Judicial activism threat to rule of law
By Paul Homewood
NZW’s take on that ECHR decision:
Judicial activism threat to rule of law
Campaign group Net Zero Watch has condemned yesterday’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights [1], and says that climate catastrophism now represents a clear and present threat to the rule of law and to democracy. The court ruled yesterday that the Convention right to a private family life meant that Switzerland’s government had to change its climate policies, despite a 2021 referendum specifically rejecting the idea.
In an article published on the campaigning organisation’s website, its director Andrew Montford has pointed to the astonishingly broad interpretation of the legislation, and noted its alarming parallel with what was seen in 1930s Germany.
The judicial activism of the European Court looks very much like the judicial activism under National Socialism. The judges have abandoned the text of the convention in favour of “interpretation”. We face a real threat to the rule of law
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Excerpt from excellent legal blog by
JOSHUA ROZENBERG
APR 10READ IN APP
“Yesterday’s judgment on climate change “may well have achieved exactly the opposite effect to what was intended”, the UK’s judge at the European Court of Human Rights said in a partly dissenting opinion.
“Judge Eicke accused his judicial colleagues of going beyond what was legitimate and permissible for them to do. They had tried to run before they could walk, he believed.
“Eicke was worried that the 16 judges who held that Switzerland had breached the human rights of older Swiss women had given them false hope. In his view, the courts could not provide an answer to the problems of climate change and litigation would not speed up the measures that were needed.
“There was a significant risk, he added, that the new rights and obligations created by the court’s majority would prove an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction for the national and international authorities. They would detract attention from current international negotiations.
And more besides.
However, I keep hoping that Reality Denier Activists will eventually over-reach and be dealt with appropriately. No signs so far.
But another great reason to get out of the ECHR.
Note also Judy Curry’s post today in WUWT.
Another important point that seems to have escaped the Reality Denier Judges is that there is no mention or consideration of the obvious real benefits of both trivially greater concentrations of a trace gas essential to all life on Earth; nor of the trivially higher temperatures (especially in raised minimum temperatures in high latitude winter nights) that are largely responsible for increasing CO2 levels.
I thought you were enjoying a well earned holiday?
If we had a proper government, we would no longer be part of the non-democratic ECHR.
Or, even better, have never participated in the ECHR, nor joined the wretched “Common Market” in the first place.
Huuuum, “Common Market” in the first place took a long time in coming DESPITE the machinations of de Gaulle & Co ( our “best friends & neighbours” – at least in Wartime). Didn’t hear anyone complain at the time about easier travel between us and later Border free travel …. , but YES, I’m glad we are out of the Political Union. Just don’t let our Asiatic leaders re-unite us after dismantling an Island Nation (of GB). … Basically, IMHO there are too many Useless folk around whose only raison d’etre is to get ANY job in politics in ANY party: just talk the talk … and as we see – they can NOT Walk. but the Masses “Love them” …. Where did schooling go wrong?
Do not confuse the European Convention on Human Rights with either the Common Market or the European Union. The one is not either of the others nor ever was.For a start the Convention has 47 members which includes such unlikely bedfellows as Russian and Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and most of the ex-Yugoslavia Balkans and members of EFTA.
Reading the Convention Articles, it is easy to see why it was created in the context of late-1940s Europe.
Unfortunately, like so many supranational entities, it is now suffering judicial overreach and it is debatable as to whether it is any longer fit for purpose. As long as it remains a useful tool in the hands of those countries whose interpretation of human rights means “the right to do what you are told” there will be no changes. It is worth noting that most of the judicial decisions of recent years have been in the direction of enhancing political “correctness” at the expense of democratic norms.
This is simply one more example
But we had no human rights in the UK until we joined the ECHR…
I must say I find it deeply ironic that Europhiles in the UK believe the continent that gave us Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Greek generals, Qisling, Salazar, the various puppet dictators in Eastern Europe, can teach us, with a largely unbroken record of improving human rights since 1215, how to do it.
Aye, you’ll need to rephrase all that and get on QuestionTIme
Churchill was an advocate; he proclaimed: “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.” That ‘Charter of Human Rights’ of which Churchill spoke was named the European Convention on Human Rights.
Since it’s still topical:
https://cliscep.com/2024/04/10/court-in-the-headlines/
One of the tasks of the ECHR is to uphold the right to “life, freedom and security” – will the Court protect the lives of the poor and elderly who are being driven into fuel poverty by the billions of pounds of subsidies being paid to wind and solar farms.
Well, that didn’t take long:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13295297/Man-lost-Norfolk-home-North-Sea-coastal-erosion-sues-government-claims-climate-refugee.html
Chap suing over the much debunked phenomenon of coastal erosion in Norfolk being cause by climate change.
I wonder, if he fails, would he sue the BBC and Guardian for leading him to believe that climate change really did cause his house to fall into the sea?
That, I think, would be a case worth watching!
In a word, FACISM!
Who hold the ECHRs to account
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The Court ruled that Switzerland had “failed to comply with its duties under the Convention concerning climate change” and that it had violated the right to respect for private and family life. — https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68768598
Work that one out. Southern US states like Florida and Arizona are far warmer than Switzerland most of the time, but popular with retirees.
Every Net Zero law and regulation is designed to impose/impinge/restrict private and family life, so yes, difficult to work out, on every level.
Given that deaths from hypothermia are about 5 times higher than deaths from excess heat the Swiss women’s law case is badly informed. Fewer hypothermia deaths from milder winters is a massive benefit of a climate becoming more mild.
10x in the UK.
France has boosted electricity exports by 500% during the first quarter of 2024 from the same period in 2023, and is forecast to lift net electricity exports to a new record for the full year, according to data from Energy Charts and LSEG.
France Exports Clean Electricity
A fair bit of that coming to the UK
Seems we’re either outsourcing or selling everything key to our economy to foreign entities. Can we no longer build and run our own infrastructure and systems??
Look at both the front benches in the Lower House. Stuffed with lawyers. As Edmund Beckett Dennison (Later Lord Grimthorpe) remarked, as he became one of the first millionaires’ in the country, on the back of the ‘Railway Mania’ of the 1840s, when he was one of those who became immensely rich by manipulating ransom strips, and other scams, to the detriment of shareholders in the rapidly growing industry: “I don’t know how it seems to others, but we always had a very keen eye on the fees…
You can have no doubt that remains the primary concern of the legal profession. I would ban members of the legal profession from being sitting Members of the House. They could be servants of the House, giving due guidance to other sitting members, but not able to vote on ensuing legislation.
The case seems to have been based on the fact that the increase in hot days due to climate change was detrimental to the health of the older women in Switzerland.
The obvious defence against the proposal is that this is more than balanced by the fact that more people die from excess cold, which has has decreased due to the warmer climate. There is more than enough evidence from respected sources to substantiate this claim.
Why was this evidence not put in front of the judges?
With the defendants being the Swiss government, they have either not been given the opportunity to produce this essential evidence in their defence, or have been really pathetic in producing their defence, or have decided not to produce it, as the outcome is now exactly what they wished for. A neat way of the politicians getting what they want, whilst not being seen to go against the wishes of the people as determined by the referendum.