Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has jumped before he could be pushed. It is unknown who suggested Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky should be selected for the UK Bill of Rights Commission, and why he was selected. He is neither a lawyer nor an expert on human rights, merely a so-called political scientist. From the outset he has shown that he is not fit for purpose. After his dismal performance before the Joint Committee on Human Rights he should not have been placed within a million miles of the subject of human rights.
The UK Bill of Rights Commission is right to deliberately ignore the wishes of Prime Minister David Cameron, if it is to have any integrity and he is against the ECHR, ECtHR and human rights generally.
I don't believe that it is realistic to make human rights consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. The two concepts are at odds with each other.
The UK surrendered parliamentary sovereignty to whatever extent when we signed up to the Council of Europe. We agreed to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. Therefore human rights, democracy and rule of law trump parliamentary sovereignty. European law does not recognise parliamentary sovereignty, rather it recognises a different concept sovereignty of the people.
It would appear that Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has misunderstood the remit of the UK Bill of Rights Commission. Particularly "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights". Labour did not incorporate Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR when it supposedly brought rights home:
Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Decisions are made by Parliament but if they impinge upon the ECHR then the ECtHR has jurisdiction to decide if they breach human rights.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky favours ignoring human rights in favour of parliamentary sovereignty, and seeks to justify this abuse by claiming that Parliament should have a democratic override. This is dangerous ground. For example, it is a human right to vote. If Parliament overrode this it would not be democratic.
When the ECtHR instructed the UK to give prisoners the right to vote, this sent a signal that the UK is a failing State in relation to human rights, democracy and rule of law.
I claim the scalps of two opposed to human rights, first Steve Hilton and now Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. Anymore for anymore?
4 comments:
I wonder if they'll offer me a job on the commission? I could be their 'religious scientist.'
As well as being completely irrelevant to human rights, I thought that 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' is trumped by the principle of 'Supremacy of EU law' (through the Factortame litigation.)
But people who have fallen head over heels in love with ideas like 'democratic override' tend to only listen to the sound of their own voices.
Going for three John?
Tim: If I chaired the Commission I would deafinitley appoint you for your experience :-)
BB: They say it comes in threes...I wouldn't be surprised if a few more heads rolled Spring/Summer.
He seems a prize knob. I'd nominate him for Knob of the Week if I could be botheerd ...
Post a Comment