Monday, 1 August 2011

EU speak with forked tongue........

Cathy Ashton, aka High Representative of the European Union, has issued a statement in connection with the execution of Robert Jackson in Delaware on 29th July:
"The European Union deeply regrets the execution of Mr. Robert Jackson in the State of
Delaware on 29 July, 2011. The European Union considers that nations, which have not as
yet abolished the death penalty, should not impose this punishment when a de-facto
moratorium has been in place for an extended period. The execution of Mr. Jackson has
broken the de-facto moratorium that had been in place in Delaware since November 4,

The European Union recognizes that a terrible crime was at the heart of this case and
extends its sympathy to the family and survivors of the victim. Nevertheless, the European
Union opposes the use of capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, and calls for a global moratorium as a first step towards its universal abolition.
" (Emphasis mine)
 If the EU "opposes the use of capital punishement in all cases and under all circumstances", then perhaps Ashton can explain why the EU accepts the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the ECHR - and in particular, Article 2 ?

Capital punishment is the act whereby a person is condemned to death - aka the death penalty. A decision taken to open fire on those involved in an insurrection or riot means that whoever gives the order has condemned someone, or some people, to death. If the EU has the belief that capital punishment is abhorrent, then logically they cannot condone it under any circumstances.


Edward Spalton said...

If you Google Schachtschneider 10, you will find a video clip of a talk by Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, emeritus Professor of Public Law at the University of Erlangen Nuremberg. It has English subtitles.

The Professor claims, quoting chapter and verse, that the Lisbon treaty gives the EU institutions the power to introduce the death penalty in time of war or imminent threat of war -as well as the right to use lethal force in the circumstances you mention.

His claim is contested but he was the advocate in the case before the German Constitutional Court which resulted in an injunction, restraining the Federal President from signing the original EU
constitution into German law.

I also recently came across an MP who had conscientious objection to the death penalty but none at all to bombing Libya - something bound to cause the deaths and maiming of many innocent people.

john in cheshire said...

I hope the people of Delaware have used a good anglo-saxon form of words to express their contempt for Ms Ashton. She is metaphorically and literally the ugly face of socialism.

Anonymous said...

I remember Libertas raising this during the Irish Lisbon fiasco WfW.

I remember coming across this discussion:

I'm afraid to say that I was still no clearer after reading the comments.

If you have a definitive explanation - it would be appreciated.

But, once again, here is a very dangerous EU instrument that overrides our system of law, and our government has allowed it to happen.

Trooper Thompson said...

@ John in Cheshire,

that comment got me larfing.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

ES: Yup, see the video to which you refer. On your last paragraph, I believe that is known as an example of having some of one's principles whipped.

jic & TT: Being English, if she was told that I doubt whether it would have registered.......

BJ: Will try and post on this - If at my advanced age the memory works...

cuffleyburgers said...

Seems quite unequivocal, the state can kill you whenever it likes pretty well - It can try you and convict you for a capital crime, it can try to arrest you and kill you when you resist, or if you have a riot to protest, then it can kill you then as well.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

cb: And the fact that the EU condemns the death penalty under any circumstance.......? Contradiction of beliefs........?