• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Bill Of Rights


Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
"sinnfeinireland" retweeted the below earlier:

MartinaAMLA

I met with the HR Consortum today. A Bill of Rights for the North is a key unfulfilled commitment arising from the Good Friday Agreement.
one small problem for Sinn Féin - there is NO commitment in the GFA to a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

There is a commitment to look at the possibility of Westminster drawing up a Bill of Rights for NI. But there is no commitment to enact one.

pages 20-21 GFA

4. The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (see paragraph 5 below) will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and - taken together with the ECHR - to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.​



So - there we have it - the NIHCR is to be invited to consult and consider the scope for.... But that is as far as it goes.​

 
Last edited:

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,340
Jeez you are a pedant.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
Jeez you are a pedant.
The GFA is a binding legal document.

If SF had wanted an obligation for a Bill of Rights they should have insisted on one. We spent years hammering out EXACTLY what was agreed and they signed up to it.

Bad negotiating combined with dishonesty now.

They cannot misrepresent the GFA by claiming there is a commitment to a Bill of Rights. There is no such commitment :)
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
To be honest, the ECHR is so broad and deep that it is hard to imagine what could be added to it in any case, even in the specific setting of NI.

Sounds like someone is just ticking boxes.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
The GFA is a binding legal document.

If SF had wanted an obligation for a Bill of Rights they should have insisted on one. We spent years hammering out EXACTLY what was agreed and they signed up to it.

Bad negotiating combined with dishonesty now.

They cannot misrepresent the GFA by claiming there is a commitment to a Bill of Rights. There is no such commitment :)
And who is it binding on?

Please note, I am leading you up a darkened alley and depending on your answer, you may get mugged!! :)
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
To be honest, the ECHR is so broad and deep that it is hard to imagine what could be added to it in any case, even in the specific setting of NI.

Sounds like someone is just ticking boxes.
They want judicable economic, social and cultural rights in the new, putative, bill of rights. Something no western government in their right mind will accede to.
 

pujols

Active member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
275
I suppose you are right Corelli,

To be honest they make me despair; the whole movement towards ESC rights and the meaningless 'right to development' have done so much to make undermine the effectiveness of civil and political rights and allowed the 'infringers' to get away with so much.

But that pass was sold a long time ago.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
And who is it binding on?

Please note, I am leading you up a darkened alley and depending on your answer, you may get mugged!! :)
The Signatories ;)

Seriously though - It's unacceptable for SF to claim there is an obligation which does not exist in the GFA.

Of Course SF have said they view the agreement as transitional but they did say they support it's full implementation.

But in this case they are going beyond that and demanding implementation of something which was not agreed.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
The Signatories ;)

Seriously though - It's unacceptable for SF to claim there is an obligation which does not exist in the GFA.

Of Course SF have said they view the agreement as transitional but they did say they support it's full implementation.

But in this case they are going beyond that and demanding implementation of something which was not agreed.
It's only binding on the signatories, ie, the two Sovereign Governments, so long as they both agree to be so bound. Additionally one of the foremost principles in interpreting an international agreements, is that it's interpretation and meaning is decided by the signatories thereto. So, legally speaking, if the two Governments say there is no absolute commitment to a Bill of Rights, there is not such commitment. Additionally, the agreement is not judicable so anything the two Governments decide is the final word on the matter.

I also, just so you know, agree with you that there is no such commitment. Merely a vague commitment to advise on the possibility of such a bill.

It's very similar to the commitment vis the proposed Bill of Rights for the Island of Ireland.
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,104
I've always suspected many within Unionism of being totalitarian or even communist leaning, and their support for Browns internment plans and hysterical opposition to creating a bill of rights for citizens has confirmed my fears.
Thank God Unionists will never have their total repressive rule here again.
We'd be locked in on Sundays and strip searched in the street.
 
Last edited:

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
I've always suspected many within Unionism of being totalitarian or even communist leaning, and their support for Browns internment plans and hysterical opposition to creating a bill of rights for citizens has confirmed my fears.
Thank God Unionists will never have their total repressive rule here again.
We'd be locked in on Sundays and strip searched in the street.
What on earth are you babbling on about st333ve from Boston ?
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,104
I know you oppose it but you haven't stated why.
I know the OO used it as scaremongering this year, it was Irish last year.
What is the basis for all the Unionist opposition, what does a Unionist fear from this proposal?
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
I know you oppose it but you haven't stated why.
I know the OO used it as scaremongering this year, it was Irish last year.
What is the basis for all the Unionist opposition, what does a Unionist fear from this proposal?
LOL - the thread is about SF dishonesty ...

A Bill of Rights is NOT an unfulfilled commitment of the GFA.

Go ahead if you want to start a thread explaining why you think NI needs a Bill of Rights .....
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,104
Blanket Unionist opposition?
If Unionists agree to discuss and negotiate such a bill it might prove worth while for our unique social situation.
I sense that they've just painted it green and are all telling eachother to run!
There's no substance behind the opposition, just another typical "SF want it so we don't" attitude and a fear of the establishment losing any power over citizens.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
Blanket Unionist opposition?
If Unionists agree to discuss and negotiate such a bill it might prove worth while for our unique social situation.
I sense that they've just painted it green and are all telling eachother to run!
Start your own thread.

This one is about the SF lie that there is a commitment to a Bill of Rights in the GFA petunia
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,104
Well good luck to them as legal requirement seems to be the only reason Unionists have a Catholic about the place.It's a shame they won't just willingly debate the issue regardless for ALL public benefit and interest.
Anyway since when did Unionists adhere to the GFA, where's the Irish language act?
The OO killed that too with their extremist waffle and their back room political sock puppets.
 
Last edited:

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
33,340
It wouldn't affect you anyway.

Sure you only leave your parents' basement once a fortnight to sign on the dole and get your copy of Gamer.

Thats old any new put downs? no?
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
Well good luck to them as legal requirement seems to be the only reason Unionists have a Catholic about the place.It's a shame they won't just willingly debate the issue regardless,for public benefit and interest.
Why not start your own thread on the need for a Bill of Rights ?

I'm sure a friendly mod will proof read it for you petunia
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,104
You're only interested in how to stop SF discussing it?
Well you've proven my point, thanks.
I'm off to bed as I have work in the morning and a mortgage to pay for.
Sorry to kill your stereotype.
 
Top