可以同合法係兩回事
我意思係反對同支持都有合理理據
係咪都標籤人左膠好片面
『歸家post』BNO VISA 申請資訊 (36) 睇名––1997年7月1日後出世申請BNO VISA
希魔
1001 回覆
9 Like
9 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁第 29 頁第 30 頁第 31 頁第 32 頁第 33 頁第 34 頁第 35 頁第 36 頁第 37 頁第 38 頁第 39 頁第 40 頁第 41 頁
佢第一頁原句 Home Secretary 寫
依家係objectively 唔合法
Both domestic and international law
1係violates Human Rights Act 1998
HRA1998係constitutional act
國會想small boats act過
就要另外立新法寫明去replace HRA
不過現實係無咩MPs支持
E.g. British bill of rights
分別喺05 07 15 19 20試過推
不過你可以話今次23有可能過到
2係犯國際法
有無HRA1998都好
UK都係簽左ECHR
唔想跟可以退出
不過對上一個退出係俄羅斯
英國都可以跟嘅
”I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
依家係objectively 唔合法
Both domestic and international law
1係violates Human Rights Act 1998
HRA1998係constitutional act
國會想small boats act過
就要另外立新法寫明去replace HRA
不過現實係無咩MPs支持
E.g. British bill of rights
分別喺05 07 15 19 20試過推
不過你可以話今次23有可能過到
2係犯國際法
有無HRA1998都好
UK都係簽左ECHR
唔想跟可以退出
不過對上一個退出係俄羅斯
英國都可以跟嘅
真
但bill of rights 推過好多次都過唔到
今次更加無可能
Tory 政府係20年嚟史上最弱
同用趕難民走做理由去立人權法
成件事諷刺到冇得再諷刺
但bill of rights 推過好多次都過唔到
今次更加無可能
Tory 政府係20年嚟史上最弱
同用趕難民走做理由去立人權法
成件事諷刺到冇得再諷刺
卓健停咗用app book期？
錯哂
Human Rights Act 1998 S19(1)b 係Communication Act 2003 立法時引用過
R (Animal Defenders) v Culture Secretary [2008] UKHL 15; [2008] 1 AC 1312 也曾經打過官司但最終係政府嬴
S19(1) b 係立法時引用過唔代表最終的法律係incompatible
Human Rights Act 1998 S19(1)b 係Communication Act 2003 立法時引用過
R (Animal Defenders) v Culture Secretary [2008] UKHL 15; [2008] 1 AC 1312 也曾經打過官司但最終係政府嬴
S19(1) b 係立法時引用過唔代表最終的法律係incompatible
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/15.html
The weight to be accorded to the judgment of Parliament depends on the circumstances and the subject matter. In the present context it should in my opinion be given great weight, for three main reasons. First, it is reasonable to expect that our democratically-elected politicians will be peculiarly sensitive to the measures necessary to safeguard the integrity of our democracy. It cannot be supposed that others, including judges, will be more so. Secondly, Parliament has resolved, uniquely since the 1998 Act came into force in October 2000, that the prohibition of political advertising on television and radio may possibly, although improbably, infringe article 10 but has nonetheless resolved to proceed under section 19(1)(b) of the Act. It has done so, while properly recognising the interpretative supremacy of the European Court, because of the importance which it attaches to maintenance of this prohibition. The judgment of Parliament on such an issue should not be lightly overridden. Thirdly, legislation cannot be framed so as to address particular cases. It must lay down general rules: James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123, para 68; Mellacher v Austria (1989) 12 EHRR 391, paras 52-53; R (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61, [2002] 1 AC 800, para 29; Wilson v First County Trust (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, paras 72-74; R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 AC 173, paras 41, 91. A general rule means that a line must be drawn, and it is for Parliament to decide where. The drawing of a line inevitably means that hard cases will arise falling on the wrong side of it, but that should not be held to invalidate the rule if, judged in the round, it is beneficial.
法院案例講得好清楚, 只要兩院批准過,法院唔會輕易override 民主的議會的判斷
The weight to be accorded to the judgment of Parliament depends on the circumstances and the subject matter. In the present context it should in my opinion be given great weight, for three main reasons. First, it is reasonable to expect that our democratically-elected politicians will be peculiarly sensitive to the measures necessary to safeguard the integrity of our democracy. It cannot be supposed that others, including judges, will be more so. Secondly, Parliament has resolved, uniquely since the 1998 Act came into force in October 2000, that the prohibition of political advertising on television and radio may possibly, although improbably, infringe article 10 but has nonetheless resolved to proceed under section 19(1)(b) of the Act. It has done so, while properly recognising the interpretative supremacy of the European Court, because of the importance which it attaches to maintenance of this prohibition. The judgment of Parliament on such an issue should not be lightly overridden. Thirdly, legislation cannot be framed so as to address particular cases. It must lay down general rules: James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123, para 68; Mellacher v Austria (1989) 12 EHRR 391, paras 52-53; R (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61, [2002] 1 AC 800, para 29; Wilson v First County Trust (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, paras 72-74; R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 AC 173, paras 41, 91. A general rule means that a line must be drawn, and it is for Parliament to decide where. The drawing of a line inevitably means that hard cases will arise falling on the wrong side of it, but that should not be held to invalidate the rule if, judged in the round, it is beneficial.
法院案例講得好清楚, 只要兩院批准過,法院唔會輕易override 民主的議會的判斷
HRA 就係為咗賦予本地政府權力去implicate ECHR
只要Parliament 話ok 其實就ok
問題係UK 咁去演釋ECHR 國際未必認可
最嚴重情況會踢出公約
然後所有同EU 嘅Brexit deal 都會擱置
所以除非EU 扭軚 否則都幾難實行
但即使係咁Braverman 同Sunak 都要拎嚟推
所以唔少輿論都話佢地只係想please 啲右翼選民
失敗都叫做咗嘢
只要Parliament 話ok 其實就ok
問題係UK 咁去演釋ECHR 國際未必認可
最嚴重情況會踢出公約
然後所有同EU 嘅Brexit deal 都會擱置
所以除非EU 扭軚 否則都幾難實行
但即使係咁Braverman 同Sunak 都要拎嚟推
所以唔少輿論都話佢地只係想please 啲右翼選民
失敗都叫做咗嘢
Incompatible =再立法
Compatible =無事
Compatible or not is up to the court,
大前題 Parliament 過咗
依家只係政府想推 唔係國會
Compatible =無事
Compatible or not is up to the court,
大前題 Parliament 過咗
依家只係政府想推 唔係國會
08單case係有爭議性
今次直頭係direct breach
100% incompatible
今次直頭係direct breach
100% incompatible
國會有rebel 先算啦, 我唔覺得Tory會唔夠飛
邊個話direct breach, 睇番Human Rights Memo 先講啦
政府的法律意見係compatible
政府的法律意見係compatible
好大機會唔會過
因為政府本身都無心推
整依個bill係做樣俾右翼睇
到時過唔到瀨court 瀨Labour 又⼀日
因為政府本身都無心推
整依個bill係做樣俾右翼睇
到時過唔到瀨court 瀨Labour 又⼀日
係要睇埋國會Joint Committee on Human Rights 的意見先知係咪有問題
Home Secretary 上星期先話not sure喎
ECHR有commitment 收難民
Including asylum
政府依家話唔審批asylum seekers
唔係direct breach係乜
ECHR有commitment 收難民
Including asylum
政府依家話唔審批asylum seekers
唔係direct breach係乜
S 19 (1) b 引用立法唔代表non compatibility
呢句只係Balance of Probabilities
你睇番Human Rights Memo concern 主要都係集中係ECHR Article 8 Rights to family life
當然我覺得最有可能breach 係exemption clause to victim of modern slavery claim個part
呢句只係Balance of Probabilities
你睇番Human Rights Memo concern 主要都係集中係ECHR Article 8 Rights to family life
當然我覺得最有可能breach 係exemption clause to victim of modern slavery claim個part
