European Court overrules UK in the McLibel case

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Regardless of the merits of the case -- or lack therof, I know nothing of it -- the larger question is, should nations give over authority in internal matters to supernational entities?

Where human rights are concerned, I have no problem.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kamrat X


Yes.

why are the supernational entities better?

why are they more trustworthy?

Jon Miller

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Starchild


Why not? The key word there is give. We gave the European court of Human Rights the ability to overrule domestic legal decisions when we signed up to it, its not like the authority is being imposed on us or we've had our legal rights stolen.

And just to cut anyone off before they mention the EU. The European Court of Human Rights isn't a part of the EU, it's a part of the Council of Europe. The European Union's highest court is the European Court of Justice, an entirely different beast altogether.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
why are the supernational entities better?

why are they more trustworthy?

Jon Miller

That varies from nation to nation, but it is a strawman as no-one was claiming that they were more trustworthy/better.
Any more than a national government is more trustworthy/better than local government.

The fact is that we choose to have laws that transcend/overule national boundries here in europe because we believe the benefits of integration outweigh the loss of sovereignty.

Ask yourself how effective the US's legal system would be if all the states could ignore federal laws.

[Jon Miller]

actually, I trust the federal government more than states

the questions I asked are a case by case thing

not a general one, or I don't feel they are general (that bigger is always better)

Jon Miller

[DinoDoc]

Why on earth should the State be required to provide legal aid in civil matters?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well they were sued (and so it would seem incorrectly)

What I read didn't say the merits of the case was against McDonald's instead the EU court is claiming everyone should get legal aid for civil cases and since this couple didn't get legal aid the case was over turned. Convenient of them to not decide this until it was a foreign owned company seeking justice. Especially since it is a foreign owned company which the European left has such an extensive record of unfairly vilifying.

The court wasn't a total kangaroo though since they did shoot down the couple’s absurd claim that multinationals shouldn't have the legal right to sue when they've been libeled.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why on earth should the State be required to provide legal aid in civil matters?

To level the playground and make right equality something real?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I always told you guys that British libel laws were bad . I wonder how the Brits respond to this, because IIRC, there were some Brits here defending the burden of proof being on the accused.

While I agree with this cases verdict, I would also agree that if you make a statement about someone, the burden is on you to show that statement is correct. The press are intrusive and sensationalist enough, giving them legitimacy to state ludicrous untruths about people, libel, that is, and not be held accountable for it because it is not possible to conclusively prove that i's false, would be a mistake, IMHO.

I want to know that I'm protected against someone making damaging claims against me that are false.

Imagine this scenario:
Someone decides to publish an expose on some famous person having an affair. Because of this, his wife leaves him and he loses his job. Despite the complete lack of evidence supporting the claims, he cannot sue for libel, as it's simply his word against the libellor's word as to whether or not he did. Doesn't that sound unjust? I believe that if you want to make derogatory comments against someone that damage that person, you should be held accountable unless what you say is the truth. I don't believe it is for them to prove that you were not right, otherwise mindless, baseless accusations would not class as libel.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why on earth should the State be required to provide legal aid in civil matters?

How else do the poor defend themselves if they're sued? They go without representation? Moreover, if someone commits libel against you so that you lose your job, and cannot afford to pay a lawyer, should you not be able to sue for libel?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would also agree that if you make a statement about someone, the burden is on you to show that statement is correct.

I've always thought that being presumed innocent before declared guilty is a better idea than the other way around.

And you're view makes it so that a source is NEVER able to be protected. How do you prove the truth of your statement if the person leaking it is a government worker that doesn't want to be revealed because he'll get sacked?

[Imran Siddiqui]

How else do the poor defend themselves if they're sued?

Frankly, no lawyer is going to sue a poor person. There isn't any money in it for them.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I've always thought that being presumed innocent before declared guilty is a better idea than the other way around.

As do I. I would presume the defendant to have evidence of their claim, unless I learned otherwise by them being unable to produce it.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you're view makes it so that a source is NEVER able to be protected. How do you prove the truth of your statement if the person leaking it is a government worker that doesn't want to be revealed because he'll get sacked?

This is the problem. Both sides are open to exploitation. I admit, this side will mean some people who were being truthful will be punished for not being able to produce evidence, however the other way means people will be able to be harmed by libellous action without recourse. I would favour removing the burden of proof altogether and letting a court decide whether the claim made was a reasonable claim, in which case it would not have to pay damages, or unreasonable, in which case it would. It's not about proving whether it was correct, which is difficult, nor proving that it wasn't, which is also difficult, but about showing whether there was evidence, or whether it was a baseless accusation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would presume the defendant to have evidence of their claim, unless I learned otherwise by them being unable to produce it.

Initial burden of proof on the defendant is declaring guilty before you've entertained thoughts of innocene.

however the other way means people will be able to be harmed by libellous action without recourse.

I'll take that downside over the other.

I would favour removing the burden of proof altogether and letting a court decide

Even if a court decides, you STILL have problems with revealing of sources. That will never not be an issue.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I would presume the defendant to have evidence of their claim, unless I learned otherwise by them being unable to produce it.

Initial burden of proof on the defendant is declaring guilty before you've entertained thoughts of innocene.

No, I'm presuming the defendant to be innocent, but I'm redefining the crime to be publishing something damaging without evidence. They are presumed innocent unless the court believes beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty, however not producing the evidence for the claim would be a very strong indicator that the evidence didn't exist. Obviously there is the problem of sources, but that's a much smaller problem than one faced by the other options, IMHO.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'll take that downside over the other.

Which is where we differ, though I prefer reasonability rather than proof being the issue.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Even if a court decides, you STILL have problems with revealing of sources. That will never not be an issue.

There are usually other ways to prove something, once it's been exposed. Yes that's still an issue, but it likely would be in any situation.