Re: UCHR
- From: amacmil304@xxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 23:51:44 +0100
On Tue, 29 May 2007 21:16:22 +0100, Tim Jackson
<news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:26:11 +0100, amacmil304@xxxxxxx wrote...
UCHR provides for the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of one's
possessions.
Could this be used against walkers who insist on their "legal right"
to access peoples" property such as estates and farms etc?
In a word, no. (And not only because you've got the initials wrong.)
Sorry about the initials.
The relevant legislation is Article 1, Protocol 1 of the Human Rights
Act (HRA). This is based on the corresponding protocol of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which in turn is based on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
That seems fair enough.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stm#protocol
Notice that the right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute.
Fair enough.
It is
balanced by the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general
interest.
I can see that.
That's exactly what the access legislation does: it balances
the interests of the landowner against the interests of the public.
But perhaps not the general interest.
If you denied reasonable, responsible access, that would not achieve the
balance that is required by the HRA, ECHR and UDHR.
But how does one know that access is going to be "reasonable and
responsible" without being able to tell the future. If the same
applied to our houses we wouldn't need to lock the doors until they
had been ransacked - and that would be too late.
But perhaps the greater general interest is to protect one's
possessions and does the word property not mean all of one's owned
assets and not just real estate? Although real estate would
obviously be included IMHO but not
Does Article 8 not have some bearing on the matter as well.
And does the fact that other European countries do not have as liberal
an access provision not matter? For instance, parts of France has
had a ban on wild camping since the seventies and I understand Germany
does not have access in enclosed areas.
So where does the overall "general interest" in Europe start and end?
Has all this ever been tested in the courts?
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: TR - Beinn Dearg and Cona' Mheall
- Next by Date: Re: Sponging Ramblers
- Previous by thread: Re: UCHR
- Next by thread: Re: UCHR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
