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).
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.
It would probably be cool if we figured out all basic human rights once and for all and had the written laws enforce themselves without human supervision. But the reality is that people are doing harm to people, not papers. And people decide when this harm is justified and when it's not.
This is an important step in our justice system, and it's something that we are (mostly) proud of. There are a few problems.
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.
First, a lot of angst and effort goes into circumscribing the powers of the federal judiciary precisely because they're unelected. They are for instance limited to hearing actual controversies involving parties with standing.
Second, our constitutional system "works" because it follows from an actual constitution, which was ratified and over 200 years reshaped by elected representatives of the people. In no place in the US system is there an escape hatch for the Supreme Court to do whatever it thinks is right while contravening the constitution. A strong enough democratic majority can in fact force the Supreme Court to do anything, by amending the constitution.
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?
Fucking infuriates me. It's safer to transfer your money in cash in a transparent bag with "steal me" on it.
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).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm
One particularly interesting point:
"The UK was one of the first members of the Council of Europe to ratify the Convention when it passed through Parliament in 1951."
Indeed, Chruchill seems to have been very keen on the idea - how ironic!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009...
I can't see any additional rights that I have that I didn't have before it became part of British law. All I see are dis-benefits.
They'll do this the right way.
I think it's worth making this as public as possible.
It's Direct Debit (not credit card / paypal) which means less fees.
