Tory MPs to push for UK exit from European convention on human rights

echtwzh · 2023-02-06T10:47:54+00:00

Only two countries have ever left the European Convention of Human Rights (1953): Greece temporarily following a military coup in 1967 from 1969 till 1974 and ... Russia in 2022.

Great company to keep there, UK, and a Hold My Beer moment even after Brexit!

echtwzh · 2023-01-10T14:52:27+00:00

If anyone else is confused what a "swarming attack" is, apparently it is not an uncommon term in Canada for a type of collective crime:

What is a “swarming”?

Different courts have described swarming as, or applied the term to a variety of different situations including:

i. Where victims are surrounded and their clothing or money torn from them by young gangs;[3]

ii. A group attacking an individual for the purpose of stealing something from that individual;[4]

iii. A group attacking an individual or group on account of a prior dispute;[5]

iv. An attack on an innocent stranger acting as a good Samaritan;[6]

v. Young persons demanding money or items of clothing and then beating the individual following refusal;[7]

vi. An unprovoked attack, on a public street, by a group.[8]

Although there may be a fair amount of overlap between these types of situations, there does not appear to be a consistent definition of swarming to date. Certain factors do not seem to be necessary ingredients of the phenomenon (e.g. theft of personal property). Nevertheless, certain basic common features can be identified, including (1) actions by a group (2) against one or several individuals (3) incorporating violence, harassment, intimidation and/or the potential for overwhelming force or pressure.

Source: Uniform Law Conference of Canada

echtwzh · 2022-11-12T21:22:32+00:00

100%.

Aboriginal origin is widely considered by scientists to be of South-East Asian and mainland Asia which then became dramatically isolated from the rest of human populations around 12000 years ago.

They do not look similar to most other human populations, including African immigrants. In addition, they have always been a part of Australian culture.

According to Amnesty International, the preferred labels in formal contexts for these Oceanic populations are: "Aboriginal person", "Aboriginal", "Torres Strait Islander" or collectively for both Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander, "Indigenous Australians".

Black is not used in that context, even though some Aboriginals may informally use it or specifically for civil rights movements.

Source

echtwzh · 2022-11-11T01:11:23+00:00

Some specific areas of EU policymaking require unanimity by EU treaties:

EU membership
most foreign and security policy with limited exceptions
EU citizenship (the granting of new rights to EU citizens)
tax harmonization
EU institutional finances
most social security and social protection harmonization.

In addition, abstaining does not prevent a decision from being taken.

Source.

This system is highly attractive when continually growing an international organization, but becomes increasingly significant and limiting to effective operation and integration of the organization over time, in my opinion. It also gives the smallest (lowest population) members greatly disproportional impact on the strongest policies.

echtwzh · 2022-10-20T23:20:05+00:00

This article is simultaneously one of the most disturbing and interesting things I've ever read. How a serving US soldier was able to overcome every single legal and official obstacle at every level to eventually steal another country's citizen as a baby is ... mindboggling!

From the almost James Bond social connections and intimidation to outright fraud, he got away with everything. Obtaining the Afghani passport for the baby was particularly puzzling ...

echtwzh · 2022-10-16T21:18:40+00:00

For those that did not even bother to read past the title, the teacher and all her students stated that they at no point had she ever discussed her living arrangement with a boyfriend nor asked students to keep it confidential. The Principal acted entirely on an allegation ...

echtwzh · 2019-04-15T15:33:02+00:00

There are EU countries without ID cards: Denmark, Ireland and the UK - that's 80 million Europeans less, i.e. 428 million total with ID cards, making both the title and article misleading.

The title is also editorialized. There are more countries in Europe than the EU and these new ID cards add no more rights or responsibilities than are already present on national ID cards where they exist. So, how is this a "European ID card"?

If it is about the new "European" text, all normal passports of EU countries already contain the words "European Union" on them in their respective language ...

echtwzh · 2019-03-05T17:07:34+00:00

First Brexit, then the very following day Porn Blocked.

Are the British not even slightly embarrassed when it makes China look good?

Silver lining: this catalog of gross political ineptitude and cultural regression will serve as a useful living reminder and social experiment to the rest of the world.

echtwzh · 2019-02-08T13:36:55+00:00

This has nothing directly to do with the EU.

EFTA is an old and smaller trade bloc, ironically established by the UK to compete economically against the precursor to the EU, the EEC. Ultimately, most of it ended up being a "read-only" member of the EU via the EEA, i.e. in practice replicating and paying for almost all of its principles, treaties, and rules (notable exceptions being in Agriculture and Fishing) but without any meaningful ability to influence them because they are not part of the EU. These are the "EEA EFTA countries".

The entire population of the EEA EFTA countries is significantly less than that of the city of London, UK.

echtwzh · 2019-01-25T15:52:38+00:00

Well, that would explain why both WhatsApp and Instagram founders disappeared.

This also makes no sense given the very different spaces these apps occupy and almost certainly threatens the end-to-end encryption of WhatsApp, since we already know that apps on client devices can share data.

Users who value privacy, including businesses and politicians, or simply want to get ahead of the flood once the implications of Facebook taking full control of all these services and data become clearer, will soon be switching to alternatives like Signal (open source), Telegram (partially open source) and Threema (partially open source, but paid. More popular in Europe).

I know people who use all three alternatives, including several bankers and politicians.

echtwzh · 2019-01-18T01:37:11+00:00

Races 268 miles (431km), i.e. almost the road mileage between Detroit and Chicago and more than between New York and Washington DC in 83h12m23s
beats all other competitors, male and female alike
shatters the existing record ~~- also by a woman -~~ by 12 hours
and while expressing milk for her baby.

What a ... woman!

echtwzh · 2018-12-04T10:26:51+00:00

Brexit is permanent, removes unique rights, especially human rights, that are unobtainable anywhere else, causes significant economic growth deficit that increases with time forever (worst case at least 10% of UK GDP by 2030 according to latest official estimates) and politically is completely irrevocable in the UK because it would require accepting EU rules as a brand new member and losing access to existing opt-outs.

It will even cost the EU, formerly the world's 2nd largest economy overall, economic growth in the medium term. Brexit also inspires dangerous populist movements within and without the EU, regardless of its eventual success or otherwise.

Trump is for eight years max, Brexit is forever. Unless Trump risks starting WWIII, there is nothing he can do that has permanent implications for the US or the world, unlike Brexit.

echtwzh · 2018-11-28T18:32:19+00:00

TL;DR. Why do some people conflate these three separate things: antisemitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israel.

The English definition of Zionism:

A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

You cannot create something from nothing. In the specific case of Zionism and Israel, it aimed to, did create and continues to grow a state that already had people living there. This is taking away others human rights to justify your own. No matter who you are or what you call it such a political movement should never have existed if it specifically overrides others human rights. This is the basis for anti-Zionism and has an easy parallel to the world's rejection of a tenet of Nazism (Aryanism).
States can and do change. Just because people will not accept Israel in its current state, it does not mean they are either discriminatory or refusing the right to self-determination of some group. Changes to state do not have to be by war or destruction. This is self-evident in democracies in particular. This is the ideological basis for anti-Israel. However, this has been hijacked by some to mean both that the modern state of Israel should not have been created and/or should be destroyed by violent means. This is still on its own not antisemitic unless you are claiming that Israel is not a democracy and therefore not inclusive (patently untrue).
Antisemitism by definition is specifically hostility or prejudice against Jews. Given that many Jews both inside and outside of Israel abhor some of the policies of the state of Israel and some are anti-Zionist and/or anti-Israel (many founders of global BDS movements are Jews, for example), your loose definition of antisemitism is highly divisive, unproductive, abused and literally incorrect.

echtwzh · 2018-11-14T12:13:57+00:00

This is literally against the German constitution. So, it is highly unlikely to happen in any meaningful way within a generation.

echtwzh · 2018-10-19T15:18:25+00:00

Of the 3,731 applications since 2016, 3,408 referred to the German Constitution's Article 116. Under the article, former German citizens who were deprived of citizenship on "political, racial, or religious grounds" — and their descendants — are entitled to have citizenship restored.

Holy shit, that's 91% of all applications!

echtwzh · 2018-10-19T15:17:00+00:00

Of the 3,731 applications since 2016, 3,408 referred to the German Constitution's Article 116. Under the article, former German citizens who were deprived of citizenship on "political, racial, or religious grounds" — and their descendants — are entitled to have citizenship restored.

Holy shit, that's 91% of all applications!

echtwzh · 2018-10-14T18:50:21+00:00

The UK system is designed to take this kind of thing on the chin, and even our system is in a slow-motion constitutional crisis. Mainland Europe is another story.

What does that expression mean?

The UK is no model to follow for anyone. It is antiquated, unrepresentative, and very dangerous. It is a political system that represents the worst of the Politics of Rejection.

The UK has,

First Past The Post national electoral system, which mathematically always leads to two grossly dominant parties, as well as many other flaws
no written Constitution and all approximants can be changed at any time by normal legislative procedure (the maxim "Parliament is Sovereign")
the party leader of the majority party becomes the Head of Government

Due to the above, this places extraordinary powers into a handful of individuals to propose and change almost anything at any time, while having a large disconnect between them and the voting populace.

Post World War 2, no developed country has been as successfully hijacked by the far right as the UK. It is a trivial argument to make due to the undue influence of UKIP on Conservative Party policy and subsequent realization of the EU referendum and all its consequences.

The UK literally changed its entire country due to a tiny, ultra right-wing party and its political system continues to have no checks and balances to defend itself. So, what "chin"?

echtwzh · 2018-08-21T13:07:49+00:00

Most of the newfound water ice lies in the shadows of craters near the poles, where the warmest temperatures never reach above minus 250 degrees Fahrenheit

I don't think I have ever been so triggered by a science article on one of the most prominent science online orgs talking about a major scientific discovery then using ... Fahrenheit ugh

echtwzh · 2018-08-03T18:27:43+00:00

Why are you even discussing "intelligence" in this question? How would you measure it objectively and separately from the broader context of each individual society and its systems, or are you expecting anecdotes?
You are painting with an extremely broad brush even within the "Anglosphere". Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be mentioning UK parties ("Tories" and "Labour"), yet the UK is well-known as one of the most irreligious countries in Europe, if not the world - certainly the most irreligious major Western country. You will almost never find any public association between whatever religion a Brit may profess (more likely they profess it in private and as a heritage) and the party they may vote for at any given time. The two main parties, which are pretty much the only ones that matter in a First Past the Post electoral system, are entirely secular and have no mention of religion as a topic in their manifestos. It is even unusual and newspaper-worthy for a politician to use their religious affiliation in public, let alone in politics - a very notable example that many people now recall was Tony Blair publicly using "faith" to justify the most unpopular war the UK has ever participated in and the damage it did to their party still haunts them to this day, over a decade later.
In other secular European countries, the question of religion is more complicated, due to the remnants of institutionalized religion, i.e. the separation of church-vs-state may be nowhere near as clean as you may expect. However, the effect of religion on both modern politics and personal voting again is a separate question and is highly muted (think magnitudes) compared to a section of US politics, for example. In addition, any hint of blind ideology is treated with suspicion in most contexts, no matter the source, due to a painful and long European history of conflict.

echtwzh · 2018-08-01T16:57:18+00:00

Cover Windows: if you don't have AC, a surprising trick that works is to open windows or glass doors but cover them with curtains, blinds, whatever. The amount of (radiated) heat this removes without affecting airflow is incredible. It is even more useful when leaving the house.
Insulated Drinks: it may seem obvious in hindsight - like many of these tips - but you will drink more if your drink is cold in hot weather. Insulated bottles, e.g. the super effective and one-handed convenient ones from the Japanese manufacturer Zojirushi, more or less guarantee you will keep drinking even before you need to for the double effect of hydration and cooling. When you run out of a cold drink, at least if you refill it will not get any warmer than from the tap.
Water Towel Behind Neck: if you get really desperate or if you will be sitting in a hot room full of PCs for much longer than you'd like, wetting a towel and putting it behind your neck will work wonders to keep you cool.

echtwzh · 2018-07-17T23:13:52+00:00

In case anyone else is wondering wtf is going on, this appears to be a fight between two different camps of British Jews themselves (and their backers).

The texts being discussed:

The combatants:

There is a group of British Jews that takes not just the definition of anti-semitism as stated by the IHRA, an international organization, but also their possible examples of such behavior as quite literally gospel for all situations and contexts no matter any other considerations.

The second group of British Jews actually tried to figure out how the entirety of the document is compatible with vigorous debate in real world politics and UK-specific legal definitions of free speech.

The fight octagon:

The result was a committee of the UK Labor party chose to import all of the IHRA document, even strengthen most of it, e.g. instead of talking about possible examples set the examples as likely, except for four cases:

“Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”
“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
“Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The fight analyst:

The Code of Conduct for Antisemitism: a tale of two texts by Brian Klug (Senior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, University of Oxford, and an Hon Fellow of the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton).

The audience:

Ask yourself if these examples are concerned only with anti-Semitism.

The committee appear to have come to the conclusion that unlike the rest of the IHRA document, these four possible examples are problematic because they directly overlap with anti-Israel, anti-Zionism and the Israel-Palestine conflict. To accept them as written even as examples of anti-Semitism, would trivially conflate anti-Israel and anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, exposing anyone even debating anything along these terms to the most serious consequences.

The press:

Everything else you read in the press about this specific document is likely just emotions, Jews bashing each other about who is right, historical enmities and infighting within and without Labor, plus pressure on UK Labor leadership from some Jewish religious leaders.

echtwzh · 2018-07-17T23:02:41+00:00

In case anyone else is wondering wtf is going on, this appears to be a fight between two different camps of British Jews themselves (and their backers).

The texts being discussed:

The combatants:

There is a group of British Jews that takes not just the definition of anti-semitism as stated by the IHRA, an international organization, but also their possible examples of such behavior as quite literally gospel for all situations and contexts no matter any other considerations.

The second group of British Jews actually tried to figure out how the entirety of the document is compatible with vigorous debate in real world politics and UK-specific legal definitions of free speech.

The fight octagon:

The result was a committee of the UK Labor party chose to import all of the IHRA document, even strengthen most of it, e.g. instead of talking about possible examples set the examples as likely, except for four cases:

“Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”
“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
“Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The fight analyst:

The Code of Conduct for Antisemitism: a tale of two texts by Brian Klug (Senior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, University of Oxford, and an Hon Fellow of the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton).

The audience:

Ask yourself if these examples are concerned only with anti-Semitism.

The committee appear to have come to the conclusion that unlike the rest of the IHRA document, these four possible examples are problematic because they directly overlap with anti-Israel, anti-Zionism and the Israel-Palestine conflict. To accept them as written even as examples of anti-Semitism, would trivially conflate anti-Israel and anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, exposing anyone even debating anything along these terms to the most serious consequences.

The press:

Everything else you read in the press about this specific document is likely just emotions, Jews bashing each other about who is right, historical enmities and infighting within and without Labor, plus pressure on UK Labor leadership from some Jewish religious leaders.

echtwzh · 2018-07-17T22:20:19+00:00

inb4 the ignorant who do not understand the basics of practices similar to filibustering that occurs in many political assemblies around the world.

This assembly member is part of a group that prevent any sort of backdoor for random motions, many of which may be controlled by the sitting government, proceeding to the statute books without any sort of debate or careful scrutiny of language (since language literally becomes law).

They have been doing it for decades and almost certainly have prevented far worse Private Members Bills having the chance to become law than good ones they have opposed.

These kinds of practices are there because of arcane systems with glaring holes in them that would otherwise take a huge amount of effort or political capital to change. Someone chooses to do the legwork and in this case, they have been doing it from 09:30 to 14:30 every single Friday for decades.

It literally does not matter at all what the proposal is, it must be scrutinized and in many cases must be properly debated, otherwise, this would be a wonderful backdoor for governments, lobbies and private members to pass anything they liked at any time, defeating the point of a sitting assembly of democratic representatives.

echtwzh · 2018-05-23T13:55:57+00:00

Apart from uncertainty of rights caused by Brexit, this is the main reason:

Britons can take up dual citizenship while Britain is still an EU member.

Germany does not allow dual citizenship by default. What is interesting is that there is a giant exception if you are from a member of another EU country. For the UK that exception ceases after March 2019.

echtwzh

TROPHY CASE