• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

European court: Swiss Muslim girls must swim with boys

Don't much give a ****.
 
joG said:
Interestingly Switzerland is not even part of the EU.
Click to expand...
Yes. I read the last sentence wrongly and made an incorrect reply.
Thank you for pointing out my error.

Interesting enough though it doesn't change the sentiment of what I said.
1. The Court wasn't following their own laws. So change the law.
2. An agreement (treaty) to allow The European Court of Human Rights to be the arbiter gave up their sovereignty. I find that reprehensible.​




PeteEU said:
Has nothing to do with the EU.
Click to expand...
Thank you for noticing my error and pointing it out. (see above reply)


PeteEU said:
Once you have signed up to the convention, then you are bound by the rulings of said court.
Click to expand...
Yes. They gave up their sovereignty.




Fishking said:
I'm sure the law is only followed so long as it doesn't violate other aspects of the law. We have freedom of religion but if I join some ancient pagan religion I can't sacrifice my child to Baal. I'm guessing here they are ruling in favor of non-discrimination/segregation.
Click to expand...

Forcing opposite sexes together in public settings does not quite equate to sacrificing a person to baal.
Forcing association is fundamentally wrong. Association should be a choice.
 
Excon said:
Yes. They gave up their sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Technically yes, but in reality it does not really matter. Why? Because the European Convention on Human Rights has been part of most member states law system for over 50+ years and in many cases it was before. Sovereignty is given up regularly by countries for the greater good. A good example. The Postal Union treaty or NATO. Being members of said organisations means you gave up sovereignty. The list of such treaties or organisations is very long. Some have a court of last resort, like the ECHR, while others have different systems to deal with conflicts.
 
PeteEU said:
Yes and no. Technically yes, but in reality it does not really matter. Why? Because the European Convention on Human Rights has been part of most member states law system for over 50+ years and in many cases it was before. Sovereignty is given up regularly by countries for the greater good. A good example. The Postal Union treaty or NATO. Being members of said organisations means you gave up sovereignty. The list of such treaties or organisations is very long. Some have a court of last resort, like the ECHR, while others have different systems to deal with conflicts.
Click to expand...
Yes and no? No. Giving up sovereignty is never a good idea.
As we are now in the realm of ideologies, maybe we should stop?
 
Excon said:
Yes and no? No. Giving up sovereignty is never a good idea.
As we are now in the realm of ideologies, maybe we should stop?
Click to expand...

Why stop? If you are against giving up sovereignty, then you are against the US too? How about "local" does this sovereignty go? Married? You gave up sovereignty for that. Children? Same thing.

Giving up sovereignty for the greater good is always acceptable and good. In the case of the ECHR, protecting basic human rights in Europe among the member nations is a goal that everyone should be for. Only ones that should be against, are those that want to abuse human rights.

Now countries can of course leave the ECHR, something the UK Tories want to do.. but that means you get into the same boat as Belerus and other dictatorships. It also means that countries are against Human rights... which is why the Tories have not triggered them leaving the ECHR yet. Of course, ECHR was written by the .. UK Tories, which makes it even more awkward.

The ECHR has done a lot of good in Europe, with rulings that have shaped how we Europeans view human rights. For example, in 1981, Ireland banned homosexuality. The ECHR prevented that. Or in 1979, when the UK court system put in an injunction on behalf of the NHS, to prevent reporting on the thalidomide scandal. Or the ruling that prevents police storing DNA and fingerprints of innocent people. There are many many many cases across Europe where the ECHR has stepped, when the national court system failed to protect human rights in said country.
 
If you 'ban,' or force an issue without first providing reasonable education, the results will follow the usual course - that is entrenchment and resentment.
I was going to say that it should not be too difficult to disabuse people of the idea of a vengeful and malevolent deity up there --
What was I thinking....?

migrant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom