Who knows the European Court of human) rights? Few Europeans. Who knows its President Jean-Paul Costa? Almost human: and yet it is the most powerful man in Europe! The decisions of the Court over which he presides is needed to all parliaments and structure the whole of the European laws. Without benefits for individual liberties and with great damage to collective identities. Explanations:
When States or citizens turn to it, as complainants, the European Court of human rights is application of the European Convention for the protection of human rights. It is obviously a general text, of a proclamation of principles abstract, not subject to direct application if it is after interpretation. All the power of the ECHR lies precisely in its power of interpretation. Interpretation, in his own words, so "teleological", if it is theological: in practice "principles" are systematically interpreted in a more politically correct manner, the ECHR putting at the service of ideology and dominant lobbies to establish its reputation and its power. The result is a European Government of judges unnecessary freedoms and detrimental to the identity.
Detrimental to individual freedoms ECHRs
Freedom of expression is fundamental freedom in a democracy. If citizens, elected officials, and journalists can not freely express themselves, the vote becomes meaningless. Or according to the French model of the Pléven 1972 and Act Act 1990 Gayssot, the majority of European countries have laws of right-thinking: memory laws and laws prohibiting any free debate on various subjects of society (immigration)(, homosexuality, etc.). As all criminal laws, these laws should have subject to a restrictive interpretation on the part of the courts. Is not the case: in many countries of Europe of abundant jurisprudence condemning comments or analysis based on the feeling that justice is of sense that it lends to the accused. The ECHR could and should put a stop to this tightening subjectivity; on the contrary, it is is systematically placed on the defence of "public order" (the new moral order, rather) claimed by the censors. On these issues, the ECHR poses the question: "these attacks on freedom of expression are necessary in a democratic society." And his answer is usually: "Yes."
Similarly, with regard to the laws against defamation, the ECHR is is rather placed on the defence of the reputation of the powerful (including businesses and the "peoples") only on the freedom of debate.
The ECHR harmful to collective freedoms of peoples
European nations apply numerous rules from their traditions and their habits. By his personal interpretations, the ECHR argues impose legislative changes on the most varied subjects, often the wrath of the national parliaments and peoples:
-Recently, the British were were summoned to grant the right to vote, to common law prisoners which caused anger of Westminster MPs;
-Andorra was requested to amend its laws on inheritance to ensure equality between adulterine children and legitimate children;
-Legislation on the reception of the life in Ireland and Poland were deemed contrary to human rights, because contrary to the right to abortion;
-The presence of crucifixes in some Italian classrooms was judged contrary to freedom of religion; What sparked the protest of about twenty European States;
-The curriculum of the Norway have been also implicated, the ECHR ruling contrary to human rights course teaching in primary to "Christianity, religion and philosophy";
-Although adopted by popular referendum by a large majority, the Swiss decision to ban minarets is subject to the ECHR by four Muslim organisations; the Swiss Government comes to oppose the ECHR on certain aspects of this procedure;
-The question of the right of homosexual couples to adopt children is also subject to controversy with the legislation of many countries.
It is permitted to have on these issues of different opinions; But what the militant opinion of a few judges is more legitimate than the tradition of a nation, a Parliament vote or suffrage of a people?
The ECHR detrimental to the identity of peoples
There more serious yet: very many national laws are now being developed under the indirect supervision of the ECHR and its jurisprudence. It is patent in the field of immigration. Since 2002, many laws have been adopted in France to reform the right of residence of foreigners: without result as regular entries are maintained at a level high. the Cape of 200,000 entries regular (non-political refugee applicants, excluding illegal immigrants) has even reached in 2010. There is a simple reason for this: the hand of the legislature was chosen by the fear of censorship of the Constitutional Council, the Council of State and the Court of cassation, themselves backed on the interpretation of the case-law of the ECHR, a case that is place systematically on the individual right of foreign nationals, not the right of peoples to retain their identity, that recognized Brice Hortefeux, then Minister of the Interior and Immigration, stating at the prefectural and consular on February 14, 2011 Conference : "The jurisprudence of the European Court of human leads too often, rights of de facto, to focus on the rights of migrants on the right of States to control immigration." This is not acceptable!
Reclaim popular sovereignty
The peoples of Europe are no longer masters among them. Acting on behalf of the ideology and the dominant interests, a handful of judges - the gnomes of Strasbourg - grabbed of sovereignty. People must get it back: "coal is master at home." Regardless of a possible denunciation of the European Convention on the rights of man or of a reform of the ECHR, two additional lanes are open:
-reaffirmation of the primacy of national law democratically developed on the right European and international;
-the direct participation of the people in the development of national law by the popular initiative referendum.
Therefore, the right of the peoples may outweigh the tyranny of judges.
Andrea Massari - Polémia
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire