one hand, we have the surveillance law, introduced by our national government. On the other hand, we have the EU human rights laws. The court here took the view that the former were in conflict with the latter, and the latter won.
The same could potentially have happened in a post-Brexit world where those EU laws are no longer supreme, if the equivalent safeguards are transferred into our national law as part of the Brexit process. This is something that various MPs and campaign groups are promoting heavily right now, because they are sceptical about the government's preferred plan where ministers get to transfer laws but also make some adjustments to them, ostensibly for practical reasons, but without necessarily passing primary legislation in Parliament. The loss of EU-derived safeguards for human rights, employee protections and the like is the main reason for concern here.
Of course, assuming we do leave the EU and our national law is then all we have to work with, that does mean that the elected legislature can amend those laws however they want and judges then have to rule based on the new laws. This is by design, and is part of what's called parliamentary sovereignty -- the principle that Parliament is supreme among all parts of the government and can't be overruled by the government alone, activist judges or (more historically now) other potential influences such as royalty or aristocrats.
The potential downside of this is that, yes, they can make bad laws too. The upside is that if MPs do that, there will no longer be anywhere for them to hide. If they want to pass a law that says they can do something bad to ordinary people, they're going to have to do it in public through the mechanisms of Parliament and they're going to be accountable for it at the next general election.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Ok, Ok.. Yep, I was mistaken..
However, this guy is certainly NOT representative of Trump's nominees and the senate didn't just rubber stamp him, but returned the nomination to the Whitehouse where it was withdrawn. Not that his motivation was one of a political ideologue....
So you pick the one nomination that was rejected and paint all of Trump's nominations with the same brush? This is an error of logic and lame. What about the rest of his nominations confirmed by the Senate? Care to discuss those or are you claiming they are all political hacks?
Which of them isn't an example of the kind of judge that will uphold the law, not make their own? Because that's what I'm claiming...Unless you figure that being a constructionist makes you a political ideologue.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Apparently you've never read through sites like dumblaws.com which cite many arcane laws still on the books. By your mentality, those laws should be enforced.
You don't seem to understand how a republic/democracy, social contract, society, and or government work outside of a subscribing to ideologies nearing totalitarianism. I suppose totalitarianism can be great if you're the one in power but inevitably, those who seem to share our interests eventually diverge and then you're down a hole with nowhere to go.
It's not a lie when liberal judges always make shit up as they go to suite a political agenda. You're being disingenuous, not abnormal for a liberal zealot obsessed with change for change's sake.
Then you'd like to move to Poland or... even Turkey. The elected thugs are taking care nicely about this pesky judge thing.
To note: it's to the judges to find out whether some just-passed $RANDOM_LAW is compatible with more fundamental laws, like the Constitution (they've learnt that, you know). And in most decent democracies, the Constitution is especially protected, e.g. requiring a bigger majority of Parliament (or perhaps a plebiscite) to change something there. That's all for a reason.
Democracy has some complexities which seem to be beyond your simple mind, alas.
Actually given the history of deceitful GOP reports and memos, the attempt to do so again has had the opposite effect.
We now know Trump is 200% guilty.
Personally, I want judges that care about the law as written, not buffoons who legislate from the bench.
History shows the biggest buffoons are the ones who belive judges like Taney and Moore who claim to be following the law as they advance their own agenda.
In other countries, judges must have a law background and are usually experience, well respected lawyers who have practiced for many years. This is to give the judge a healthy respect for how the courts work both in theory and practice.
The purpose of the courts is not to blindly apply law; it is to provide justice. There is a difference.
If you just want someone to read from a book and apply its teachings, you want a preacher or a priest, not a judge. Justice is all about interpretation and discretion.
As Cicero wrote:
You're right, we are showing weak growth, which, as with Brexit voters, is significantly retarded compared to our neighbours.
In other countries, judges must have a law background and are usually experience, well respected lawyers who have practiced for many years.
All true here in the USA at the federal level. It's why the Senate has the "advise and consent" roll that they take seriously and don't just rubber stamp all nominees.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Human rights is a tricky one since the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) isn't actually a part of the EU. The UK is a member of the Council of Europe of which the ECHR is a part. The EU's relationship to the ECHR is complicated as the EU doesn't want to accede control to the ECHR but notionally abides by it's 'laws'. So the Brexit process is even less clear than what you have stated as dropping out of the EU doesn't automatically drop the ECHR, but it may drop the concepts that ECHR applies from 'laws' to 'suggestions' depending on how things will be interpreted. Of course any laws passed that are EU specific will firstly be copied into national law then can be repealed/modified at leisure. Whether a law being repealed is a bad or a good thing will be on a case by case basis and obviously a matter of opinion on that particular law - can't imagine any changes will actually benefit your average joe.
I have to wonder how many people on a survey would say the ECHR is a part of the EU - I would guess it would be close to 100%. Very little information about the architecture of the EU and Europe was gleaned during the Referendum, probably since it's so intractable it would put everyone to sleep.
Although this is true, the case we're talking about today didn't involve the ECtHR, but rather the CJEU, and wasn't based on the ECHR, but rather the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.
If Brexit involves a complete separation from the EU, neither the CJEU nor the Charter will continue to apply in the UK. The ECHR would be all that was left.
With the UK no longer a member of the EU, the one unassailable barrier to modifying the HRA and thus removing the protections of the ECHR would also be lost. It might still require national legislation to actually nerf the HRA in that way, and no doubt that would be controversial, but in any case the protections would already be weaker than they are today if the equivalent to the Charter had not been transferred into national law when Brexit happened.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's a bunch of hogwash where you conflate the differences in standard hyperbole chosen by politicians in the two places for actual differences. And your hyperbole is just from one political "side," too, so it is crap in multiple dimensions.
Go search the Ars Technica forums for "APK" and "AlecStaar". He's been doing this for 20 years.
Our judges actually care about civil liberties.
The judgement is based on the law, not on whether the judges care about civil liberties. In this case it's the EU law that's protecting civil liberties; without that law and the outcome would have been very different, however pro-civil-liberties any judges were. In other words, the EU cares more about civil liberties than does the UK.
You buffoons elected Trump. LOL
You buffoons voted for Brexit. The consequences of that are going to be much more nasty for you, immediate, and definitely attributable to your vote than the Trump presidency will be for Americans. One of the consequences will be that the UK will be able to legislate away the civil liberties mandated by the EU.
I see some pedantry, but where is the distinction or the difference? Courts here rule that XYZ state statute is overruled by ABC federal law, or that federal law conflicts with the Constitution all the time.
The following are related but distinct: two statute laws are in conflict and a court must decide how to balance them, a statute law conflicts with a higher law (such as a written constitution) and automatically loses, and the effect of a statute law is changed over time by case law.
It's a question of how much a precedent is worth. In some legal systems, as I understand it, case law can eventually become strong enough to override the statutes from which it originated, thus allowing the law as a whole to evolve in the courts. In other legal systems, the original statutes are immutable and always have priority, and no matter how much case law accumulates, it is only ever a guide to interpreting the original legislation.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If you're interested in a sensible discussion and not just trolling and/or reading your personal political views into someone else's post when they aren't there, feel free to clarify.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Poor old APK is projecting his own faults, and continues with his delusion that he has ever won any debate, just a pathetic fatass virgin in Moms basement, spewing lies and hate. Sad.
"patriotic american"
Hahaha, you can say that with a straight face while Donnie won't pull his tongue out of Dear Leader Putin's ass? Quite the 'patriot' you have there.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
That's a very weird construct, "trolling, or having an unauthorized opinion."
Are you ever gonna stop beating your wife?
I've got an unidentifiable stalker (months of it now) impersonating me too all due to my blowing him away here https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11679505&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=56039569/ with fact & truth!
I.E. - He constantly stalks me & keeps telling me he's "so great" in security & writes 'real securityware' & has 'secured systems for 21 yrs' (I've not only done it longer but also write wares FOR SECURITY that others here like & use too praising its quality & efficacy)!
YET WHEN I ASK HE PROVE HIS BS, he RUNS every single time (hence his 'butthurt' childish impersonating me & more).
* Being reduced to impersonating me in every article on /. (in some attempt to make others 'not like me' (big deal - I'm not here to 'comfort people' OR win a popularity contest (that's for FAKEBOOK fools) by him quoting something I wrote AmiMojo (which was due him/her for wisecracks) is all ANYONE NEEDS TO SEE to evidence his childish butthurt antics.
That & my post link above that 'set him off' (rightfully so - I ask my stalker merely back up his BLOWHARD bluster (& he can't, lol)).
APK
P.S.=> Just stating facts with proof I can provide to back them up... apk