EU-Charter of Fundamental Rights and death penalty

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so now that we established that the Charter wont bring in death penalty to Ireland

---

who are we to tell other states what to do?

it would be like UK telling Ireland to introduce abortion

they EU is already doing its damned best as per its policy to stop Death Penalty in all countries, the charter is a step in right direction

read the article on death penalty in europe i linked to earlier, quite interesting

Again I never said the charter linked the Death Penalty to Ireland. And its the third time I have said it. But we are IMO signing off on a very controversial part of the treaty if we vote yes here.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

And its the third time I have said it. But we are IMO signing off on a very controversial part of the treaty if we vote yes here.

I don't agree. The exceptions to the prohibition on the death penalty are presumably there because some member states felt they needed them, and wouldn't have signed up to the Charter without them. Those member states will continue to allow for the death penalty in those circumstances; other member states will continue to have blanket prohibitions.

Where's the controversy?

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't agree. The exceptions to the prohibition on the death penalty are presumably there because some member states felt they needed them, and wouldn't have signed up to the Charter without them. Those member states will continue to allow for the death penalty in those circumstances; other member states will continue to have blanket prohibitions.

Where's the controversy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe


from what i can see none of the EU members practice the death penalty anymore

with Latvia being the last one (See below) to ratify assuming Treaty of Lisbon is fully ratified

out of 50 countries in Europe 46 dont have it


the countries that do are:

* Belarus
* Russia observes a moratorium in practice. Their last execution was in 1996
* Latvia maintains it for crimes committed in war time but is a member of the European Union. It has also signed, but not yet ratified, Protocol No. 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (total abolition)
* two unrecognised states of Transnistria and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have not abolished the death penalty and are blocked from the Council of Europe. However neither have executed anyone to date




so if you dont like death penalty and want it abolished in all EU states then vote YES



will that make you VOTE YES @ bayviewclose?

since you made such a big deal out of it?



another myth busted! case closed

meglome

bayviewclose are you not starting to reconsider your position? You bring up an issue to vote No which is explained as a non-issue or incorrect and then you proceed onto the next, and so on. But you still don't seem to have shifted your view, if you just want to vote No regardless of what's in the treaty just say so.

ei.sdraob

whats more interesting is that some on the NO side keep going on about having stronger ties to the US while cutting ties to Europe (UKIP im looking at yee in particular)

but they have the worlds largest prison population and still execute regularly, a true leader of first word eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_Penalty_World_Map.svg

ei.sdraob

oh dear look what me find

UKIP (who are campaigning on NO side)

beside wanting to withdraw UK from EU, UKIP want to reintroduce death penalty


sigh yet another things to add on my list to not to like UKIP for

ixtlan

bayviewclose wrote: »

Again, not talking about Death penalty in Ireland. Are we Europeans when it suits us. For jobs, economy. If the treaty was just about that it would not be a problem. But treaty is all encompassing.
The mere inclusion of the word Death Penalty (and again that such a contentious phrase was not included in booklet tells me RC are not telling us everything) leaves me in doubt.
Are we being asked to vote on a part of a treaty where a member state "may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts
committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied
only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’
What exactly does that mean. Are non nationals in a state where that law is enacted.
In other words once the Treaty is sworn in, can any member state enact this law?

Just to repeat again...

Lisbon does not change the situation regarding states enacting laws allowing the death penalty in time of war.

If Lisbon passes a state can enact or keep such a law. If it does not pass a state can still enact or keep such a law.

So, this is not a reason to vote no. In fact the attitude of the EU in tippytoeing around the sensitivities of a tiny number of states show how it will not overrule states where they really don't want to change.

Maybe you would like a tougher EU, forcing states to conform. I don't. I'm happy to allow consensus to develop.

Ix.

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't agree. The exceptions to the prohibition on the death penalty are presumably there because some member states felt they needed them, and wouldn't have signed up to the Charter without them. Those member states will continue to allow for the death penalty in those circumstances; other member states will continue to have blanket prohibitions.

Where's the controversy?

How do you mean wouldn't sign up to charter without them. Was this put in to appease those states. And now we are being asked to sign off on this footnote. Ill ask this question in another way. Are we as citizens of Europe being asked to sign off on this. To give consent to this. Maybe this sounds way too liberal but once this is introduced into the treaty what we are doing is in effect is justifying this law where member states chose to opt in on that law. If its outside the charter, there is less legitimacy to it.

oscarBravo

Honestly, bvc, I don't see any point in arguing this with you. The EU is deeply, firmly committed to the total abolition of the death penalty. You choose to ignore this in favour of a sub-clause in the charter that reluctantly allows for some exceptions to this in extreme circumstances.

Your approach seems to be similar to that of many No campaigners: focus unwarranted attention on minor perceived defects in Lisbon or the EU as if they were the be-all and end-all of the whole European project. I know many of the leading No campaigners do this on purpose, as their ultimate goal is the complete dismantling of the EU. I don't think that's your motive, but the end result is the same.

By all means, vote No to Lisbon, as if the fact that there's a tiny little opt-out clause buried somewhere in the Charter outweighs the EU's vehement and outspoken objection to the death penalty. If you can't get this one small issue in perspective, I can't see you getting the entire treaty in perspective.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I wish the EU could ban the death penalty across the Union, but unfortunately some less progressive states don't want that.

So to sum up the situation:

Right now some states in Europe allow themselves to introduce the death penalty in times of war or other emergency.

After Lisbon some states in Europe allow themselves to introduce the death penalty in times of war or other emergency.

This isn't a reason to vote either yes or no.

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

Honestly, bvc, I don't see any point in arguing this with you. The EU is deeply, firmly committed to the total abolition of the death penalty. You choose to ignore this in favour of a sub-clause in the charter that reluctantly allows for some exceptions to this in extreme circumstances.

Your approach seems to be similar to that of many No campaigners: focus unwarranted attention on minor perceived defects in Lisbon or the EU as if they were the be-all and end-all of the whole European project. I know many of the leading No campaigners do this on purpose, as their ultimate goal is the complete dismantling of the EU. I don't think that's your motive, but the end result is the same.

By all means, vote No to Lisbon, as if the fact that there's a tiny little opt-out clause buried somewhere in the Charter outweighs the EU's vehement and outspoken objection to the death penalty. If you can't get this one small issue in perspective, I can't see you getting the entire treaty in perspective.

What i am saying why put the footnote in. If these member states chose to use the death penalty let them. What treaty does no matter how noble its intentions (I'm aware that they promote the right to life on the charter) is to legitimize the actions.
As you said no one wants Europe dismantled but this treaty as one document should not be all encompassing.
Imagine if you will the treaty is a series of motions at an AGM. Maybe 80 per cent of them put before the floor would be carried. Others would be struck out.

But this from Martin Manseragh which is damning enough.
"The original Constitutional Treaty was successfully negotiated under the 2004 Irish Presidency, a source of considerable pride at the time, as it was beyond the capacity of Prime Minister Berlusconi. All member governments signed the Treaty, but France and the Netherlands rejected it in subsequent referendums. Adaptations and curtailments were made, and the revised Lisbon Treaty which emerged received parliamentary ratification in both countries without subsequent popular protest. In the case of France, President Sarkozy in the May 2007 election which brought him to power won a mandate for parliamentary ratification. However, none of our partners were prepared to go through a second renegotiation, but in any case what we needed was not a change in the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, but authorative clarification so as to take away any excuse for mistrust, misunderstanding or misrepresentation, accepting there would be those who would continue to oppose it regardless".
That from a dail speech dated 08/07/2009.
What is clear that while certain "assurances" were given, our partners were not prepared to change the text of the treaty. They had decided the direction already. And are intent on getting it through.
And what the death penalty footnote signifies is a footnote that is tantamount to guillotining an act that has big enough consequences maybe not for the many but for the few.

P. Breathnach

bayviewclose wrote: »

How do you mean wouldn't sign up to charter without them. Was this put in to appease those states. And now we are being asked to sign off on this footnote. Ill ask this question in another way. Are we as citizens of Europe being asked to sign off on this. To give consent to this. Maybe this sounds way too liberal but once this is introduced into the treaty what we are doing is in effect is justifying this law where member states chose to opt in on that law. If its outside the charter, there is less legitimacy to it.

You are being absurd. If the EU could actually force a policy on its members in this area (as distinct from encouraging it) then you would have a legitimate complaint about interfering with member-states' sovereignty.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

What i am saying why put the footnote in. If these member states chose to use the death penalty let them.

Because if the "footnote" wasn't there, the other member states couldn't ever apply the death penalty under any circumstances, and they obviously weren't happy with that. So there's a footnote to the extent that the death penalty may be used, in extremis.

There are lots of opt-outs in the treaties, for most of the member states and for all sorts of reasons. Most states will never, ever implement a death penalty, and the rest will probably never use it.

It's a minor quibble to be getting hung up on, and it groups you in with the rest of the naysayers who are casting about for any minor little detail to use as an excuse to oppose the treaty.

PopeBuckfastXVI

BVC's attitude is equivalent to someone in another country complaining about Lisbon because Ireland isn't opting in to the common defence.

It's absurd.

ixtlan

bayviewclose wrote: »

What i am saying why put the footnote in. If these member states chose to use the death penalty let them.

Because then the charter becomes completely meaningless. You are suggesting countries sign up to it knowing that they have laws which conflict with it, and then just ignore that fact.

This is a legal document, legally binding. All states will have checked what they need to do to conform and sign up.

It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Again... for the 5th? time... Lisbon changes nothing with regards to this.

Ix.

Cróga

Here you go folks:

http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=9

Art 2. Right to Life

Definition
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. (Great line for the politicians)
Legal Explanations
1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:
1. 'Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law …'
2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:
‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed’.
Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.
3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 53(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

• in defence of any person from lawful violence;
• in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
• in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ (Police can kill protesters)

b) Article 2 of the Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such a penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’.

BlitzKrieg

in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’ (Police can kill protesters)

tbh

a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

Cróga

Yeah and we all know how much the police are saints :rolleyes: Take, for example, the tasers that where brought in in the USA and UK (and soon Ireland), they were only supposed to be used for when its "absolutely neccesary" - only in replacement of guns... now they're using them if you J Walk across the street! These are lethal weapons, they kill and harm people. So they're already doing it, just with this they can get away with it.

meglome

Croga wrote: »

Yeah and we all know how much the police are saints :rolleyes: Take, for example, the tasers that where brought in in the USA and UK (and soon Ireland), they were only supposed to be used for when its "absolutely neccesary" - only in replacement of guns... now they're using them if you J Walk across the street! These are lethal weapons, they kill and harm people. So they're already doing it, just with this they can get away with it.

I dunno shooting them would be a little harsh, can we not just use tasers?

Cróga

meglome wrote: »

I dunno shooting them would be a little harsh, can we not just use tasers?

Tasers are just as dangerous, they can kill. Just look up people getting tasered on youtube its very distressing. How can you advocate this on people?

BlitzKrieg

Croga wrote: »

Yeah and we all know how much the police are saints :rolleyes: Take, for example, the tasers that where brought in in the USA and UK (and soon Ireland), they were only supposed to be used for when its "absolutely neccesary" - only in replacement of guns... now they're using them if you J Walk across the street! These are lethal weapons, they kill and harm people. So they're already doing it, just with this they can get away with it.

ahh so we have backpeddled from the EU endorsing killing protestors to police misuse of firearms in a case by case scenario.

ei.sdraob

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

ahh so we have backpeddled from the EU endorsing killing protestors to police misuse of firearms in a case by case scenario.

that evil naughty EU


seriously


vote NO

and theres a good chance that gives a leg up to UKIP (4th largest party there) who get into power, where they will straight away pullout UK out of EU and reintroduce death penalty and the rest of their fascist policies in the UK, also close the border in NI and make everyone swear allegiance to queen

and no one else can ratify the charter of human rights, making death penalty easier in other countries

:mad:

ixtlan

Croga wrote: »

Take, for example, the tasers that where brought in in the USA and UK (and soon Ireland), they were only supposed to be used for when its "absolutely neccesary" - only in replacement of guns... now they're using them if you J Walk across the street! These are lethal weapons, they kill and harm people. So they're already doing it, just with this they can get away with it.

With what? Lisbon makes no difference.

Are the people arguing this point going to start a campaign to withdraw Ireland from the European Convention on Human Rights?

Note that's not the EU charter or Lisbon. It is the ECHR. Should we withdraw?

This discussion really is FUD. It's not about Lisbon it's about the ECHR.

Ix.

ei.sdraob

ixtlan wrote: »

With what? Lisbon makes no difference.

Are the people arguing this point going to start a campaign to withdraw Ireland from the European Convention on Human Rights?

Note that's not the EU charter or Lisbon. It is the ECHR. Should we withdraw?

This discussion really is FUD. It's not about Lisbon it's about the ECHR.

Ix.

I know its unbelievable

these people are arguing that they want more rights

by removing rights!

woa just woa :eek:

you cant imaging the **** the NO side are coming up with now :mad:

Sam Vimes

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I know its unbelievable

these people are arguing that they want more rights

by removing rights!

woa just woa :eek:

you cant imaging the **** the NO side are coming up with now :mad:

I would say you couldn't make it up but it seems they did

Spiritoftheseventies

Last word on this. Footnote in charter "allows" for member states to invoke the Death Penalty in cases of civil unrest and during war time. And as was mentioned by another poster, some countries were not prepared to sign up to charter unless that clause was included.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Last word on this. Footnote in charter "allows" for member states to invoke the Death Penalty in cases of civil unrest and during war time. And as was mentioned by another poster, some countries were not prepared to sign up to charter unless that clause was included.

Were not prepared to signup to Lisbon unless a whole slew of conditions and guarantees are added/attached either

Here we have a complex document and the charter setup to make EU work better, and the EU is doing its job with almost all countries (in and outside of EU) against death penalties or not executing anyone in long time

Lisbon and the Charter is yet another step in the direction of removing this barbaric act

now only of the EU has a common Foreign Policy in place and was able to lean on the US (and China) to get in line with the rest of the modern world and stop executing people

oh wait Lisbon allows to do that too

moogester

Judicial background for re-introduction of death penalty in the EU.


http://euro-med.dk/?p=948

oscarBravo

moogester wrote: »

Judicial background for re-introduction of death penalty in the EU.

http://euro-med.dk/?p=948

Consider that article starts with a link to a blog post titled "The Lisbon Treaty Legalizes EU-Dictatorship with Death Penalty", I'm going to take it with a pinch of salt, thanks.

P. Breathnach

moogester wrote: »

Judicial background for re-introduction of death penalty in the EU.


http://euro-med.dk/?p=948

It is, to say the least, unclear. Equating "action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection" with "Hanging in iran. Under special circumstances this is also possible in the EU." is a very large leap that I think is entirely unjustified.

Yet again we have the "footnote to a footnote" story, and the comment that one needs to be "really like a super-expert to find out". And yet again we do not have a citation showing where any "super-expert" did find it.

It's all a ball of smoke.