New challenge to European Convention on Human Rights

The latest British challenge to the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court  backed by a former law lord  was sparked by the comparatively minor requirement to give prisoners voting rights. Behind it lurks a renewed Sun campaign fuelled by counter terrorism advisor Lord Carlile’s final report, warning that the UK has become a “safe haven” for terrorists. In opposition David Cameron called for the replacement of the UK Human Rights Act with a new British Bill of Rights but this has now been watered down by setting up a commission. While this may appease right wing Tories for a time, the conflict will rumble on. Judges are indicating that even in the very unlikely event of the UK quitting the Convention, they will draw on the common law to support rights in much the same way as now.

In the end the UK Supreme Court gives final rulings but in compliance with the ECHR. The Guardian’s explanation of myths about the Convention is unlikely to appease critics, who nevertheless might pay more attention to the “margin of appreciation” the Court recognises for complying with its rulings. The latest wrangles will no doubt further complicate any final decision on an NI Bill of Human Rights.

, , ,

  • Brian your concerns could be immaterial given current state of affairs of human rights in NI. People have pinned much hope and expectation in the NIHRC which has floundered –with exception of its almost ten years invested in its failed pursuit of BoR’s for NI. Was that just a means of creating an illusion that the NIHRC was relevant or functional?

    As someone whose rights have been violated let me give you some insight into what it is like to seek help from the NIHRC and also what view the NIHRC has to the right to a fair trial in NI (for some people only?)

    In 2002 the Court of Appeal found the Trial Judge to have acted unlawfully in his “main criticism” of my defense for which he based his 14 year senbtence upon me. However the Court upheld my wrongful conviction in the following terms regardless of the Convention and common law right to a fair trial;
    “… if a defendant has been denied a fair trial it will almost be inevitable that the conviction will be regarded unsafe, the present case in our view constitutes an exception to the general rule. … the conviction is to be regarded as safe, even if a breach of Article 6(1) were held to have occurred in the present case.”

    Here is what the NIHRC have concluded;
    “Thus, Carswell was not saying that there are exceptions to the right to a fair trial; he was certainly not saying that Mr Walsh was an exception. In Carswell’s opinion, Christy Walsh was given the fair trial to which he had a right.”

    In around the next two weeks you might hear more on this as the Court will be hearing a Judicial Review on this and a number of other significant matters, the court has instructed as follows;
    “I have received instructions from Mr Justice Weatherup who will be dealing with this case.

    He has directed that the Dept of Justice, the Chief Constable and the NIHRC should all appear as respondents and the PPS should be put on notice of the application.

    All parties are to agree a date for the leave hearing in about two weeks time.”

  • The Court has just fixed 7th March for the hearing.

  • oracle

    Christy Whinge,

    Why don’t you get a placard and stand outside the Courts in Belfast city centre and have a proper protest in pursuit of a compensation claim instead of polluting every single thread on Slugger no matter how flimsily relevant or for that matter not even relevant at all.

    You had a trail at an internationally recognized court were all the evidence found you guilty, owing to technical breaches in protocol your conviction was over turned, this over turning does not prove your innocence but merely highlights that in your case there was insufficient evidence for a safe conviction.

    Now you have made your point on this site to the point of exhaustion on your behalf and long past the point of boredom on our behalf, why have you never set up your own web-site; I’ll tell you because no one is interested in the slightest now due to the over bombardment that you have already participated in.
    The Guilford Four the Birmingham six the Maguire family all had unsafe convictions and they were incarcerated for substantially longer periods of time than yourself yet I don’t see Paul Hill Gerard Conlon or Annie Maguire’s children coming on to Slugger day after day after week after month to procrastinate.

    I suppose the difference is they actually want to have a life were you seem to spend your life not having one because your to busy proclaiming your perceived injustice to the Slugger nation, why don’t you just instruct your solicitors to lodge a compensation claim and be done with it, go to a caravan in Ballycastle for a few weeks and get your head showered before it become too late and you require serious professional help, it’s clear to most that this is eating you up and you are not strong enough to cope with it at all.

    I seriously hope that someone close to you reads this and goes about obtaining the help you need to try and rescue you from this abyss of despair.

    Good luck Oracle

  • Oracle

    Thank you for your comments but you are wrong about the Birmingahm 6 and Guildford 4 whose lives have since been blighted with various debilitating consequences originating from their wrongful conviction.

    I am sorry for your exhaustion but unfortunately for you I still retain some stamina. That is not to say that your observation is not so wrong regarding the difficulties to cope with a legal system which involves a Prosedcutor “coaching” his Witnesses and concealing crucial evidence (as I stole from his file in the courtroom). Perhaps you would agree that such practice should be condoned and excused and the PPS permitted to prosecute cases on false pretense and fabrication of evidence?

    If you are so ‘exhausted’ from reading a few posts on slugger maybe you need avoid such exertion on yourself?

    Sorry to hear that my case causes you unnecessary anguish. Christy

  • oracle

    “Perhaps you would agree that such practice should be condoned and excused and the PPS permitted to prosecute cases on false pretense and fabrication of evidence?”

    No I do not I’d haul them into court and if found guilty I’d sentence them to natural life because the courts are the last bastion of hope for weak and the poor and are not the play things of the powerful and the rich.

  • Oracale “No I do not I’d haul them into court and if found guilty I’d sentence them to natural life because the courts are the last bastion of hope for weak and the poor and are not the play things of the powerful and the rich.”

    So why should I not in your opinion above?

  • oracle

    Because you can’t sentence them to life you can only cause a minor irritation at best Christy…… a minor irritation to a system that historically has closed ranks and covered up all and sundry when it came to wrong doing by their own they have never ever washed their dirty linen in public.

    The whole judical system is a ramshckled joke and is fiercly defended not just by the state but by the defence lawyers as well beause they’re all just pigs with their snouts in the trough.

    You may think you’re fighting a crusade against injustic but the reality is you’re just fattening the wallets of the wankers that keep this corrupt dispicable system in place

  • Oracle, I do not share your down trodden or defeatist idea of things to just give in and give up and be a door mat –I mean my few posting here have exhausted you….like that was your whinge!!! I just could not live a life like yours –i much prefer where I am and being a complete persistant pain in the ass to ALL the right people.

    This blogg relates to human rights and possible encroachments of those rights and I merely draw Brian’s attention what the reality is in NI; there is no right to a fair trial in NI because exceptions can be made, not with evidence, but with people and the human rights watchdog the NIHRC, if you cared to read what I posted, agrees with Carswell that exceptions can be made and they do so by denying they understand what is meant by ‘exception’.

    What has your contribution been to the blogg –you can’t handle it because it all gets to exhausting –my heart bleeds for you.

  • Most of what the Conservatives proposed regarding the ECHR or the EU legal system within the UK was utter legal nonsense. The Conservative party increasingly shows a distrust of the judiciary, and any judicial decision making (which is odd since most of them champion the common law system, a feature of which is, er, judge-made law).

    The ECHR is an incredibly British-influenced institution, including dissenting arguments, etc., whereas in quite a few courts you simply get the judgment of the court. The whole issue of the British Bill of Rights raises so many legal questions that the Conservatives were never called up on. Would there be less rights? More? Since the UK is signed up to the ECHR, would that mean ignoring its case law and not complying with international commitments that the UK has signed up to? Being a member of the ECHR is a condition for membership of the Council of Europe – which covers all European countries but Belarus – would the UK wish to leave what is essentially the most developed regional human rights institution in the world?

    And how would rights be applied at home? Due to parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament can overrule the courts, which basically means that Parliament can strip anyone of their rights should it wish (so they are more like privileges than rights).

    All of which leads to the conclusion that the British Bill of Rights would be a legal fudge (a nice way to handle citizens’ rights, no?).

    The ECHR itself seems to me to be characterised by political caution – on national abortion laws, gay marriage/civil partnership rights, etc, the Court has developed the strategy of ensuring enforcement of national rights laws, rather than fully expounding on the European state of human rights law. The ECHR has been quite successful (a 100% costs compliance rate among a wide group of states is not to be sniffed at!). The giving prisoners the vote case (which I haven’t read yet), is quite a minor thing. The vast, vast majority of countries in the Council of Europe gives prisoners voting rights (I think it’s almost 40 of the 47, but I’m not sure). In a human rights sense, the ECHR does promote some integration (so I disagree in part with the Guardian article says), but having continent-wide standards was the whole point of the exercise. The UK leaving or disapplying European Human Rights law would lead to the understandable reaction from others that the UK wants to decide when it has or hasn’t breached human rights (I can’t imagine the British media trusting Russia, Poland, France, etc. to continue protecting rights in that position…).

  • granni trixie

    I wish too that you could “let go” – the case seems to be eating you up. But since you are bent on taking it further, I see no reason why you should not bring it up on Slugger on a discussion on human rights. But there will come a time Christy when you will know that letting go is what you have to do to survive.

    Oracle: you are not (the Oracle) infact you lack common decency.

  • slappymcgroundout

    “would the UK wish to leave what is essentially the most developed regional human rights institution in the world?”

    I don’t think that anyone else has one. Only you Euros seem willing to surrender your national sovereignty in such fashion.

    Lastly, the fact that one could conceivably have the offices of judge, chief of police and attorney general as elected while incarcerated felons have a right to vote is just one reason why my nation made a good decision in not surrendering national sovereignty to the likes of the ECHR.

  • joeCanuck

    “why have you never set up your own web-site”

    If you click on Christy’s name you will be taken to a very well put together website with loads of info on the case.

  • pippakin

    The ECHR has discredited itself by some of its decisions but I think it is a good idea to have a court of last resort. If the existing system of any country fails then the accused person should have the right to appeal to a court that is, as far as possible, independent of the host country whose own judiciary can sometimes seem a very small ‘world’.

  • oracle

    Granni Trixie,

    you think I lacking common decency for speaking the truth?

    I’ll take that as a compliment, better to be like me with opinons that your own anemic politics lacking the stomach for individual thought.
    Strange that you don’t have the same sense of distaste for your own party that historically have been subservient gombeens for misrule and pro-state spin

  • oracle

    Joe C

    Aye you just became the 4th hit this year congrats

  • joeCanuck


    I was simply pointing out what I thought was your misunderstanding. There is no need to be snarky.
    One of the beauties of our democracy is that there is no compulsory reading. If you don’t like a particular commenters postings, ever, then don’t read them.

  • Secret Squirrel

    “….why have you never set up your own web-site; I’ll tell you because no one is interested in the slightest…”

    Interesting website Christy.

  • granni trixie

    If there is one thing which distinguishes APNI it is that you meet v.individualistic people. Whilst this makes for problems it also is why a process of consensus making proves so fruitful. But insult all you like. I look forward to telling those that know me (especially my nearest and dearest) about my lack of individual opinions (can just hear him saying, “I wish…”).

  • Newman

    The issue here is judicial activism. When the Court strays from interpretaion of existing rights to the creation of new ones then there is the danger that they are usurping the function of the legislature. Before the advent of the Convention the UK insisted on an exemption on the issue of certain voting rights (peers felons). Now we find an insistence that such an exemption is ruled to be invalid by the Court…that is what is a mtter of concern not he Courts defence of fundamental rights and freedoms.

  • Granni T I am totally with you looking forward to the day –but so long as still gotta fight –no nice way of doing it other than being pigheaded and making a scene. But thanks for what you say –Joe has also said similar and I appreciate it.

    Secret Sq. Thank you

    Oracle I had to print out a usage report for month of December and for that month alone my website got 19421 hits; here is the link to see for yourself

    There is a lot of interest in the case and I can on occassion get more than 100 emails in a day when things are moving.

    Pippa Kin can you give some case examples of where the ECHR has discredited itself -I think the House of Lords(now Supreme Court) is more progressive than the ECHR but regardless I have not came across any dodgy decisions?

    I am aware of several worthy cases which did not clear the admissibility stage –but that is a matter for bad legal representation and presentation of the cases.

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    Google it.

  • Pippa Kin Googled it and nothing substantive came back –is there nothing you can actually articulate or case name that I can source the judgment??

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    I managed on dodgy broadband. I don’t like the way Oracle said it and I disagree with his views most of the time but he is right about one thing: you have been fighting your ‘battle’ every time anything approaching a legal and especially a British legal issue dares to raise its head and that gets in the way of the actual subject. Read this thread, its more about you than it is about the ECHR. I don’t want anything I type to be misinterpreted and reinterpreted. So, do you own homework and that way you will be entirely satisfied with your own findings.

  • Pippa Its called lobbying and canvassing –it requires a certain amount of being repetitive –I can say for fact no one is more sick of it than myself –but until I clear my name and get some level of justice –well I gotta keep pluggin.

    Re the google thing –did my own homewrok and nothing you said above about the ECHR having “discredited itself” came back. I would like to read whatever case/cases which are being suggested as questionable decisions?? Do you actually know of any as you suggested above?

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    This is turning into a marathon! You know I agree you have a case, and I wish you luck with it, but no I will not be posting any links for you because I think if you don’t know of at least some of the cases that have made major headlines you must have been asleep at the wheel, and I don’t believe that!

  • Pippa I would read such case if I were aware of it simply to keep abrest of things –I know of no such cases and have attempted various Google searches and none are returned. I saw no major headlines to ECHR cases being wrongly or questionably decided?? None.

    This blogg is about the possibility of the UK becoming detached from the ECHR and thus safeguards being weakened. My contribution was to point out that in NI they are already weak.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Could the problem be that you have perfectly functional broadband whereas Pip’ employs dodgy broadband ?
    Try disconnecting your ethernet cable and allow a dog or family pet to chew on it for a while.
    If you’re using a wireless connection you could try immersing the wireless adapter in treacle or kick your wireless router around the room for a short period of time.
    Once your connection becomes intermittent you could try googling again. It’s got to be worth a try.

  • pippakin

    The ‘problem’ could be that I am not prepared to assist Christy in his self publicising, lobbying and canvassing.

    Oh, and you don’t need to go to all that bother to get temperamental broadband, mobile in the mountains is all you need.

  • joeCanuck

    There seems to be a misperception that Christy only writes about his own case. that is simply not true. I have seen him comment on many issues where he keeps to the plot.

  • pippakin


    Read this thread.

  • Pippa You should read this thread and stop redirecting to figments on google. I am sorry the Right to a fair trial is incorporated into the ECHR –codified as Article 6 –it is certianly closer to the topic than you wild unsubstantiated claim that the ECHR had discredited itself –I don’t doubt it may have but provide one case at least to back up your claim.

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    I made no wild unsubstantiated claims. I did not get involved in your subject at all. I will not provide you with more room for your case nor will I give you another bone to chew on. Do your own work. If I could find the articles so can you. I don’t have to ‘prove’ anything. I certainly don’t have to respond to your demands. If anything all you do is make me dig my heels in and refuse to cooperate.

  • Pippa Whatever your hang up about me how can you, or anyone, reconcile that in NI ‘exceptions’ can be made excluding some people from relying upon their Convention rights? Then consider that along with a Human Rights Commission (the watch dog of HR’s) does not understand simple english. Here is precedent that has removed the right to a fair trial in NI, try reading this stuff;

    Lord Carswell stated;
    “… if a defendant has been denied a fair trial it will almost be inevitable that the conviction will be regarded unsafe, the present case in our view constitutes an exception to the general rule. … the conviction is to be regarded as safe, even if a breach of Article 6(1) were held to have occurred in the present case.”

    Here is what the NIHRC have concluded from the above court decision;
    “Thus, Carswell was not saying that there are exceptions to the right to a fair trial; he was certainly not saying that Mr Walsh was an exception. In Carswell’s opinion, Christy Walsh was given the fair trial to which he had a right.”

    None of this is vague or confusing but clear disregard to Convention rights and long established common law right to a fair trial —the original poster was ponding the consequences of the UK withdrawing from the ECHR –well if the Convention cannot always be relied upon then in ways we can take that access has already been removed. I have provided some evidence of that as the quotes above bear out –you on the otherhand have belly ached and made wild unsubstantiated cliam that the ECHR has discredited itself in some cases –lets see them and I will engage in those, otherwise my case is as good example and relevant to the people of NI –which you are not one of.

  • pippakin (profile) says:
    8 February 2011 at 5:34 pm

    “The ECHR has discredited itself by some of its decisions …”

    Where are they? Back up your claim or stop posting waffle just for something to say –whatever my shortcomings I at least do have something to say.

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    Whatever hang ups I have about you? I’m beginning to think your head is bigger than the blocks of wood you carry on both shoulders. This is not about you, your obsession is your problem. If you took the trouble to read my original thread all the way through you would know that I am in favour of European or other international court as a court of last resort for anyone accused of a criminal offence.

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    You appear incapable of debate without becoming abusive and personal. I am not playing your game and that is all there is to it. You are offensive for no reason. If you had spent as much time checking ECHR and the British as you have in chasing and abusing me, you would have found what you are looking for. I am not here to do your bidding.

  • Pippa Whether you like or do not like the ECHR r assertion “The ECHR has discredited itself by some of its decisions …”

    As for my head in comparison to my shoulders –why do you need resort to personal insult –now you are just becoming crass.

  • last post should have read;

    Pippa Whether you like or do not like the ECHR your assertion “The ECHR has discredited itself by some of its decisions …” is unsubstantiated.

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    Oracle told you off in no uncertain terms and you rolled over. I refuse to enter into a debate with you and you hound me through a thread. You appear to have a problem. I don’t care about you either way.

    If you want information do what everyone else has to do and look it up, why should I be accused:

    “wild unsubstantiated claims
    Whatever your hang up about me
    posting waffle”

    I have chosen over half a dozen comments or more not to enter into a debate with you, nothing more or less. I actually answer each comment because I don’t want to completely ignore you but for goodness sake: Get the message.

  • Secret Squirrel

    I’d imagine all those with an average command of the English language have already got the message. The claim is indeed, by definition, unsubstantiated.

  • pippakin

    Secret Squirrel

    When you have finished with Google you could occupy your time with a quick check on mobile broadband.

  • Pippa “Oracle told you off in no uncertain terms and you rolled over.” In what universe? It is patently clear that you have read little of the subject matter on this blogg or possibly it is beyond your comprehension.

    PS: As finale suggestion to you –when you make definitive statements like you have done above (and elsewhere if I recall) –refusing to, or incapable of, providing any substantiation to your cliam suggests that you have no clue about what you are saying –the onus is not upon anyone else to prove your assertion that he ECHR has discredited itself by some of its decisions

    Whatever way you or Oracle would like to rubbish my repetitive resort to pumping my own case on occassion that is fine by me –you keep this blogg going for awhile –that suits me –maybe even the original poster –but have you even contributed anything of worth with any of your dodging my intitial curiosity of what cases you were referring to. I would have read those judgments –it then became obvious you where simply taking issue with my using a blogg about human rights to discuss human rights (because I had my own human rights in mind) But it likely has not escaped others who have read this, “marathon” that you had nothing of substance to say –then resorted to personal attacks to fudge the embarrassing position in which you put yourself by making a cliam that you cannot backup.

    With that being said conversation with you is a dead loss and I am tired of it.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Amusing how my forté is now the subject of the waffle. 🙂

  • pippakin

    Christy Walsh

    You can safely assume that I will not encourage your obsession. You have a case, take it to court and leave it there.

    Secret Squirrel

    Throughout this thread you have done nothing but defend Christy. It appears to be your only reason for commenting, and that is fine, but you insinuated that I was using my broadband as some sort of excuse and that is not. If you check you will find I have frequently had problems with b/b even on Slugger. I made no mention of waffle but if the cap fits, by all means wear it.

  • tacapall


    Christy Walsh

    “Oracle told you off in no uncertain terms and you rolled over. I refuse to enter into a debate with you and you hound me through a thread. You appear to have a problem. I don’t care about you either way”.

    A bit harsh Pippakin the man has been left with the assumption that he is half innocent half guilty either way the burden of proof is on the defense to prove guilt. Why should he not highlight that fact whether that annoys you and others or not. Why wont you point him to the links he asks you to, why make a point and then not prove it.

  • oracle


    What was your court case about I’ve forgotten

  • Tacapall At the close of my Appeal last March I stole one of the Prosecutors files and had passed to the Chief Constable and Justice Minister evidence that the Prosecutor had “coached” his military witnesses and various other illegal acts with intention to pervert the course of justice. This is an issue with implications that could far extend beyond my case alone.

    The Prosecutor in question is still prosecuting cases. That is what the court hearing on 7th March is about –that a criminal investigation into possible crimianlity within the PPS should have been conducted. DAvid Ford has no legal authority to proportion blame on me as means of covering up the Prosecutors criminal activity. These are no small issues by any standard.

  • Secret Squirrel

    “Throughout this thread you have done nothing but defend Christy.”

    (i) Someone decided to speak for everyone.
    I decided I’d speak for myself.

    (ii) Someone put themselves into a laughable position.
    I had a laugh.

  • pippakin


    I completely agree that Christy has a case and have said so repeatedly and not just on this thread. This thread was meant to be about ECHR, specifically judicial activism and the danger that the court could usurp the function of the legislature

    I won’t enter into a debate with Christy on a subject that would inevitably have led away from the thrust of the thread and into his pet subject.

  • Oracle I can’t tell you because I haven’t forgotten how exhausting life is for you, poor sod… I don’t want your problems as my responsibility.

  • Oh my god I do not believe I have to say this –but if other cases had been introduced I would have been eager to engage.

  • tacapall

    Pippakin this is far closer to home than prisoners in Britain getting voting rights, Christy Walsh is an Irishman in an English court who are challenging a ( European Convention on Human Rights ruling) trying to prove his innocence why then would you, who claims to be an Irishwoman not give him the links to cases where you believe could help him.

  • pippakin


    Don’t be silly. Christys case will go ahead with the help of good lawyers, not me, and I’m a bit tired of the ‘claims to be an Irish woman’ line, it is offensive and you know it.

  • tacapall

    Come on now Pippakin Im making a point, I just dont understand how people can comment about abuses around the world yet here we have one on our doorstep and the man is berated for highlighting it. Either you believe the man or you dont – just say it rather than going up the falls and down the shankill to get to north street. – Belfast talk.

  • tacapall the woman wishes to discuss human rights and the ECHR, but has done little thus far –drawing people into futile argument is her pet hobby.

  • pippakin


    Have you read this thread? I have said several times that I think Christy has a case. I certainly hope it goes to court soon, win or lose he might at least stop obsessing.

    No, this thread has gone completely off track, that is partly my fault for not giving in and posting the link but I won’t do it. He would only find another axe to grind. I made it very clear from the beginning that I wouldn’t be a part it and I won’t. Christys obsession is not my problem. My mistake is I felt I had to respond to comments.

  • tacapall

    “Stopped Obsessing”. Is Christy Walsh’s judgement a human rights issue or not ? IS, it not important to point to the fact that that the same court who ruled on his half innocence – where else would you get it, has decided to challenge a European Convention on Human Rights judgement, the last arbitrator for the people of the European Union of which we are all members.

  • PIPPAKIN You know what forget the links and stop using me as reason why you will not produce them (i don’t want them)

    NOW, how about you give us the gist of how the ECHR had discredited itself in a number of decisions as you have argued and defended all this time????

    Better still can anyone else on this blogg support her assertion that?
    I think if you don’t know of at least some of the cases that have made major headlines you must have been asleep at the wheel, and I don’t believe that!

    Do you actually think before you make statements? Other people are conversing with you and still you rabbit on and on about nothing? At least I have an excuse for my “obsessing” what is yours???

  • Secret Squirrel

    As an aside, youKnowWho’s blog stated that she was thinking of studying English Lit’ at Uni’. 🙂
    I’m f*cking serious too.

  • slappymcgroundout

    “Better still can anyone else on this blogg support her assertion that?”

    Did you miss my post above? Some are apparently insisting that incarcerated felons have the right to vote. Apparently, a significant breach of the peace of the realm means that we can trust one to excercise their vote so as to not intend another significant breach of the peace of the realm. So there’s one.

    I don’t otherwise have the names, but some of their asylum decisions struck me as rather odd.

    Next, post-operative transsexuals. Apparently, the ECHR believes that the fact that you hacked off your genitalia, etc., means that you are now a new gender. Someone might want to send them to a biology class. In three letters, DNA. For the import, if the post-op was blown to bits by that al Qaeda explosive device, and we simply couldn’t tell gender from examination of the remains, we’d analyze the DNA. Might have some problem in then identifying the person, since the DNA would come back male whereas the ECHR insists that one has the legal right to have the state reclassify your gender following your surgery, i.e., we’d be a looking for a male on the basis of the DNA but the dead human would be in state records as a female.

    By the way, according to the ECHR, post-op is the way to avoid the ban on same sex marriage. Hack it off, call yourself, female, and you’ve a right to marry as a woman. And note the further implications, at least according to the BBC. Differing pension and retirement benefits. As the BBC reports:

    Ms Goodwin had argued that her human rights had been denied because, unlike other women, she was unable to draw a pension until she was 65.

    So, you want to retire early…

    Now, to meet your anticipated objection, sure, the UK could equalize the retirement age, etc., but then Lord Hoffman would say that the disparate retirement ages is not discrimination but instead a product of local conditions and is itself designed to deliver justice and equality (whereas local conditions elsewhere might mean a different scheme). And so the imposition of a unitary standard not related to local condition is perhaps the greatest of all violations of human right.

    Almost forgot, the one case re the post-operative transsexual is Goodwin v. United Kingdom.

  • First, it was the blanket ban on prisoners voting that was the violation. In France and Germany special court orders can prevent criminals who have committed more serious crimes from voting.

    Second, it would be a strange Al Qaeda that would have transsexuals fighting for it. If they had the DNA to check against the DNA sample they had at the scene, however, then they would already have a file on that person, and so be able to identify them.

    Third, human rights is about being treated equally, not about adding up all the pros and cons of life and saying that if you’re compensated in one area, then it’s ok for you to be treated differently in another. Different treatment in an area is to be justified because of differences in that area. If homosexual acts were still criminalised, but homosexuals who hadn’t committed any homosexual acts in the eyes of the law were entitled to an earlier pension, or some other state benefit at a higher level, then it would be fairly ridiculous to say that there has been no infringement of an affected person’s human rights simply because he or she gets some compensation for the infringement due to local conditions.

  • oracle

    Christy can your MP not help? did you ever contact your MP for help?

  • slappymcgroundout

    Pippakin specifically claimed that the ECHR had “discredited itself” in a number of decisions –apparently it was all over the media? I was interested to look at whatever cases she was referring to –she took a hissy fit post after post because I asked.

    As for what you have posted, none of it relates to her claim of the ECHR having discredited itself –instead you refer to a number of things which either perplex you or simply you do not agree –discredit means that they have damagd their reputation —I do not doubt that it has that ability. For a Court to discredit itself would be something more serious than what you might think is ‘bewildering’.

  • Oracle, there are and have been various MP’s, MEP’s, MLA’s, TD’s and Councillors lobbying on my behalf. It takes a Court of Law to make legal verdicts –and not an elected MLA such as David Ford. In my case the Court could not determine guilt to the required criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt –but David Ford thinks that he can in some sort of Judge Roy Bean capacity.

  • Rory Carr

    Without wishing to go into the ramifications of genital surgery – on I which I admit to a great degree of ignorance – I would remind Slappymcgroundout that the question of gender identification and subsequent gender reassignment is rather more complex than his own rather crude evaluation.

    Simply put, it is the case that some infants who are biologically female may be born with their genitalia presenting as male and thus they are incorrectly assigned at birth as male when in fact they are female. The reverse also applies with biological females born with their genitalia presenting outwardly and thus being erroneously categorised as male.

    It is because of the similarity in the basic structure of both male and female genitalia that surgery to correct this defect is relatively simple. It is certainly not as crude as “hack[ing] it off” (in the case of females wrongly categorised at birth as male) as he would suggest but rather a case of folding back the offending “penis” in order that the patient who retains basically female biological characteristics in other respects may now be comforted with surgically restructured female genitalia as well. A humane exercise I would have thought and one that should be applauded not only for its skill alone but also for its merit in relieving confusion and suffering.

  • Rory Carr

    Correction: In my second paragraph the final sentence should read:

    The reverse also applies with biological males born with their genitalia presenting inwardly( or rather not apparently presenting outwardly) and thus being erroneously categorised as female.

    Yes, it is confusing. But if it is confusing to us then how much more confusing must it not be to the individual who suffers from such incorrect gender assignment at birth and how greater therefore is not our need to attempt to understand and help where we can?

  • slappymcgroundout


    I wasn’t speaking to that scenario. Goodwin was this scenario:

    Though she married a woman and they had four children, her conviction was that her “brain sex” did not fit her body.

    Need I report that women having sex with women cannot produce a child? And to ask the obvious question, if he changes to she, whom do the four children call “daddy”?

    The UK’s law that the ECHR found wanting:

    Under English law, marriage is defined as the voluntary union between a man and a woman. In the case of Corbett v. Corbett ([1971] Probate Reports 83), Mr Justice Ormrod ruled that sex for that purpose is to be determined by the application of chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests where these are congruent and without regard to any surgical intervention. This use of biological criteria to determine sex was approved by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Tan ([1983] Queen’s Bench Reports 1053) and given more general application, the court holding that a person born male had been correctly convicted under a statute penalising men who live on the earnings of prostitution, notwithstanding the fact that the accused had undergone gender reassignment therapy.

    And the law in the UK took into account your scenario (note the part about not congruent):

    The 1953 Act provides for the correction by the Registrar of clerical errors or factual errors. The official position is that an amendment may only be made if the error occurred when the birth was registered. The fact that it may become evident later in a person’s life that his or her “psychological” sex is in conflict with the biological criteria is not considered to imply that the initial entry at birth was a factual error. Only in cases where the apparent and genital sex of a child was wrongly identified, or where the biological criteria were not congruent, can a change in the initial entry be made. It is necessary for that purpose to adduce medical evidence that the initial entry was incorrect. No error is accepted to exist in the birth entry of a person who undergoes medical and surgical treatment to enable that person to assume the role of the opposite sex.

    Oh, and Rory, while the court need consider the implications of its decision, it decides them on the facts before it. It doesn’t posit what you did when those aren’t the facts of the matter at hand.