European Court of Human Rights

European Court of Human Rights rules against school pool segregation of Muslims

In Auckland at the Mount Roskill public Cameron pool a segregated, religious swimming programme is funded by the ratepayers. The rationale behind offering it to Muslim women is that it will help them to integrate into our culture and society according to the New Zealand Herald article on the subject. The European Court of Human rights does not share this belief, in fact, they have outlawed segregation of Muslim students at school as they see it as preventing integration.

Our own New Zealand Human Rights Commission has been silent on the subject and the Auckland Council has denied that the ratepayer-funded religious segregation even exists.

Read more »

Turkey becomes more Islamic, age of consent lowered from fifteen to twelve years old

I wonder how attractive Turkey is looking to the EU right now? Do they really want to make it a member when it is going backwards into pedophile territory? Sex with a twelve year old or marriage to a twelve year old is considered pedophillia in every western nation. “?In striking contrast to Turkey, Spain in 2015 ?raised it from from 14 to 16 to bring it into line with the rest of Europe. I fear that the days of considering Turkey a ” moderate ” Muslim nation are long gone.

A row has erupted between the Turkish and Austrian governments following a decision by the Turkish Constitutional court to effectively lower the age of consent in Turkey to 12.

…The Constitutional Court has ruled to annul a provision that punishes all sexual acts against children under the age of 15 as ?sexual abuse,? stirring outrage from academics and women?s rights activists who warn that the decision will lead to cases of child abuse going unpunished.

…Kronen Zeitung reported that the?district court claimed a 15-year old?s consent was scarcely different to that of a 12 to 14-year-old?s. They argued that the mental capacity of a 12-year-old was not hugely different from a 15-year-old.

But local activists have not welcomed the decision.

Read more »

This is why you shoot pirates

Embed from Getty Images

International law defines?only the crime of piracy, not the penalty, it could be argued therefore that you are allowed to execute pirates on the high seas…so Lord knows why the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys bothered apprehending it has caused no end of grief.

The European Court of Human Rights says France violated the rights of Somali pirates who had attacked French ships and has ordered compensation for them over judicial delays.

The nine Somali pirates should get thousands of euros because they were not immediately brought before a French judge, the court ruled.

One is to get 9,000 euros (?7,000) and the others sums of up to 7,000 euros.

What they should have got was a bullet. ? Read more »

The law of unintended consequences is funny sometimes

Human Rights Commission and Judges the world over are earnest well-meaning twats who just get things dreadfully wrong…most of the time.

Mostly though they are meddlers taking on cases with little merit and in the case of New Zealand sticking up for convicted paedophiles and former bankrupts.

In the UK the?European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is impinging on sentencing with their daft rulings on behalf of poor hard done by ratbags and scumbags serving lengthy sentences. The Tory government is moving to run one up that little effort.

Murderers and other serious criminals could be given US-style jail sentences lasting hundreds of years to get round a European human rights ban on whole-life terms, The Telegraph can disclose.

Ministers are considering a change in sentencing rules to allow judges to rule that offenders should spend decades and even hundreds of years in jail.

The plan is part of the UK Government?s ongoing confrontation with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

The proposed change to sentencing comes as Conservative ministers prepare to publish the party?s proposals to overhaul the UK?s human rights laws.

They will suggest reforms to ensure Britain?s Supreme Court is the final arbiter on human right cases, not the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Current English law allows judges to impose ?whole life? tariffs, effectively sentencing a criminal to die in jail.

However, the Strasbourg court said last year that such sentences are a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, because there was no possibility of a “right to review”.

The court ruling means at least one multiple murderer has avoided a whole-life sentence.

The Government is considering its response to the ruling on whole life tariffs.? Read more »

EU court dumps on gay rights

? Mail Online

The?European?Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has declared that smae sex marriage is not a human right:

Same-sex marriages are not a human right, European judges have ruled.

Their decision shreds the claim by ministers that gay marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives.

The ruling was made by judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg following a case involving a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who complained the French courts would not allow them to adopt a child as a couple.

The ruling also says that if gay couples are allowed to marry, any church that offers weddings will be guilty of discrimination if it declines to marry same-sex couples.

It means that if MPs legislate for same-sex marriage, the Coalition?s promise that churches will not be compelled to conduct the weddings will be worthless.

The ruling comes just days after the Government published a consultation paper which promised marriage to same-sex couples and made clear that Britain is only catching up with other countries.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said: ?Put simply, it?s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise a commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry.?

However, the Strasbourg judges ruled that because the French couple were civil partners, they did not have the rights of married people, who in France have the sole right to adopt a child as a couple.


Enhanced by Zemanta