Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie_365
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 |
I can assure you these are not "show proceedings" and they have far greater implications than those which are only immediately apparent to people through articles 1 & 8.
By way of example - when does ones house become someone else's workplace and how is liability / culpability affected?
You see, the Government in it's infinite wisdom (and in the guise of protecting everyones health) has effectively shot itself in the foot whereby it has not delineated either of the above for the purposes of passing into legislation.
In effect a healthcare worker, social worker, benefits advisor, locum GP etc etc etc cannot, by law, call to an address where habitual smoking takes place as that environment, for the purposes of the duration of their visit, is their place of work.
Not the sharpest tools in the box - some MPs.