Crosswords3 mins ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I imagine, jack, for the purposes of this issue they will discriminate against anybody not holding (or eligible to hold) a Dutch passport.
In any case it does not matter because Article 14 forbids discrimination on the grounds of "..sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
So I think that just about covers it.
In any case it does not matter because Article 14 forbids discrimination on the grounds of "..sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
So I think that just about covers it.
NJ
None of the criteria you quote for Article 14 is 'nationality'.
We can (and do) restrict access to certain things based on whether someone is a British citizen or not e.g. voting.
It would only be 'racist' if say, white Britons were allowed access but black Britons or Britons with a Pakistani origin were not.
.
None of the criteria you quote for Article 14 is 'nationality'.
We can (and do) restrict access to certain things based on whether someone is a British citizen or not e.g. voting.
It would only be 'racist' if say, white Britons were allowed access but black Britons or Britons with a Pakistani origin were not.
.
<<So what is "national or social origin" then ? >>
their Origin of course - where they started out from.
or·i·gin
[awr-i-jin, or-]
–noun
1.
something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.
e.g. my neighbour is British - passport, lived here years, paid taxes, raised a family, votes etc - but she was born in Hungary
.
their Origin of course - where they started out from.
or·i·gin
[awr-i-jin, or-]
–noun
1.
something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.
e.g. my neighbour is British - passport, lived here years, paid taxes, raised a family, votes etc - but she was born in Hungary
.
The evidence of recent elections is that the 'Geerts' in this country can't persuade the British people to vote for them.
It's happened before of course, back in the 30s Oswald Mosley got spanked at the ballot box by the British electorate while that nice Mr Hitler had no problem getting into power in Germany - and Holland eventually.
It's happened before of course, back in the 30s Oswald Mosley got spanked at the ballot box by the British electorate while that nice Mr Hitler had no problem getting into power in Germany - and Holland eventually.
I think it could turn out to be an interesting test case given that the situation in Holland was regularly used as an example of a liberal attitude towards cannibis, at least we'll be able to see what difference the tightening up has crime / health statistics etc. to see if legalising it would be right or wrong.
[Two Part Answer]
I think you’re splitting hairs, Zeuhl, so I’ll do likewise.
I never said the proposal was “racist”, I said it was discriminatory based on nationality – a completely different concept. Article 14 prohibits discrimination based on national or social origin. My friend Benco was born in Amsterdam of Dutch parents and grandparents and has lived there all his life. His National origin is clearly Dutch. I was born in England of English parentage (and ancestry as far back as I can see) so my National origin is clearly not Dutch.
I visit Benco in Amsterdam. He is allowed to buy cannabis. Because of Dutch law I am not. I am suffering discrimination because of my National origin, which is contrary to Article 14.
Quite how “nationality” or “National origin” is defined is not important. What is important is that some people will be denied goods or services because they are not “Dutch” (however that is defined) and that is discriminatory. There are (believe it or not) many people in the world who are not “British” (whatever interpretation you place on it). Imagine the uproar there would be if people who were not “British” (say, visitors from the USA or Australia) were denied seats on a bus, or refused a beer in a pub because of their National origin.
I think you’re splitting hairs, Zeuhl, so I’ll do likewise.
I never said the proposal was “racist”, I said it was discriminatory based on nationality – a completely different concept. Article 14 prohibits discrimination based on national or social origin. My friend Benco was born in Amsterdam of Dutch parents and grandparents and has lived there all his life. His National origin is clearly Dutch. I was born in England of English parentage (and ancestry as far back as I can see) so my National origin is clearly not Dutch.
I visit Benco in Amsterdam. He is allowed to buy cannabis. Because of Dutch law I am not. I am suffering discrimination because of my National origin, which is contrary to Article 14.
Quite how “nationality” or “National origin” is defined is not important. What is important is that some people will be denied goods or services because they are not “Dutch” (however that is defined) and that is discriminatory. There are (believe it or not) many people in the world who are not “British” (whatever interpretation you place on it). Imagine the uproar there would be if people who were not “British” (say, visitors from the USA or Australia) were denied seats on a bus, or refused a beer in a pub because of their National origin.
[Part Two]
The idea of the ECHR is to prevent an overzealous State from introducing legislation contrary to the Convention’s principles. One of those principles prohibits discrimination and contrary to what you say, jack, Article 14 does not provide protection only for other rights in the Convention. Protocol 12 (to which, ironically, the UK has not signed up but Holland has) extends this protection to cover discrimination in any legal right, even when that legal right is not protected under the Convention, so long as it is provided for in national law (which is why nations can discriminate in areas like voting).
Regular readers will know that I am no supporter of the ECHR. However, I have never suggested that, as signatories the UK should ignore bits of it we do not like. Whilst it is in place it must be observed by all signatories, including the Dutch.
So, to finally answer Geezer’s question (“Is this the end of ....
the Dutch dopehead era?”) I would be very surprised if it is. If the Dutch do introduce their legislation I imagine it will fail at the first test.
The idea of the ECHR is to prevent an overzealous State from introducing legislation contrary to the Convention’s principles. One of those principles prohibits discrimination and contrary to what you say, jack, Article 14 does not provide protection only for other rights in the Convention. Protocol 12 (to which, ironically, the UK has not signed up but Holland has) extends this protection to cover discrimination in any legal right, even when that legal right is not protected under the Convention, so long as it is provided for in national law (which is why nations can discriminate in areas like voting).
Regular readers will know that I am no supporter of the ECHR. However, I have never suggested that, as signatories the UK should ignore bits of it we do not like. Whilst it is in place it must be observed by all signatories, including the Dutch.
So, to finally answer Geezer’s question (“Is this the end of ....
the Dutch dopehead era?”) I would be very surprised if it is. If the Dutch do introduce their legislation I imagine it will fail at the first test.
NJ
This is not splitting hairs it is understanding the distinction between two different things; nationality and national origin.
You appear to not understand the difference.
Discriminating on nationality is not referred to in the ECHR - and all nations do it otherwise there would be no such thing as rights to a passport.
Nationality and national origin are two different things and we all have both of them.
My nationality is British and my national origin is British also. That is not the case for all Britons some of whom have a different national origin.
To discriminate on nationality is normal, allowable under ECHR and practised across europe and the world. Or do you think US citizens for example have the same residency rights in europe as a Brit?
To discriminate on national origin e.g. allowing a British passport holder born in UK but disallowing a British passport holder born in Iran would almost certainly contravene the Convention.
This is not splitting hairs it is understanding the distinction between two different things; nationality and national origin.
You appear to not understand the difference.
Discriminating on nationality is not referred to in the ECHR - and all nations do it otherwise there would be no such thing as rights to a passport.
Nationality and national origin are two different things and we all have both of them.
My nationality is British and my national origin is British also. That is not the case for all Britons some of whom have a different national origin.
To discriminate on nationality is normal, allowable under ECHR and practised across europe and the world. Or do you think US citizens for example have the same residency rights in europe as a Brit?
To discriminate on national origin e.g. allowing a British passport holder born in UK but disallowing a British passport holder born in Iran would almost certainly contravene the Convention.
I never said that discriminating on nationality was referred to in the ECHR. It refers to discrimination on the grounds of national or social origin (my answer at 12:30).
You accept that discrimination based on national origin would contravene the ECHR. My national origin is English, my friend’s is Dutch. He would be allowed to by cannabis, I would not (because of my national origin). What passport I hold is immaterial (though it is probably the way the Dutch will choose to enforce their new law). People whose nationality (let’s say determined by their passport) is not Dutch are far less likely to be of Dutch national origin. Therefore they cannot divorce national origin from nationality as it would be argued that discrimination is still evident.
I don’t think I can say any more. We’ll have to wait and see.
You accept that discrimination based on national origin would contravene the ECHR. My national origin is English, my friend’s is Dutch. He would be allowed to by cannabis, I would not (because of my national origin). What passport I hold is immaterial (though it is probably the way the Dutch will choose to enforce their new law). People whose nationality (let’s say determined by their passport) is not Dutch are far less likely to be of Dutch national origin. Therefore they cannot divorce national origin from nationality as it would be argued that discrimination is still evident.
I don’t think I can say any more. We’ll have to wait and see.
