Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

privacynotprism.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#21

Post by DanBC »

rayiner wrote: post #18

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!

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.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#23

Post by rmc »

rayiner wrote: post #18

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!

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.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#24

Post by SEMW »

rayiner wrote: post #18

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!

> unelected judges to subvert democracy...

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).

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#25

Post by rmc »

rlongstaff wrote: post #4

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.

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.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#26

Post by cobrophy »

lmm wrote: post #22
GunlogAlm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UKIP had their way, we wouldn't be in the European Union or Council of Europe and would be withdrawn from the Human Rights Convention.

Yeah, but UKIP are nutters.

Nutters that are becoming increasingly popular.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#27

Post by rayiner »

SEMW wrote: post #24
rayiner wrote: post #18

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!

> unelected judges to subvert democracy... 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…

"Democracy" is tyranny of the majority. In our constitutional republics, we have courts as a check on democracy, and that's necessary. Sometimes, those courts strike down programs generally supported by the electorate. Sometimes that's necessary too, but it's always a subversion of democracy.

However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's why international tribunals can have no legitimacy. It makes utterly no sense for judges in other countries, representative of people in other countries with different values and traditions, to weigh in on the actions of elected officials in your country. That's why Americans broadly dislike the idea, and I'd guess the majority of Britons do too.

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#28

Post by DanBC »

lmm wrote: post #22
GunlogAlm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UKIP had their way, we wouldn't be in the European Union or Council of Europe and would be withdrawn from the Human Rights Convention.

Yeah, but UKIP are nutters.

True, but sadly they are popular nutters.

Daly with UK voter turn out being so low (between 60% and 70%) it's not so hard to grab some votes, especially if you spew the kind of stuff that UKIP spew.

It'd be interesting to see some vigorous modelling with different amounts of UKIP influence to see what happens (in the fictitious model).

(http://ukpolitical.info/turnout45.htm)

Re: Privacy not Prism – UK legal challenge

#29

Post by DanBC »

rayiner wrote: post #27
SEMW wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unelected judges to subvert democracy... 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…

"Democracy" is tyranny of the majority. In our constitutional republics, we have courts as a check on democracy, and that's necessary. Sometimes, those courts strike down programs generally supported by the electorate. Sometimes that's necessary too, but it's always a subversion of democracy. However, courts ultimately derive their principles of justice from the values and traditions of a people. That's why internati…

But why should a New York judge decide what happens in Alaska or Idaho?
Post reply on HN