Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

Profile for Von Manstein

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from Von Manstein (see all)

Von Manstein has commented 10 times (0 in the last month).

  1. Comment on Culture Night Belfast & the right to freedom of expression #CNB12
    on 20 September 2012 at 6:11 pm

    I’m sure you’ll have a whip around for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

    Go to comment

  2. Comment on “The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland consider a Bill of Rights to be important”
    on 18 November 2011 at 3:55 pm

    @ Andrew G

    I do not complain when judges rule within their competence of applying the law. I take issue with judges extending their common law purview to establish doctrines of higher order or fundamental law. Human Rights sets itself in direct opposition and competition to the democratic process. The doctrine of the rule of law is undergoing a shift led by judicial activism under the guise of human rights. Many ‘Human Rights activists’ can’t wait for the HoL or Supreme Court to declare an Act of Parliament ‘unconstitutional’ and dis-apply it for their own reasoning. If people are confident that this mode of government is superior to our current balance between the rule of law and ‘sovereignty of Parliament’ they should have the courage to admit that their arguments are political in the sense they are advocating a model other than, or significantly different from our current understanding of, democracy. Form a political party! But no. It’s easier to pretend that they are ‘legal’ arguments.

    The argument is that judges are best placed to interpret law and administer justice according to the law. They are not best placed to arbitrate between competing social interests and policy which largely focus on whether the state should or should not be expected to make provision in certain circumstances – decisions that are the bread and butter of any human rights litigation.

    The judicial arena is valid. It should not seek to usurp the political or democratic.

    Go to comment

  3. Comment on “The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland consider a Bill of Rights to be important”
    on 18 November 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Oh. And by the way. If we can’t afford the state and it’s provision as is – ie. our huge deficit – I doubt the Human Rights luvvies are seriously suggesting that a BoR might actually reduce the deficit? Would it? Or does a BoR implicitly in some people’s mind mean bigger government, bigger spending, greater dependence?

    Paraphrasing Mark Steyn, a government that is big enough to give you everything you want, appears not to be big enough to persuade you to give it back when the bankruptcy of the state is at issue.

    The time for pie in the sky talk about growing the state is over. Human Rights discourse, and particularly the niche industry of a BoR in NI, should humbly accept it’s place in history as a failed model. Big government and enormous cultures of dependency and entitlement has led to the richest countries in history experiencing the biggest sovereign debt crisis ever known. Human Rights was certainly not the sole or main cause of this travesty, but is symptomatic of it’s culture, and as such, has reached the end of the line.

    Go to comment

  4. Comment on “The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland consider a Bill of Rights to be important”
    on 18 November 2011 at 2:13 pm

    @Green Flag

    I agree. The too big to fail bank issue needs to be addressed in the medium term, but the too big to fail government is perhaps a more pressing matter. Without wanting to expose myself to ‘Godwinesque’ charges – ‘there’s no such thing as public money, only tax-payer’s money’.

    @Reader

    I fear your building work and associated issues of habitation may have to go unaddressed under the brave new world of human right for everything in Northern Ireland. I fear that to a large extent, unless you are on significant benefits or residing at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, I doubt that a BoR for NI would swoop to remedy your inconveniences.

    Human Rights are political claims, albeit statutory and framed in ‘rights language’. They deal singularly with the State’s relationship with the citizen and are only enforceable to that extent. They cede erstwhile political and budgetary competence from the political arena to the judicial arena. Political accountability, far from perfect, has years of commentary and refinement. Legal accountability of niche Human Rights claims involve selective arguments made by adversaries in the nigh unattainable forum for Joe Bloggs, the court, and adjudicated upon by an aristocracy who in social policy matters are far removed from the common man, and certainly not best placed to determine what has transpired to be the ever expanding remit of the state, it’s duties, and expenditure, under the guise of right provision or remedying rights infringements.

    Not being a Labour supporter, when Shaun Woodward dismissed (I’m willing to be corrected on the stats) 72 of 74 of the NIHRC BoR’s recommendations, I was pleased that the anti-democratic legal constitutionalists had been shown up for what they are, and their phoney agenda exposed. democracy is most certainly imperfect. But installing a rule by clever people, the elevation of fundamental law designed to bind the political class as the expression of the people’s will, and forge a brave new model for governance build upon ‘human rights’ disgusts me.

    Go to comment

  5. Comment on “The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland consider a Bill of Rights to be important”
    on 17 November 2011 at 1:56 am

    The European Socialist model of taxing future generations to pay for bigger government is on the wane. Why abuse children yet to be born, by robbing wealth they are yet to create, by ceding greater responsibility to the state for provision, and jurisdiction to the courts for overseeing that expenditure? ‘Important’ or not, is it responsible, sustainable or practicable? Polities are trying to claw back debt subsisted bribes to voting civil servants and non-working state dependents. They appear reluctant to give back anything the over-sized state has given them at this stage. Why grow dependence and expectation when the financial outlook suggests that the European Socialist will have to shrink further?

    Go to comment

  6. Comment on Kingsmills and why Northern Ireland did not end up like Bosnia
    on 18 September 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Perhaps if the DUP appointed Michael Stone as their man responsible for ‘Nationalist Outreach and Engagement’ we’d be straying towards the realms of comparability.

    Go to comment

  7. Comment on Kingsmills and why Northern Ireland did not end up like Bosnia
    on 17 September 2011 at 6:37 am

    Perhaps if Turgon were to go off and commit acts of violence we could discuss how society made him do it?

    Go to comment

  8. Comment on Kingsmills and why Northern Ireland did not end up like Bosnia
    on 16 September 2011 at 4:05 pm

    The ‘we all have dirty hands’ and ‘bear some responsibility’ lines are the insulting conclusions offered by peace processing Lundys and ex-offenders. Once this nonsense logic leaves the self-help groups and enters the realm of tax funded Eames-Bradley appeasement documents it should be stomped. The moral consequences for those of us not involved in crime during ‘the troubles’ are unconscionable, and would reinforce one of my favourite oxymoronic statements. ‘Without the IRA there wouldn’t have been a peace process’. Too true.

    Go to comment

Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
42 queries. 1.855 seconds.