Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
This could prove interesting.
|
Not really as it's they're show proceedings, designed not to win but to win publicity.
ARTICLE 1
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
ARTICLE 8- Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
- There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 1 gives governments a pretty wide scope for limiting the use of possessions so there's no breach there.
Article 8 gives governments far less scope but firstly it shouldn't be difficult for the govt to demonstrate that the ban is necessary for the protection of health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
That's even assuming that this group can demonstrate that a ban on smoking in
public places removes respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, which I doubt