Forum Topic

Foreign news - but is this not madness?

Supreme Court ruling expands US gun rightsThe US Supreme Court has struck down a New York law restricting gun-carrying rights, in its most important judgement on guns in over a decade.It expands gun rights amid a fierce national debate over the issue.The decision, which jeopardises similar regulations in states like California and New Jersey, is expected to allow more people to carry guns legally. ....The court found that a New York law requiring residents to prove "proper cause" to carry concealed firearms in public violates the US Constitution.Justice Clarence Thomas, writing on behalf of the six conservative judges who make up the court's majority, ruled that Americans have a right to carry "commonly used" firearms in public for personal defence......https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61915237

Ivonne Holliday ● 1087d25 Comments

But there has been no expeditious preparation made for this has there?  And when you see who voted against it here...

Philippa Bond ● 1083d

“What a screwed-uo country America is!”Of course it is on a number of issues.Meanwhile closer to home:“Handing down the court’s decision in October 2021, Mr Justice Colton said that the Northern Ireland Secretary had failed to comply with his duties, under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, to “expeditiously” provide women with access to high quality abortion and post abortion care in all public health facilities in Northern Ireland.”https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8909/

Ed Robinson ● 1085d

"the constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutions decision."It don't mention AR-15 assault weapons, and yet ...

David Ainsworth ● 1085d

Thanks, Michael, that's another worrying aspect.The whole thing seems insane to me: the decision included this:  "the constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutions decision." That's the problem with literally interpreting a constitution written by ignorant men a very long time ago: on this basis, vaccination against diseases like polio, measles - even Covid-19 - are not protected either, just to pick an example at random. Add the fact that only a few days before the Supreme Court had struck down a New York law that placed strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in public for self defence, and you begin to see the problems the country faces.

Richard Carter ● 1085d

The argument behind the ruling to recind Roe v Wade also threatens interracial marriages as well as the other rights you mention, Richard. It's reported that this legacy of Trump is also worrying him because of a potential backlash against the GOP:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-roe-reversal-upset-gop-midterm-impact_n_62b78aade4b0cdccbe6c7197One can hope. We should perhaps be concerned what unintended consequences might arise from Johnson's government tinkering with and reducing our civil and human rights.

Michael Ixer ● 1085d

The worrying thing about this dreadful decision is that it's not just the right to abortion that's under threat, but tha to it's only the first target of the religious fundamentalists in the US: there are real worries that contraception and gay marriage will be the next targets.  What a screwed-uo country America is!

Richard Carter ● 1085d

You are correct MW.According to US law, following Rowe vs Wade, a foetus under the first trimester (three months or 12 weeks - perhaps 14?) a women has a constitutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion.Right or wrong, a foetus in this term cannot survive outside a mother's womb. It seems remarkably similar to the UK.My question to you is, I lost my first baby in the 20th week of pregnancy (in 1991) - it was a normal birth by the way - but classed as an abortion....  I was mortified then and perhaps still does.So, it is not just UK rules, but the unfortunate (to put it politely) circumstances of nature. I would like to add, as an aside of my personal views of course, this has nothing to do with religion.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1085d

Yes you were attempting to, but the "rights" of an unborn child are dependent on the jurisdiction. It is a matter of the law in the country or state concerned. In the UK, a baby does not become a legal person until it is born. In the USA, the law is different and varies from state to state. You have also to look not just at the statutes but at the case law.When considering the reversal of "Roe v Wade", the legal position of an unborn child in the UK isn't really that relevant.

Michael Winstanley ● 1085d

I agree with you Michael W.However, the question was about the human rights for the unborn child.  I was answering this question.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1085d

That's about right in the UK. But be aware, there is actually no such thing as "human rights" except as we nationally or internationally decide to create them.  No-one actually has any "rights" except by legal construct, which can be changed.

Michael Winstanley ● 1085d

Good morning Martine,As far as I am aware, a woman does not normally announce she is pregnant until the 3rd month is over as she may lose the baby for many reasons.  But lawful and legal abortions are carried out up to week 24 of pregnancy as a foetus will not survive outside the womb then.As you know, today, babies do survive, with very specialist care, when they are born on or after week 27 of pregnancy. Bearing this in mind, when do the human rights of an unborn child start?  First month of pregnancy or when life outside the womb is viable?As far as I am aware, unborn children do not have human rights until they are able to survive outside the womb, not before. Therefore, the human rights of the mother until week 27 of a pregnancy are the ones that count.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1086d

Deliberately deepening divisions in pursuit of extra powers.

Philippa Bond ● 1086d

Trump appointed the judges who have carried this majority in the Supreme Court.Trump was and is against gun control - as are most Republicans.The next time there is yet another mass shooting, blame Trump and his fans.The issues surrounding abortion are much more nuanced - whilst a blanket ban on abortion is an afront to womens' rights, some limitations on the circumstances under which an abortion can be obtained can have an ethical foundation, whereas the "right" to carry weapons in public which can kill many people (ie automatic weapons, assault rifles etc) is simply an affront to common sense.

Michael Winstanley ● 1086d

Martine, an interesting question. It looks like you need to be born to be recognised as person to have rights under the ECHR, although there may be safeguards, and in certain circumstances the mother's rights may be extended to the unborn. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-right-to-abortion-and-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/Obviously, late abortions are undesirable so to avoid them as far as possible it's imperative that there's factual, easily available sex education, free or affordable contraception (including the morning after pill) and accessible healthcare to allow early diagnosis and monitoring of pregnancy. Or there's decent benefits and care support if the mother decides against an abortion and needs those.(I assume you were referring to the ECHR definition not Johnson's comments. )

Michael Ixer ● 1086d

Michael, does that include the human rights of an unborn child?

Martine Guy ● 1086d

Good Johnson's condemned it, though.https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/us-supreme-court-boris-johnson-government-women-prime-minister-b1008305.html#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16560994862732&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fus-supreme-court-boris-johnson-government-women-prime-minister-b1008305.html

Michael Ixer ● 1086d

What's next in the US: abolishing rights to contraception,  same sex marriage,  ... the religious far right imposing their ideas on everyone. Trump's legacy; a joke given his morals, or lack of them :-(It's not the same but it's why it's imperative the UK stays a with the ECHR and the ECtHR 

Michael Ixer ● 1086d

"Do they really feel safer with ever more guns (or less safe)?"Nuclear deterrents come to mind. It's hard to apply a bit of logic to an overall insane situation.https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/20/uvalde-police-shooting-response-records/

Ed Robinson ● 1087d

I really is very unsettling and alarming.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1087d

Even worse is the overturning of Roe versus Wade today.

Lucille Grant ● 1087d

I don't think anyone I know in the US feels safer and I can't envisage many carrying guns; in fact one couple I know decide to spend most of their time in France (although I'm not sure how much guns contributed to that decision).

Michael Ixer ● 1087d

Based on a little Googling, it looks like carrying a knife will be more frowned upon than carrying a handgun in New York in the future.

David Ainsworth ● 1087d

Do they really feel safer with ever more guns (or less safe)? Does the fact that it will be easier for every person to have a gun mean that non-owners finally decide that, at last, they are going to need to get a gun too?

David Ainsworth ● 1087d

One should remember that around 50% of the US population agree this is insane - and I believe the Senate has just approved some gun controls - however a US friend of mine is of the opinion that the lunatics are now running the asylum ...

Michael Ixer ● 1087d

It is really difficult to try and understand a country's thinking that has many more guns than people.I do watch some US commentators on the US right to try understand their issues - it is more complicated than it appears.Thank God we are not yet in such a society is my conclusion.

Ed Robinson ● 1087d