I'm off of paypal for accepting payments but would love a solid alternative to sending money to people internationally (Chase Quickpay is great but you can't do international xfers).
I can't believe anyone still thinks international tribunals are a good idea. As if not bad enough for unelected judges to subvert democracy in their own county, but now you can have unelected judges in other countries subvert democracy in yours!
If your definition of 'democracy' is a system of tyranny of the majority, where an elected government can do whatever it likes, create law in its own image without constitutional limit or fetter (for fear of 'subverting democracy'), then I don't particularly want to live in a democracy. And, thankfully, I don't.
Liberal democracy (in the classical sense) has the principle of Rule of Law rather than Rule of Man, with associated elements of due process, human rights, etc. ranking as more important than political will. This necessarily entails a disinterested, unelected, apolitical judiciary to decide when the legislature or executive has breached your constitution / human rights document / etc. This seems to work out a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
(Even if you reject that - and the UK in theory does have a system of Parliamentary sovereignty rather than legal sovereignty - it's still hardly 'subverting democracy'. The situation here is still the executive (GCHQ) may be acting in violation of the will of Parliament (as expressed in the HRA1998). Parliament delegates the task of deciding when the executive has violated its law to various judicial bodies, domestic and international).
In this case GCHQ might be operating illegally. So, we follow the legal process in our country. But then, if the Government is still breaking its own laws, we can go to the European courts to get justice.
This is an important step in our justice system, and it's something that we are (mostly) proud of. There are a few problems.
Sticking the "unelected" qualifier on "judge" as if there is no distinction between law and politics betrays a lot of prejudice. Judges in the EU aren't directly elected anywhere, as far as I know.
Human Rights law in the EU serves much the same role as constitutional law does in the US: an underlying set of values that the behaviour of the government must be consistent with. Article 8 ECHR serves much the same role as the US 4th Amendment in limiting searches.
Besides, if there's genuine consensus the rules can be changed and the judiciary have to go along with that.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
What's wrong with that? You have unelected judges deciding things in any country with a form of constitualial law. Not everything should be directly elected. A system where everything is decided by democracy can be bad too.
The result we get is that the executive of a government claims they have complete freedom of action regarding national security. National security becomes a magic word that unlocks unconstitutional actions when you mix domestic operations with national security.
Are you claiming that an international tribunal to try a case against an unlawful executive is worse? Or are you claiming that if the executive does it, it isn't unlawful?
Rant on: Why is it that people use "Prism" as synonym for the whole state of government surveillance? PRISM is one specific program of the NSA, there is much more and there is much worse (eg TEMPORA).
Worth pointing out that they can't make an application to the ECtHR until all legal appeals have been exhausted in the UK (Supreme Court?). Otherwise the application will be immediately rejected.
They do describe the route they are taking - they asked the government and got referred to the "Investigatory Powers Tribunal" (IPT) but the ECtHR has already decided that the IPT is a bit dubious so they may entertain a direct approach.
Depends. There have been cases in ECHR which didn't have national level court action first and drill succeeded, like the A B C v Ireland abortion ruling.
AndrewDucker|12 years ago
I think it's worth making this as public as possible.
ksrm|12 years ago
cabalamat|12 years ago
GunlogAlm|12 years ago
brackin|12 years ago
spongle|12 years ago
Fucking infuriates me. It's safer to transfer your money in cash in a transparent bag with "steal me" on it.
rentnorove|12 years ago
joelrunyon|12 years ago
I'm off of paypal for accepting payments but would love a solid alternative to sending money to people internationally (Chase Quickpay is great but you can't do international xfers).
frank_boyd|12 years ago
rayiner|12 years ago
SEMW|12 years ago
If your definition of 'democracy' is a system of tyranny of the majority, where an elected government can do whatever it likes, create law in its own image without constitutional limit or fetter (for fear of 'subverting democracy'), then I don't particularly want to live in a democracy. And, thankfully, I don't.
Liberal democracy (in the classical sense) has the principle of Rule of Law rather than Rule of Man, with associated elements of due process, human rights, etc. ranking as more important than political will. This necessarily entails a disinterested, unelected, apolitical judiciary to decide when the legislature or executive has breached your constitution / human rights document / etc. This seems to work out a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
(Even if you reject that - and the UK in theory does have a system of Parliamentary sovereignty rather than legal sovereignty - it's still hardly 'subverting democracy'. The situation here is still the executive (GCHQ) may be acting in violation of the will of Parliament (as expressed in the HRA1998). Parliament delegates the task of deciding when the executive has violated its law to various judicial bodies, domestic and international).
DanBC|12 years ago
This is an important step in our justice system, and it's something that we are (mostly) proud of. There are a few problems.
pjc50|12 years ago
Human Rights law in the EU serves much the same role as constitutional law does in the US: an underlying set of values that the behaviour of the government must be consistent with. Article 8 ECHR serves much the same role as the US 4th Amendment in limiting searches.
Besides, if there's genuine consensus the rules can be changed and the judiciary have to go along with that.
gadders|12 years ago
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
rmc|12 years ago
Zigurd|12 years ago
Are you claiming that an international tribunal to try a case against an unlawful executive is worse? Or are you claiming that if the executive does it, it isn't unlawful?
jsingleton|12 years ago
It's Direct Debit (not credit card / paypal) which means less fees.
Sprint|12 years ago
sudomal|12 years ago
GunlogAlm|12 years ago
rlongstaff|12 years ago
thenomad|12 years ago
They'll do this the right way.
arethuza|12 years ago
rmc|12 years ago
ommunist|12 years ago
SideburnsOfDoom|12 years ago
deepvibrations|12 years ago
infinity0|12 years ago
infinity0|12 years ago