Reply #61: learn much?

[iverglas]

In the U.S., our Constitutional rights cannot be changed by a treaty.

Are you under some impression that the rights of UK citizens can be "changed by a treaty" without some intervening act by the UK? I surely hope that you didn't get that impression by studying International Comparative Law and International Human Rights Law at the Sorbonne. If so, you might be asking for a refund.

Apart from that, there's the whole navel-gazing US-centricity just oozing through. Nobody gits ta tell the USofA what to do, no sirree.

A nation that signs a treaty, thereby incurring obligations, has made the choice to do so. Perhaps that point didn't get through while you were studying International Comparative Law and International Human Rights Law at the Sorbonne.

Any supranational organization of which we are a part has no authority to change what is protected under the Constitution (unless, of course, it is established by an amendment).

Again -- your point is?

First, what authority does any supranational organization have to change anything in the UK?

Second, if any such authority exists, was it imposed by Martians, or did it maybe come into existence through the actions of those who chose to be subject to it?

And of course, have you maybe forgotten that the US itself is the result of an organizing event by which various states surrendered elements of their sovereignty and autonomy to a central authority?

Parliament is vested with full sovereignty, for the most part, and can theoretically decide tomorrow that there is no freedom of speech.

Yes, and George Bush can theoretically have people locked up and tortured and denied all of the due process rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Oops -- oh look! It isn't theoretical! It's real, even though in theory it can't happen! As compared to places where it's theoretical and doesn't happen ...

There is nothing wrong with difference but, until there is consensus, each country should protect what it deems worthy of protection in such a way that the whims of the legislators of the day have little authority to alter.

And that is just the voice of the naive 18th century liberal, firmly convinced that Natural Law and the parchments it is written on will protect him/her from the big bad gummint. Somehow. I've just yet to see a parchment, including thine own, that actually stops anybody from doing anything.

As far as my opinion that this is unnecessary, I believe it is.

And my question still is: do you know what "this" is?

And my supplementary question was: do you know how it differs -- if in fact it differs -- from the situation in the US?