Harman will ban Christmas, bishops warn

[nomadking]

So if the 'Freedom of Association' is used to allow Trade Unions to kick out people who don't have the same political beliefs, although they're not a meant to be a political group, wouldn't that mean that other groups (eg churches, BNP etc) could exclude people who didn't share the same beliefs of that group. That is not the case, as Trade Unions are allowed to ban people, but other groups(the Left of course decide which ones) can't.

The Human Rights Act along other things of that sort(eg EU rules) are just a mechanism for giving the Left power to control things without the inconvenience of the ballot box.

IIRC PLO Leader Yasser Arafat visited(or tried to) Bethlehem at Christmas to celebrate the birth of Christ.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So if the 'Freedom of Association' is used to allow Trade Unions to kick out people who don't have the same political beliefs, although they're not a meant to be a political group, wouldn't that mean that other groups (eg churches, BNP etc) could exclude people who didn't share the same beliefs of that group. That is not the case, as Trade Unions are allowed to ban people, but other groups(the Left of course decide which ones) can't.

The Human Rights Act along other things of that sort(eg EU rules) are just a mechanism for giving the Left power to control things without the inconvenience of the ballot box.

I don't believe anyone is allowed to ban anyone on the basis of religious belief.

[nomadking]

The right of 'Freedom of Association' allows Trade Unions to exclude people for having views which are irrelevant to the functions of a Trade Union. That right is meant to allow any group to set its own membership criteria of that group.

[BBKing]

So if the 'Freedom of Association' is used to allow Trade Unions to kick out people who don't have the same political belief

I'm not sure you're quite getting this - the HRA and ECHR stop the *government* deciding who should be allowed into trade unions. It applies to *state* entities, not private ones, and a union is a voluntary organisation of private individuals, not an arm of the state. It's amazing how few people realise this - the ECHR is essentially weaponised anti-fascism, designed by British lawyers to alert people to the kinds of laws governments pass on their way to becoming a totalitarian police state.

Anyway, if you think the ECHR is anything to do with the EU you've just hit my 'don't know anything' about it tripwire. It isn't anything to do with the EU, which incidentally is so left wing it's about to elect a President decided by the right wing of France and Germany, possibly the Belgian Prime Minister, who is, amongst other things, lauded by their local equivalent of the BNP for his, er, robust views on the desirability of inviting Turkey to join the Union. What a bunch of Commies they are, to be sure.

[nomadking]

I gave EU rules as a(singular) example, not the complete list.

It was a Labour Government(paid by the Trade Unions) that passed the law that allowed the Trade Unions to eject certain members.

Employment Relations Act 2004
Sections 33 and 34 (The law governing the ability of trade unions to exclude or expel individuals wholly or mainly for taking part in activities of a political party) and Sections 15, 18, 36, 39 and 54 (Various enabling powers covering aspects of employment and trade union law) came into force on 31 December 2004.

This was later backed up by an ECHR ruling based upon:-

ARTICLE 11
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, 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. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

But then,

ARTICLE 14
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

seems to counter that ruling.

The set of rules are vague and general enough to be only be allowed to be 'interpreted' as applying in the way the Left desire. Just think of all the rules and laws, that even if 100% of people want it changed, it cannot be changed. EU directives are just one example.

"the left".....

Hilarious.

Yes, they are, when safely kept out of harm's way.

Amusingly enough, Degsy is now a property developer in Cyprus....

[AdamD]

Heh the headline reminds me of that southpark episode where christian themed items are removed as they offend the Jewish mother.