Human, born on earth planet, Solar System

Study Study Study.

Which rights should we discard? A question for the UK Tories

Paul Higgins: Very similar questions should be applied to the Australian government who are talking about “changing  the delicate balance between our safety and our freedoms”
As the Tories launch into their latest ‘human rights are the root of all evil’ fest, at their last annual conference before the next general election, I’d like to ask David Cameron and his party colleagues a question posed by the late Lord Bingham, relating to the rights laid out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
"Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial,
superfluous, unnecessary? Are any them un-British?”Just to be clear which of -
  • Human dignity? (article 1)
  • Right to life? (article 2)
  • Right to the integrity of the person? (article 3)
  • Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? (article 4)
  • Prohibition of slavery and forced labour? (article 5)
  • Right to liberty and security? (article 6)
  • Respect for private and family life? (article 7)
  • Protection of personal data? (article 8)
  • Right to marry and right to found a family? (article 9)
  • Freedom of thought, conscience and religion? (article 10)
  • Freedom of expression and information? (article 11)
  • Freedom of assembly and of association? (article 12)
  • Freedom of the arts and sciences? (article 13)
  • Right to education? (article 14)
  • Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work? (article 15)
  • Freedom to conduct a business? (article 16)
  • Right to property? (article 17)
  • Right to asylum? (article 18)
  • Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition? (article 19)
  • Equality before the law? (article 20)
  • Non-discrimination? (article 21)
  • Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity? (article 22)
  • Equality between men and women? (article 23)
  • The rights of the child? (article 24)
  • The rights of the elderly? (article 25)
  • Integration of persons with disabilities? (article 26)
  • Solidarity (articles 27 to 38) 
  • Citizens rights (articles 39 to 46)
  • Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial? (article 47)
  • Presumption of innocence and right of defence? (article 48)
  • Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties? (article 49)
  • Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence? (article 50)
  • General provisions (articles 51 to 54)
- would the main party of government wish to discard? Are any of these rights trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any them un-British?”

(Source: mostlysignssomeportents, via emergentfutures)

npr:

Wolves in Wyoming are once again being protected under the Endangered Species Act, just two years after those protections were taken away. A federal judge’s ruling last week found the state’s management plan for the animal “inadequate and un-enforceable.” In February, NPR’s Nate Rott took a comprehensive look at the wolf situation in the Western U.S.
Wolves At The Door
Photo credit: David Gilkey/NPR

npr:

Wolves in Wyoming are once again being protected under the Endangered Species Act, just two years after those protections were taken away. A federal judge’s ruling last week found the state’s management plan for the animal “inadequate and un-enforceable.” In February, NPR’s Nate Rott took a comprehensive look at the wolf situation in the Western U.S.

Wolves At The Door

Photo credit: David Gilkey/NPR

1,000 posts!

1,000 posts!