I'm suspecting you took @AuroraSaab out of context there.
Both sides should be able to speak and discuss. That's the entire point.
An exchange between one honest actor posting in good faith and one dishonest actor acting in bad faith is not a discussion.
What we have is an exchange between one person who feels she 'deserves' to have her own facts.
There is no potential for changing her mind or reaching any kind of negotiated position. People are certainly entitled to hold their own positions and to express them, but not entitled to their own facts.
The pretence should have ended long before now.
The UK accepts that the decisions regarding human rights arrangements in this country are scrutinised by the UN and the decisions made by the world court are binding. Aurora says not. Aurora is making stuff up.
The UK has acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights. The conventions are binding on the UK; the acceptance of this is found in the UK's own Human Rights Act (its very purpose). Rulings made between UK citizens and the state at the European Court are binding on the UK.
Some conventions are absolute, others are qualified. Absolute rights have preponderance over qualified rights.
The right to free from discrimination is an absolute right. The right to freedom of speech is a qualified right. Therefore the purpose of free speech is not have the ability to persecute others.
ARTICLE 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
ARTICLE 18 Limitation on use of restrictions on rights The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
The European Court heard a case brought by Goodwin versus the UK concerning the rights of trans people. The UK lost that case and became obliged to pass the relevant legislation to ensure the rights of trans people - this case gave rise to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
So we can forget about Auroras position of feeling that she 'deserves' different rights to other people. It is unlawful under international and domestic law to discriminate against trans people by means of blanket bans on the rights.
As I have said, it is possible for the UK to withdraw from the ECtHR. It is possible for parliament to abolish the UK Human Rights Act.
BUT ... to argue that sacrificing all human rights of all UK citizens is a very dangerous step indeed, because those truly hard won women's rights, such as the right for women to vote all go in the ash can in one go. We then must accept whatever human rights are granted under 'goodwill' by a government of proven human rights abuses.
