McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[barrier]

you have shown you dont understand...the harm to the  search will not feature...that is not a human right

I would imagine even the McCanns would argue against that.

[Mr Gray]

I would imagine even the McCanns would argue against that.

as I said you need to look at what the ECHR can actually deal with...its quite limited...thats why its relatively easy to deduce what the mccanns claim will be

[G-Unit]

It's in several pages... Have you really... Really.. Really.. read the judgement and not seen it...

how can you make any valued judgement on the validity of the  mccanns case when you do not seem to have read the SC judgement

Of course I've read it, but the onus is on the one making a claim to provide a cite.

[Mr Gray]

Of course I've read it, but the onus is on the one making a claim to provide a cite.

if you are asking for a cite you obviosly havent understood it..imo..my highlight added in red



What is at stake, fundamentally, is to identify the legal good that will be, concretely, prevailing, taking into account that, in each conflict resolution, the balance pans, to begin with, are in a position of equilibrium, since freedom of expression(article 10) and honour (article 8)must start from a position of equality.

For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce the respective evaluation criteria in the pan of freedom of expression or in the pan of honour.

And it is playing with weights and counterweights that, in the end, it will appear which of the pans weighs more.

Well, in the present case, as it results from the foregoing, the pan that weighs more and is the freedom of expression one.
Which amounts to saying that this is the legal good that, in this case, prevails.
 
Page 75
Thus we shall have to conclude that, in the present case, prevail the rights of the respondents to freedom of expression and information and to freedom of the press and of the media


The balance between 8 and 10 is precisely what teh ECHR can deal with...and from the cases ive provide a link to it seems to me teh SC got it wrong

[barrier]

as I said you need to look at what the ECHR can actually deal with...its quite limited...thats why its relatively easy to deduce what the mccanns claim will be

At last we're getting there,the ECHR will only rule on the SC judgement,not anything previous,it'll not effect Amaral either way.

[Venturi Swirl]

At last we're getting there,the ECHR will only rule on the SC judgement,not anything previous,it'll not effect Amaral either way.

At last YOU'RE getting there you mean, everyone else arrived there a while back...

[Mr Gray]

At last we're getting there,the ECHR will only rule on the SC judgement,not anything previous,it'll not effect Amaral either way.

you might at last be getting there now...ive undestood for a long time

it could well result in his book being banned...it may well prevent him making any more statemnts re his theory

[ShiningInLuz]

you might at last be getting there now...ive undestood for a long time

it could well result in his book being banned...it may well prevent him making any more statemnts re his theory

Why?  The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution. 

Is Europe a bit more fascist?

[barrier]

you might at last be getting there now...ive undestood for a long time

it could well result in his book being banned...it may well prevent him making any more statemnts re his theory

The case is not against Amaral you've confirmed this,its against the Portuguese SC and its ruling.

[Venturi Swirl]

Why?  The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution. 

Is Europe a bit more fascist?

Am I free to claim you are a paedophile in Portugal, who chats up little boys in playgrounds?   A simple yes or no answer will suffice. 

[ShiningInLuz]

Am I free to claim you are a paedophile in Portugal, who chats up little boys in playgrounds?   A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

I remember you did indeed try to label me as a potential paedophile, for being civil to a little child who initiated a conversation with me in Luz.

You lost out the first time round.  Bringing it up again is my definition of dumb.  Obviously, IMO.

Move on.  Nothing to see here.

[Mr Gray]

I remember you did indeed try to label me as a potential paedophile, for being civil to a little child who initiated a conversation with me in Luz.

You lost out the first time round.  Bringing it up again is my definition of dumb.  Obviously, IMO.

Move on.  Nothing to see here.

According to you the Portuguese constitution supports the right if VS  to say that

[Venturi Swirl]

I remember you did indeed try to label me as a potential paedophile, for being civil to a little child who initiated a conversation with me in Luz.

You lost out the first time round.  Bringing it up again is my definition of dumb.  Obviously, IMO.

Move on.  Nothing to see here.

I am asking you if freedom of speech in Portugal extends to the right to make such claims, clearly you have no answer.  For the record, I have no idea if you have paedophile tendencies, but as you've not been cleared of having them afaik, well... who knows?

[Mr Gray]

Why?  The right to free speech is written into the Portuguese constitution. 

Is Europe a bit more fascist?

You will find Portugal also has defamation laws.... Amaral tried to sue Correia for defamation.... And lost..... So much for amarals support of free speech

[ShiningInLuz]

According to you the Portuguese constitution supports the right if VS  to say that

Nope.  It doesn't.  And that's not what I said.  Other than that .......