Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions
-
@serenity
I am comparing Communist Russia to the Socialist leanings of the Biden administration.Why are you excusing Biden's behavior by claiming Trump did it as well?
The whole thing is about thinking you are above the law. That your policies are righteous regardless of what the law states is true and correct.
-
@geobear40 I am not excusing Biden, I have not heard of it. And Biden is not socialist. But we were talking here about European affaires, not American.
-
@serenity said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
@geobear40 I am not excusing Biden, I have not heard of it. And Biden is not socialist. But we were talking here about European affaires, not American.
Sigh... why must every political argument in here circle back to US politics? That's just sad... as-if the US were the only country that mattered.... pathetic and sad....
For what it's worth, @geobear40
What do you call a leaders and governments that doesn't adhere to court orders?
When you're not under the jurisdiction of those courts, I would call them independent countries!
The US has, for decades, ignored World Court and other countries' court's orders... citing our sovereignty! Why is it we're so upset when other countries do the same thing?
Not that I agree with the Russian failure to recognize (or legalize) same-sex unions, but they do have a point they are not members of the EU, and are not subject to their courts!
BTW: I wholeheartedly agree with @eobox91103's description of Russian history... though I would suggest that the failure to "westernize" in the 1990's was more due to the population's willingness (almost DESIRE) to accept authoritarian rule again (vs. democratic government)... it's all they've ever known!
-
@bi4smooth said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
Sigh... why must every political argument in here circle back to US politics? That's just sad... as-if the US were the only country that mattered.... pathetic and sad....
For what it's worth,I am a citizen of the US and am only concerned about international events that have a direct effect on the US or that we can learn from their mistakes. The American Experiment has worked for almost 250 years we are the model for others.
When you're not under the jurisdiction of those courts, I would call them independent countries!
The US has, for decades, ignored World Court and other countries' court's orders... citing our sovereignty! Why is it we're so upset when other countries do the same thing?The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.
Not that I agree with the Russian failure to recognize (or legalize) same-sex unions, but they do have a point they are not members of the EU, and are not subject to their courts!
The Russian Federation ratified the European Court of Human Rights May of 1998.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=005
-
@geobear40 said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
@bi4smooth said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
Sigh... why must every political argument in here circle back to US politics? That's just sad... as-if the US were the only country that mattered.... pathetic and sad....
For what it's worth,I am a citizen of the US and am only concerned about international events that have a direct effect on the US or that we can learn from their mistakes. The American Experiment has worked for almost 250 years we are the model for others.
Considering that the US accounts for about 4% of the world's population, and that we continue to battle economic, social, and criminal injustice - institutionalized injustice - I would say you are demonstrating a level of HUBRIS common among poorly educated US citizens, and often derided by the rest of the world as "Ugly Americans" (not in appearance, but in attitude).
You're welcome to have interests solely in US politics and news, but shouldn't you then leave discussions about World Politics alone, rather than steer them to US issues?
I mean, you're free to post in any topic you want - I'm not the content police! (LOL) - but it would seem to me to be more respectful of others for you to NOT steer their conversations to your own myopic, US-centered view...
When you're not under the jurisdiction of those courts, I would call them independent countries!
The US has, for decades, ignored World Court and other countries' court's orders... citing our sovereignty! Why is it we're so upset when other countries do the same thing?The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.
There are plenty of examples of the US declining to participate in treaties the rest of the world - in some cases, UNANIMOUSLY - approves of (for example, we won't sign on to the treaties that ban the use of land mines...aka: Ottowa Treaty - although we are not alone in that one...)
But, I should point out, you appear in this statement to be in support of my argument that the Russians are not under the jurisdiction of the EU courts! LOL
Not that I agree with the Russian failure to recognize (or legalize) same-sex unions, but they do have a point they are not members of the EU, and are not subject to their courts!
The Russian Federation ratified the European Court of Human Rights May of 1998.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=005
Silly @geobear40 - ratifying the treaty did not put them under the jurisdiction of the EU courts! Indeed, I'm not aware of a single non-EU country that has agreed to "submit to the authority" of any EU court!
-
@bi4smooth said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
Considering that the US accounts for about 4% of the world's population, and that we continue to battle economic, social, and criminal injustice - institutionalized injustice - I would say you are demonstrating a level of HUBRIS common among poorly educated US citizens, and often derided by the rest of the world as "Ugly Americans" (not in appearance, but in attitude).
The American Experiment has worked for almost 250 years it is not perfect and it will never be perfect but their is no system in the world that compares to it.
I would say you are demonstrating a level of HUBRIS common among poorly educated US citizens, and often derided by the rest of the world as "Ugly Americans" (not in appearance, but in attitude).
Correct me if I am wrong but are you assuming all Patriot Americans are poorly educated citizens? Why should matter what other people think about the unique American experience. Why if we are so horrible do so many peoples around the world struggle to come here? It sounds like Liberal elitist's talking points.
You're welcome to have interests solely in US politics and news, but shouldn't you then leave discussions about World Politics alone, rather than steer them to US issues?
World politics effect the US since we fund NATO the defense of all those democratic socialists' countries and there would not be a United Nation if the US didn't form it and pay the lion share of it's expenses.
I mean, you're free to post in any topic you want - I'm not the content police! (LOL) - but it would seem to me to be more respectful of others for you to NOT steer their conversations to your own myopic, US-centered view...
I don't yet see were the actual content police have commented on my posts.
When you're not under the jurisdiction of those courts, I would call them independent countries!
The US has, for decades, ignored World Court and other countries' court's orders... citing our sovereignty! Why is it we're so upset when other countries do the same thing?
I am not upset in the least
The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), which founded the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 as a permanent international criminal court to "bring to justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind – war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide", when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so.I am not upset in the least with what Russia is doing. But it goes to trust of the Russian government. If they won't honor the Treaty then they should withdrawal from it.
There are plenty of examples of the US declining to participate in treaties the rest of the world - in some cases, UNANIMOUSLY - approves of (for example, we won't sign on to the treaties that ban the use of land mines...aka: Ottowa Treaty - although we are not alone in that one...)
But, I should point out, you appear in this statement to be in support of my argument that the Russians are not under the jurisdiction of the EU courts! LOLNo I don't support your agreement. The US adheres to the treaties they ratified.
Silly @geobear40 - ratifying the treaty did not put them under the jurisdiction of the EU courts! Indeed, I'm not aware of a single non-EU country that has agreed to "submit to the authority" of any EU court!
I have let the other derogatory comments aim at me personally slide but get back to discussing and debating ideas.
By ratifying the Treaty they agree to be bound by the findings of the European Count of Human Rights. I think you are stuck on the word European in the name of the 50 countries that have ratified the treaty that set up the count only a little more then half are EU member states.
-
@geobear40 said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
The American Experiment has worked for almost 250 years it is not perfect and it will never be perfect but their is no system in the world that compares to it.
There are other systems that compare to it (even favorably!), many of whom are indeed BASED on the success of the "American Experiment" - but the fact remains that in a "free World" (which is still a goal, not an achievement) people are free to determine their own form of Government - whether built on our example, or not.
It is hubris to dismiss all other governments "out of hand" based solely on your own patriotism - nay, your own experience, which likely includes NO OTHER examples, but certainly does not include ALL other governments!
Correct me if I am wrong but are you assuming all Patriot Americans are poorly educated citizens? Why should matter what other people think about the unique American experience. Why if we are so horrible do so many peoples around the world struggle to come here? It sounds like Liberal elitist's talking points.
You clearly cannot discriminate between being patriotic - and being proud of the achievements of our country - from being arrogant and impudent about the rest of the world.
I would say that qualifies you as an "Ugly American" - (Reference)
I am a proud American... but I am not an arrogant one!
Also, if by "elitist" you mean "educated" and with a reasonable vocabulary, then I'm guilty - 2 Masters, 4 specializations, on faculty (adjunct, but still faculty) at 3 different Universities... yes, I'm educated.
That does not make me smarter than anyone else, but it does mean I've spent more time than the average person LEARNING about things...
So, smarter? no, I would never claim that... no matter how poorly educated you may demonstrate yourself to be...
But, more knowledgeable? it would seem so, in your case anyway...World politics effect the US since we fund NATO the defense of all those democratic socialists' countries and there would not be a United Nation if the US didn't form it and pay the lion share of it's expenses.
World politics affect the US in many ways, but the effect is usually localized to specific ways. [Gee... if only you had the elitist education to know the correct word to use.]
But, to your intended point (which is as incorrect as your word choice): NATO (as well as the UN) is funded by all member nations. That said, it is certainly true that the US has traditionally paid an outsized share to both organizations. But "outsized" does not mean we pay "most" (much less "all") of the expenses of those organizations - which serve different purposes, I might add...
The UN (United Nations) was formed after WW-II... we (the allies who beat the German Kaiser) tried to make one after WW-I. It was called the League of Nations... in spite of strong support from the US, the League of Nations failed because not enough other nations agreed with us and joined... still, the fact that the League of Nations failed serves as a perfect example of how the US could not unilaterally "form it", as you have proposed.
It took a collaboration of ALL of the winning Allied Powers after WW-II to make it happen, and currently 193 member states belong (with only a half-dozen or so either choosing to not belong - e.g. the Vatican - or, being denied membership by some other country - e.g. Taiwan & Palestine). Without a near-complete world buy-in to the UN, it just wouldn't work! The League of Nations proves that!I don't yet see were the actual content police have commented on my posts.
While there are other staffers in the Forum, by far the biggest "policeman" is @raphjd - he's "the boss" 'round here!
But, this is the politics section... there are VERY FEW rules here!
Thus, my statement was rhetorical...I am not upset in the least with what Russia is doing. But it goes to trust of the Russian government. If they won't honor the Treaty then they should withdrawal from it.
The Treaty agreed to certain principles. It did not give "legal jurisdiction" to the EU Courts. Honestly, no non-EU country would agree to such a thing... not the US, not the Chinese, not the Russians!
If you ask the Russians, they are abiding by the treaty - their interpretation of it.
This is often a major problem with International Treaties: enforcement!
No I don't support your agreement. The US adheres to the treaties they ratified.
Sadly, the rest of the World disagrees with you... but certainly, from our own viewpoint (just as the Russians do as I noted above), we claim as much!
So there you go... the US does whatever it wants, ignoring international treaties along the way, and then claims later that "in some way" we're compliant.... and Russia does the same thing!
No enforcement mechanism = worthless treaties!
-
@bi4smooth said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
Also, if by "elitist" you mean "educated" and with a reasonable vocabulary, then I'm guilty - 2 Masters, 4 specializations, on faculty (adjunct, but still faculty) at 3 different Universities... yes, I'm educated.
That explains why you think the way you do? You have spent too many years in the Liberal education establishment. You might think you are a Republican but you are only a republican within a Liberal bubble.
-
As I always say, he only likes Pelosi Repubs.
-
@raphjd said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
As I always say, he only likes Pelosi Repubs.
ROFL - when I joined the Republican Party, we were the party of the educated! We were the party that boasted support from nearly every CEO in the Fortune 500!
That remained true until the results of the 2016 election.
I won't contend that the Party hasn't changed - I only contend that it hasn't changed for the BETTER!
What's more, I won't abandon my party to people who want to peddle stupidity, fear, and baseless conspiracy theories!Interesting that former VP Richard "Dick" Cheney (a man with whom I had many disagreements while he was VP, but whom I nonetheless greatly respected) agrees with me... [source]
I don't pretend to be in the mainstream of the Republican Party anymore - but I won't concede my party to a cadre of fools and idiots! I fight for the values that made the Republican Party great once - the Party of both Lincoln & Reagan, the party of BOTH Bushes!
My prediction: this dark time will pass, or it will be the end of our current 2-party system - if not the end of our democratic-republic entirely!
-
@bi4smooth said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
I don't pretend to be in the mainstream of the Republican Party anymore - but I won't concede my party to a cadre of fools and idiots! I fight for the values that made the Republican Party great once - the Party of both Lincoln & Reagan, the party of BOTH Bushes!
Depending on how one defines "mainstream," it's possible that neither of us are outside of the mainstream. There's very noisy faction (e.g., Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham) who have had both their balls and their brains removed to enable ongoing genuflection to the Dear Leader. But there are also many people who support traditional conservative values who are keeping their heads down until the madness passes. Unfortunately, America is losing eminences grises of Republican sanity with the passing of Robert Dole, John McCain, George H.W. Bush, etc.
I think a key thing to watch in the Republican party (or any party, for that matter) is whether it defines itself by things it is for, as opposed to things that it is against. In economic matters (a traditional strong point of the Republican party), it might not make a lot of difference whether one is for a balanced budget or against deficit spending. But there's huge gulf between being for people being able to openly celebrate Christian holidays, and against allowing Muslims, Jews, or Hindus to celebrate theirs.
My prediction: this dark time will pass, or it will be the end of our current 2-party system - if not the end of our democratic-republic entirely!
I would like to agree with your prediction, but I'm probably less optimistic. Many historians argue that the framers of the US Constitution did not want a partisan system--they thought that the checks and balances inherent in a three-branch structure would suffice to keep things on an even keel. Until the 12th Amendment in 1804, the second-place finisher in the Electoral College would become Vice President. (Can you imagine Hillary Clinton as veep under [!] Donald Trump, or Trump as veep under Biden?) In practice, though, the American government needs a two-party system, but both parties need to have a healthy diversity within them, rather being driven by an orthodoxy creed like one has in Russia or North Korea. Most legislators in the Republican party, as well as members of the "progressive caucus" within the Democratic party, remind me of mindless robots such as one finds in many old Star Trek episodes. Americans deserve better.
-
So you joined the Republican party because you thought they were the elitists' you think you are. Now that they are becoming the party of the "great unwashed" so you are taking on the mission of purging the "deplorables" from your Grand Old Party.
-
@geobear40 said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
So you joined the Republican party because you thought they were the elitists' you think you are. Now that they are becoming the party of the "great unwashed" so you are taking on the mission of purging the "deplorables" from your Grand Old Party.
You silly TWIT I joined the Republican Party in 1980 because I believed in the leadership of Ronald Reagan! I have never left, though I must admit to being tempted to do so as a result of the Trump "sore loser" and other aftermaths of the 2020 election!
-
You just proved my point. You don't like Trump because he expanded the GOP to be more inclusive and welcoming to the working class. I was around in the 80's so when the Reagan Democrats voted republican you cheered but after the election you were happy they stayed Democrats. You hate Trump because he brought in those Reagan Democrats and a great majority of them stayed in the GOP and you are pissed off.
-
@geobear40 said in Russia rejects European Court of Human Rights order to recognise same-sex unions:
You just proved my point. You don't like Trump because he expanded the GOP to be more inclusive and welcoming to the working class. I was around in the 80's so when the Reagan Democrats voted republican you cheered but after the election you were happy they stayed Democrats. You hate Trump because he brought in those Reagan Democrats and a great majority of them stayed in the GOP and you are pissed off.
I jeer Trump - not because of his views, but because of his tactics. He brought (brings) shame and discredit to our Party and to the Country, with his pedantic and self-aggrandizing outright lies, fear-mongering, and race-baiting. His policies (many of which I favor) will hopefully outlive his personality.
-
The conversation steered far off the original topic but I wanted to add some observation on how the international treaty works.
Many countries ratified treaty "with reservation(s)", that is the ratifying body, such as US Senate, doesn't agree to everything in the treaty and/or rejects particular protocol. So ratified State party to the treaty doesn't mean that they consent to the jurisdiction or agreed to be bound by the treaty in every respect. Some countries have constitutions that mandate domestic laws to preempt international laws.
Reservations to the treaty are rarely tested in court so the effect of the reservations is unclear, domestic courts may use reservations as a basis to reject the implementation of the treaty, while some court has held that the language of the treaty provides no basis for reservation of the treaty itself but allow each country to reject specific optional protocols.
Back in the U.S., it is not accurate to say that the US has agreed to every treaty it ratified (even without reservation). While the US constitution has granted a sole power to ratify the treaty to the Senate, Supreme Court has held since 1829 in Foster v. Neilson that even ratified treaty is treated as "laws of the land", non self-executing treaty is unenforceable without an implementing statute, that is enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. In other words, the US is free to pick and choose to enforce some provisions of the treaty and ignore others if it so wishes, and have done in many instances. At this point I have to agree with @bi4smooth .
So if the US as the model form of governance can freely ignore its obligation, why not Russia?
-
@frigens
Thank you for your clarity. -
It's disappointing, but not surprising.
-
Not that I agree with the Russian failure to recognize (or legalize) same-sex unions, but they do have a point they are not members of the EU, and are not subject to their courts!
The European Court of Human Rights and the EU are two very different organisations, even when they have the word European in it. In the US many different American organisations have the word American in it without they are believed to be only one organisation.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login