h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You're...not wrong, swl. I see this as insufficient weight given to the primacy of the HRA. I'm far from a Human Rights lawyer (unfortunately - above my pay grade)...but I wonder if there's scope for challenging this stuff on HRA grounds. It's the nearest we have to a written constitution.

That said...the US Patriot Act is also clearly unconstitutional, and although their lawyers are rather good at constitutional challenges there's been little movement there.

One problem we have, of course, is the HRA is desparately unpopular. People simply don't get it. The cynic might mutter about black propaganda against it.

I do see the rights/privileges argument. Can I try to reconcile them with a simple analogy?

You might be privileged to receive a birthday present. Once you've got it, it's yours by right. Nobody - not even the giver - can take it back. Or, at least, they *could*...but that giver would be regarded as A Nasty Person. (and...stretching the analogy but just about staying within Hooke's law...as any parent will tell you, its naughty to abuse it)

So...the Body Politic sets out what privileges we agree to grant one another and can therefore expect to receive as a permanent matter of entitlement. These are codified as Rights. If those rights are subsequently taken away, we know that something is seriously amiss.

In the specific case of the UNDHR/ECHR/HRA it's salutory to remember where the Rights came from. Post WWII, various nations needed new constitutions. The various architects such as Churchill, Roosevelt* were faced with precedents in which nations had established legal frameworks under which they could - quite legally - behave nastily to their citizens. The UNDHR set out a set of principles which must not to be undermined by national laws, *even if those laws are democratically derived.* If it was a good idea for others, Churchill decided, it was a good idea for us - lacking a proper constitution as we do. (The American argument was that they already have a sound constitution which affords the same rights)

If it works well, citizens should have access to means of enforcing those rights. If they are infringed or undermined, at very least this is a belwether.

swl's examples are one example of their undermining. The orchestated campaing of tut-tutting at these 'European' rights is another.

So at what point should we get scared?







* Eleanor

Could rights be 'things that you should really be able to expect in a civilised society'? Is that why people say 'it's my right to...', because they think it's something they should be able to expect will happen? I should be able to expect not to be killed by another person, and that if I am steps will be taken.

In that sense, I do rather expect that ivf as a treatment should be measured by the same criteria as any other treatment is (that QUALY thing is fascinating) and be provided or not accordingly, rather than on the basis of what just some guy/guyess and more especially, a layman(woman), feels is fair or not. And that an individual's access to it is not dependant on their marital/coupledom status, but on their medical need.

Or, 'rights' = things which a given society has gotten around to making into laws?

That would explain 'I know my rights' culture. It means I know what I can get by law.

I suppose that's why the OP eg excites interest. The rules governing NHS provision are temptingly lawlike, and people get confused.

But again...beware dichotomous thinking such as Law/Not Law. There's a spectrum:
- Statute
- Precedent
- Custom
- Expectation.

Or something like that.

The 100% fundamental is Law. people elected to make Law or appoint judges can also decide about rights. At any moment these maybe changed though. They are always entirely secondary to Law which is fundamental...and is to do with Democracy.

They are also randomly applied ccording to where you live.

One exmple of this is in the provision of antenatal care. Where I live you get two scans by default, one at 12 weeks and another at 20. The 12 week one is accompanied by blood tests and detiled mesurements that give you a good idea of whether there are genetic or other problems with the foetus. My friend, who lives less thn 20 miles away dosn't get the 12 week one, so, at her 20 week scan when she had a bump that everyone had noticed she had a scan that showed the foetus was malformed and would not survive even if it got to term. This was hideous news and led to her having to make decisions and grieve in a very public way.

I also know somebody who, like me, lost a lot of weight. Where she lives the pct funded her some cosmetic surgery to deal with loose skin she was left with on her tummy, but here they don't (unless you have already cost them thousands by losing the weight through gastric surgery).

Now, on balance, I'd rather be in the area that provides better antenatal care and put up with my tummy but it is these kinds of things that mke it very difficult to decide when the provision of services is 'fair'.

>>The 100% fundamental is Law. people elected to make Law or appoint judges can also decide about rights. At any moment these maybe changed though. They are always entirely secondary to Law which is fundamental...and is to do with Democracy.<<

That's not actually true in the UK as our laws are wholly subservient to Parliament and the political process: the only thing that can stop the government of the day making any law it likes is electoral/public pressure. We're not like the States (as a random example) where the legislature is specifically prevented from making laws that breach certain principles and the judiciary is independent of the legislature and executive branches.

It's remarkable the numbers of court cases against various bits of European human rights laws that involve the UK as a plaintiff.

The people we elect make Law.and oversee the Law makers; they will also decide if the country should become part of other legislatures such as European Court of Human Rights.

They affirm Law as fundamental by definition of their being elected.

But there is nothing to stop them from changing the laws as and when they feel like. Laws (and by extension rights) are subservient to the whims of Parliament, not the other way round.

They don't oversee the lawmakers, they are the lawmakers and it's an important distinction. Whilst judge-made law does exist and judges, except at the highest levels, are relatively free of political influence the politicians are free to ignore those laws when they want (look at the 72 hour bail issue that came up recently).

Another important technicality is that the European Court of Human Rights is not a legislature, at least not for the UK. The Court's decisions only become law in the UK once Westminster has enacted an Act of Parliament in the usual fashion. The UK is bound by its membership if the Council of Europe to enact such legislation as/when needed but the UK is free to leave the Council of Europe at any point if it really doesn't want to enact something.

>>The 100% fundamental is Law.

I somewhat disagree. There are some things we disapprove of as a society that fall under codified law to which the societal response is specific sanctions.

There are other things we disapprove of which count as (eg) bad manners to which the response is tutting.

In both cases there is a judgement of wrongdoing and a response - albeit that the judging and responding are done by different societal entities.

The borderline between the two is fluid. This should be obvious by the fact that laws change over time. Some things which were once illegal and punished are now not. And vice versa. But a change in the law doesn't move something from the Right category to Wrong, and may or may not move it from Approve to Disapprove.

A good concrete example (thinks hard) marital rape. Legal until the late 80's (Scotland) and mid 90s (England), now illegal. But for a few years at least before it was illegal I guess the dominant assumption would have been that it was Not The Done Thing. (and going back earlier...it might possibly have been regarded as quite normal).

Incidentally, it's an example where the law wasn't changed by Parliament but by judicial interpretation.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: It's all a lot messier than legal/illegal.

>But there is nothing to stop them from changing the laws as and when they feel like.<

Yes that's what I'm saying. Because they are elected they are the Law. That's the fundamental. In an emergency the country may well need something quite unusual temporarily..as I supose ocurred during WW2.

(HI I know you have studied this stuff in depth and I haven't, I am trying to discuss it with you based on my knowledge. I don't want stuff to turn unpleasant. I'm trying to be straight with you about my understanding..not win a point.

Just pointing that out. I want for interesting discussions from now on..but I feel a bit nervous.)

HI:

>>It's remarkable the numbers of court cases against various bits of European human rights laws that involve the UK as a plaintiff.

A wee clarification there.

We do not operate under European human rights law, but the UK Human Rights Act, enacted by Parliament. The HRA obliged all UK courts to take the its provisions into account (ie the HRA trumps all other legislation). Even Scottish Childrens Panels, which are not quite courts, are required to consider the HRA.

Usually the highest UK court is the Supreme Court (except in Scotland where it's *probably* the High Court of Justiciary...the wrangle is ongoing), for all matters except Human Rights. For these the final appeal is to the European Court of Human Rights, Note that the latter is nothing to do with the EU: it was established in 1956 and Britain joined up well before EEC membership. Prior to the HRA the European court considered UK cases under the ECHR. (which is the same, give or take a whisker). However...now appeals to the European Court are to do with making sure our judiciary holds to its own, domestic law.

>I somewhat disagree.<

I said it was the fundamental. I think that because it's based on the process of Democracy.

Everything else is sorted out on top of that bedrock in various ways in society. Rights will always be a thing that ebbs and flows according to the politics of the day, as will polite behaviour.

Sorry...don't see it as that simple and clear cut. Democracy, the judiciary and society at large interact to make it a bit of a messy fudge.

>Sorry...don't see it as that simple and clear cut.<

Sometimes one is in that mood to put the clear piercing gaze on things..

I actually find it very re-assuring. That absolute which is totally based on what we the people vote for. (And thank god we got rid of that Murdoch infection now...so who we vote for is not to do with being impressed over who is best at sucking up to him.).

There is an interesting point here: is it easier for citizens with a clear, codified constitution to speak of rights than for us with our uncodified, Anglo-Norman mess?

Do the Americans with their First Amendment (and everything else on the Bill of Rights) have a stronger claim to rights than we do?

To the OP, ... one province does provide free IVF up to three tries. Of some 4,000 processes, there have been 900'ish successes

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/babiespregnancy/pregnancy/article/1035298--ontario-couple-childless-while-quebec-parents-enjoy-fully-funded-ivf

"an individual's access to [a treatment] is not dependant on their marital/coupledom status, but on their medical need."

ALL access to medical treatment should primarily be based on medical need, shouldn't it? That seems only moral.

But... to what extent can someone be said to "need" to have a child, especially if they already have one?

If I "need" kidney dialysis, or radiotherapy, or insulin, it's not because I'll be upset if I don't get it. It's because if I don't get it, I'll be DEAD, and in short order. Whereas if I "need" IVF and I don't get it... what?

Arguably my immediate physical health is *better* - every person I know, without exception, who has had kids has grown less healthy as a result. They do less exercise, they sleep less, they worry more, they look and sound noticeably and significantly less happy than they did before they had kids. They insist otherwise, of course, citing intangible benefits, but the evidence of their faces is that children have been a disaster for their health, to say nothing of their bank balance.

I'm sure for some people there's some sort of psychological illness that would make them go downhill if they remained barren - but wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to treat that?

As an oldie with kids who talks to other oldies with and without kids I find the all oldies do less exercise, sleep less and worry more. In general those without kids do wish that they had had them, those that have kids are glad they had them and are also glad that their kids have had kids.
Most would prefer to see more consideration given to the living rather than the unborn, after all the world population is growing without adding to the problem.
It has to be said that the majority of them have lived by the rules of the day and paid their dues and demands and some are better off than others in wealth and health. There are couples, widows and widowers, bachelors and spinsters, clean livers and those who have sailed close to the wind but most agree that health comes before wealth and are glad of all the help they can get.
Most are resigned to the fact that life goes on.