EU Charter of Rights - Good or Bad thing?

Gu3rr1lla

Under the Lisbon Treaty this will be made legally binding. Most of us think that the EU Charter of Rights is a wonderful bit of stuff, I did too, until you actually read it you realise it does the opposite of what it's suppose to do. Well, I could be wrong. I'm just really concerned about what I've read and I'm hoping people could clarify what I say or correct me. Though it reminds me an awful lot like the US Patriot Act and the Nazi Enabling Act. Making tyranny legal.

We can be killed during protests, riots, or while being arrested by police officers. Bold text has been added by me.

“Article 2. Right to Life
a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

• in defence of any person from lawful violence;
• in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
• in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ “

http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

Police officers can deprive you of your life, in other words they can murder you, while attempting to arrest you, and legally your death will not be regarded as breaking the law/article of the Right to Life.

The EU endorses the Death Penalty! Individuals can be given the death penalty for "acts committed" in a time of war or even in the imminent threat of war (war on terror)

“b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…”

Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights also states the level/scope of them and that a “limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms” can be made “provided for by law”. It also goes a step further by saying “limitations may be made” if it is in the EU’s ‘interest’ (define interest?).

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=62

“Article 52

1. Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.”

You would think the EU would be all for personal freedom, after all it promotes itself as caring for the citizens and being an example for the rest of the world, but again we find more lies.

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=13

“Art 6. Right to liberty and security

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;


(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;”

Restricting freedom of speech

www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=18

“Art 11. Freedom of expression and information

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

That's all I got at the moment, anyone who can help clarify this or correct me please go right ahead

sink

I'm no expert in legal matters, but i'm pretty sure this only affects the implementation of laws at EU level and does not affect our domestic laws.

Besides it is basically an adapted version of the European convention on human rights, to which our government has already committed itself and the laws in each are pretty much the same. For instance, the law that struck down the Irish constitution, where a defendant did not have the right to plead a case that they were unaware that a person was under the legal age, when defending against a charge of statutory rape, was a law under the European convention on human rights.

If you want a better interpretation you should post on the 'legal issues' board, people there should know more.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

If you want a better interpretation you should post on the 'legal issues' board, people there should know more.

To be fair, that's not actually an 'interpretation' Gu3rr1lla has posted. It's pretty straight-forward misinterpretation.

Look at the highlighting of this sentence:

"Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms."

The highlighting is a very transparent attempt to make that paragraph say that "limitations...must be provided for by law" - which is pretty much exactly what Gu3rr1lla then claims.

What it actually means is that such limitations must be written into law - they may not be "discretionary" limitations, where the government can 'decide' when/whether they apply.

So Gu3rr1lla has taken something that limits such controls on free speech, and has highlighted it to make it look like it's an imposition of such controls (and indeed, claimed that it is an imposition). It's rather pathetic, but I suppose it might take in someone who only skimmed the page.

more in sorrow than in anger,
Scofflaw

sink

That's the trouble with referendums on treaties which have complex legal implications. People who are not versed in legal writings and jargon, can so easily misinterpret, though no fault of their own. We have a parliament with elected representatives who are supposed to do that for us.*

*Interpret properly not miss-interpret as is so often the case.