View Single Post
Unread 15 Feb 2009, 13:00   #21
Alessio
deserves a medal
 
Alessio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
Alessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet societyAlessio is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe View Post
It is very annoying when you people clearly know nothing of British law and make assumptions on EU law with no evidence.
I never mentioned British law, because I know very little of that. I’m not an expert on European law either, but I can make a decent educated guess.

I was aiming at the free movement of services from the Treaty establishing the European Community (freedom of speech won’t help you much when trying to get across the border).

According to article 49 EC and the non-exhaustive (!) list of article 50 EC the fundamental freedoms mostly aim for economic activities. And more specific for this case: services that “are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.” Even tourists are covered under this definition. It is a shame that the treaty does not specifically mention European parliament members, but it should be kept it mind that it might not have been the intention to leave them out and the above mentioned definition is already being interpreted in a broader sense. I’m confident that if Wilders would argue that he went to the UK to promote his movie (which he did) it would be within the framework (?) of the European law, however, their doesn’t seem to be any (European) case law on this unprecedented situation yet.

Unsurprisingly, the arguments given by the British government, the basis on which Wilders was refused access to the country, were directly taken from this treaty. “The provisions of this chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.” Article 46 and 55 EC.

I took the liberty of assuming that by chosing this wording they also chose to use the same interpretation as the European court (an interpretation which is shared with the free movement of persons). The case refers to the Schengen treaty, however, that treaty stays within the framework of the EC treaty and uses the same legal definitions. In case C-503/03 the European court mentioned the following:

Quote:
44. The Community legislature has nevertheless made reliance by the Member States on such grounds subject to strict limits. Article 3(1) of Directive 64/221 states that measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security are to be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Article 3(2) states that previous criminal convictions are not in themselves to constitute grounds for the taking of such measures. The existence of a previous criminal conviction can, therefore, only be taken into account in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy ( Bouchereau , paragraph 28, and Case C-348/96 Calfa [1999] ECR I-11, paragraph 24).

46. Consequently, according to settled case-law, reliance by a national authority on the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society ( Rutili , paragraph 28; Bouchereau , paragraph 35; and Orfanopoulos and Oliveri , paragraph 66).
Since his exclusively personal conduct or his (non-existing) criminal record doesn’t demonstrate the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society (conditions which have to be interpreted in a strict matter), as he’s a calm debater from the Dutch parliament, who condmens violence on a regular basis and stays within the boundaries of the law, as mentioned in my second post, it is quite possible that the decision of the British government is conflicting with European law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov View Post
Alessio confuses the freedom to speak with the freedom to spread hate and incite to violence.
No, you do. Did you know that the Dutch prosecutors have already stated that his statements are not excessive and fall within the boundaries of the public debate? After researching his statements they decided not to prosecute him and afterwards case law has already been formed based on that decision. However, some civilians appealed to the decision, forcing the prosecutors to let a judge bend over the case regardless of their own interpretation. And I honestly do support the decision to let a judge give some clarity on the matter.

It seems however that idiots like you and from the Labour Party do not even care about justice or even truth. Legal and democratic principles are meaningless to you. And in your case I know why. It’s because you’re a hateful and prejudiced communist pig.
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."

Last edited by Alessio; 15 Feb 2009 at 14:20.
Alessio is offline   Reply With Quote