Comments for Strasbourg Observers

Comment on Acquittal of Broadcaster for Criminal Defamation and Insult Violates Article 8 by Grand Chamber Seeks to Clarify Balancing of Article 10 and Article 8 « Strasbourg Observers

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:47:21 +0000

[...] strange applications of the right to reputation in cases such as Sipoş v. Romania (see comment here), and some Sections of the Court questioning the very basis for protecting reputation under Article [...]

Comment on Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden by Simon Sarmiento

Simon Sarmiento — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:26:33 +0000

Your link to Feret vs Belgium is broken,

Comment on Immigration, education and integration. A cloudy combination. (Anatoliy Ponomaryov and Vitaliy Ponomaryov v. Bulgaria) by Resource Allocation Revisited: Higher Education Fees and the Courts - Human Rights in Ireland

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:03:13 +0000

[...] against in the provision of education. Last year’s Court of Human Rights judgment in Ponomaryov v Bulgaria did affirm (at [56]) that the right did not necessarily have the same effect at all levels of [...]

Comment on Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden by Pénalisation du discours homophobe : l’enfer est souvent pavé de bonnes intentions (jurisprudentielles) (CEDH, 5e Sect. 9 février 2012, Vejdeland et autres c. Suède) | Combats pour les droits de l'homme (CPDH)

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:46:27 +0000

[...] Timmer, « Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden », in Strasbourg Observers, 14 février [...]

Comment on Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden by Hervieu Nicolas

Hervieu Nicolas — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:15:12 +0000

Your comments are very interesting, especially on the issue of legitimate aims. And I fully share your criticism on the lack of « explanation of why the statements in the leaflets are so particularly prejudicial ». But my conclusions about this differ completely, however. In my opinion, this shows the difficulty for a judge of defining the « hate speech ». Indeed, homophobic speech is deeply and truly detestable. But would it nevertheless be more harmful to prohibit per se a kind of speech, regardless of its practical implications and real adverse effects (close to the american criteria of « clear and present danger ») ?

The Court could (and – in my view – had to) accept the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression in educational settings. But in order to achieve this, it was inconvenient and unnecessary to use the dangerous and vague notion of « freedom of expression exercised in an irresponsible manner ».

Again, the “slippery slope” argument isn’t meaningless. Such an approach could lead to ban other speech who are fundamentally important for democratic society and freedom of debate, like political speech (comp. to Feret v. Belgium or Willem v. France ; more broadly and recently comp. to Mouvement raelien suisse v. Switzerland).

Fail to agree with a speech is not the same thing as to ban this speech. The Court reiterates again and again « that freedom of expression is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb ». But if that logic (« freedom of expression exercised in an irresponsible manner ») takes place, this salutary principle is devoid of meaning. And I deeply regret it.

Comment on Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden by Pénalisation du discours homophobe : l’enfer est souvent pavé de bonnes intentions (jurisprudentielles) (CEDH, 5e Sect. 9 février 2012, Vejdeland et autres c. Suède) | Combats pour les droits de l'homme (CPDH)

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:27:44 +0000

[...] cet arrêt, lire aussi Alexandra Timmer, « Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden », in Strasbourg Observers, 14 février [...]

Comment on Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden by Pénalisation du discours homophobe : l’enfer est souvent pavé de bonnes intentions (jurisprudentielles) (CEDH, 5e Sect. 9 février 2012, Vejdeland et autres c. Suède) | Combats pour les droits de l'homme (CPDH)

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:23:11 +0000

[...] Sur cet arrêt, lire aussi Alexandra Timmer, « Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden », in Strasbourg Observers, 14 février [...]

Comment on Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden by Νέα Δικηγορία Τώρα

Νέα Δικηγορία Τώρα — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:22:37 +0000

Reblogged this on Νέα Δικηγορία, Τώρα !.

Comment on Saying It Is Doing It (comments on the hearing in the case of Aksu v. Turkey) by Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden « Strasbourg Observers

Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden « Strasbourg Observers — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:17:47 +0000

[...] judgment in Aksu v. Turkey, for example? I’ll admit: I hope it will (see my previous post here). Share this post throughEmailPrintFacebookTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

Comment on Saying It Is Doing It (comments on the hearing in the case of Aksu v. Turkey) by Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden « Strasbourg Observers

Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden « Strasbourg Observers — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:14 +0000

[...] It will be exciting to see the repercussions of this case. Will this have an effect on the upcoming Grand Chamber judgment in Aksu v. Turkey, for example? I’ll admit: I hope it will (see my previous post here). [...]

Comment on Delegitimizing tradition as a “legitimate aim”: inspiration for Strasbourg from California by Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden « Strasbourg Observers

Anti-Gay Hate Speech: Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden « Strasbourg Observers — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:16:10 +0000

[...] disadvantaged groups are a matter of concern to all of us, not just the group in question. Not for the first time I think that the Court passes too easily over the question of what kind of legitimate aim is served [...]

Comment on Gäfgen v. Germany: threat of torture to save a life? by Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom: Questioning Gäfgen? « Strasbourg Observers

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:10:14 +0000

[...] real evidence.” This reasoning of the Court is contestable (see my previous post on Gäfgen here), but it is nevertheless its standing and binding case law on the [...]

Comment on Gäfgen v. Germany: threat of torture to save a life? by aiace08

aiace08 — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:52:32 +0000

Very useful article about the leading case “gafgen c. germany”. Anyway, the European Court Of Human Rights seems to recognize the latin principle of: “male captum bene retentum” stated by the italian Franco Cordero about seizure preceded by illegal research.
Sorry for english
cheers

Comment on U.S. Supreme Court and ECtHR: Conflicts between Religious Autonomy and Other Fundamental Rights by La liberté syndicale franchit les portes de l’Eglise (CEDH, 3e Sect. 31 janvier 2012, Sindicatul ‘Pastorul Cel Bun’ c. Roumanie) | Combats pour les droits de l'homme (CPDH)

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:40:05 +0000

[...] Commission et al. – et sa comparaison avec la jurisprudence de la Cour, lire Lourdes Peroni, « U.S. Supreme Court and ECtHR: Conflicts between Religious Autonomy and Other Fundamental Rights », in Strasbourg Observers, 2 février 2012). Jusqu’à ce jour, la juridiction strasbourgeoise [...]

Comment on Freedom of religion in conflict: Siebenhaar v. Germany by U.S. Supreme Court and ECtHR: Conflicts between Religious Autonomy and Other Fundamental Rights « Strasbourg Observers

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:21:42 +0000

[...] considered and that a careful balancing of the interests involved has been carried out (see also Saila’s post here). This explains the different outcomes in the three cases. While the Court did not find a [...]

Comment on Rahimi v. Greece and the proceduralization of children’s rights by Less stringent measures and migration detention: overruling Saadi v. UK? « Strasbourg Observers

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:09:52 +0000

[...] the earlier First Section judgment of Rahimi v. Greece of 5 April 2011 (I blogged about this case here), in which it was explicitly extracted from Art. 37 (b) of the Convention on the Rights of the [...]

Comment on Local ‘burqa ban’ violates human rights (according to Belgian judge) by Saïla Ouald Chaib

Saïla Ouald Chaib — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:12:44 +0000

Dear Kate,

You can find the text here: http://www.legalworld.be/legalworld/uploadedFiles/Rechtspraak/De_Juristenkrant/Pol.%20Brussel%20%28niqabverbod%20Etterbeek%29.pdf?LangType=2067

Best regards,

Saïla

Comment on Local ‘burqa ban’ violates human rights (according to Belgian judge) by Kate

Kate — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:29:58 +0000

What is the name of this case or is there a way I can access the full opinion given by the lower Belgian Court?

Comment on Strasbourg Court condemns Belgian internment policy by Andreas Moser

Andreas Moser — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:30:13 +0000

And all of this because Belgium thinks that a suicide is a bad thing. It’s not: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/world-suicide-prevention-day-on-10-september/

Comment on Court condemns forced sterilization of Roma woman by European racism and the ‘Gypsy Problem’ | eats shoots 'n leaves

European racism and the ‘Gypsy Problem’ | eats shoots 'n leaves — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:47:27 +0000

[...] Read the rest. [...]

Comment on The Strasbourg Court and the Arab Spring by Mathias

Mathias — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:53:53 +0000

Thanks a lot for highlighting this judgment Saila. Having visted Tunisia’s jails before and after Ben Ali I think it’s a fair judgment by the Court.

Comment on French Roma policy violates European Social Charter by French Roma policy violates European Social Charter « ERIO NEWSROOM

French Roma policy violates European Social Charter « ERIO NEWSROOM — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 10:10:45 +0000

[...] direct discrimination, in violation of Art. E in conjunction with Art. 31, § 2 of the Charter. http://strasbourgobservers.com/2011/12/06/french-roma-policy-violates-european-social-charter/ LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]

Comment on Tolerant? Of course! But keep it private by gg18 » Blog Archive » Gay Russia News & Reports 2010 Oct-Dec » gg18

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 23:30:34 +0000

[...] October 22, 2010 – Strasbourg Observers [...]

Comment on Saying It Is Doing It (comments on the hearing in the case of Aksu v. Turkey) by French Roma policy violates European Social Charter « Strasbourg Observers

French Roma policy violates European Social Charter « Strasbourg Observers — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:46:58 +0000

[...] First of all, the Committee directly goes to the heart of the issue: ethnic discrimination. The evictions and expulsions did not happen “by coincidence”, the persons concerned were exactly evicted and expelled because they were Roma. The ECtHR on its turn tends to avoid as much as possible getting into a discrimination analysis if it can decide a case on the basis of the linked substantive rights. In this respect, see for example Lourdes’ and Alexandra’s recent comments on the case of V.C. v. Slovakia. Interestingly, the Committee also takes into account the background of Roma stigmatization, especially because the French authorities had contributed to the creation of such a hostile climate. This can be relevant for the case of Aksu v. Turkey, which is currently pending before the Grand Chamber, in which the Court has to rule on the question whether stigmatization of Roma in two government-funded publications constitutes discrimination in the sense of Art. 14 ECHR. On this case, see Alexandra’s blogs here, here and here. [...]

Comment on Just words? (Aksu v. Turkey Part II) by French Roma policy violates European Social Charter « Strasbourg Observers

French Roma policy violates European Social Charter « Strasbourg Observers — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:46:55 +0000

[...] discrimination in the sense of Art. 14 ECHR. On this case, see Alexandra’s blogs here, here and [...]