A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by
The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony
Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
Migrants Will be Put Up in Hotels for Years to Come, Treasury Admits Mon Mar 24, 2025 19:00 | Will Jones
Migrants will be housed in hotels for years to come at a cost of ?5.5m a day, the Treasury has admitted, as figures show there are 8,000 more asylum seekers in hotels than when Starmer pledged to "end asylum hotels".
The post Migrants Will be Put Up in Hotels for Years to Come, Treasury Admits appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Legalising Assisted Dying: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Mon Mar 24, 2025 17:00 | Dr Rachel Nicoll
Dr Rachel Nicoll was a supporter of assisted suicide but Kim Leadbetter's awful bill has convinced her to reconsider. Here are the reasons she thinks letting doctors help kill their patients would be dangerous.
The post Legalising Assisted Dying: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
?5 Pints to Be the Norm After Reeves Tax Raid Mon Mar 24, 2025 15:00 | Will Jones
A pile of cost increases heaped on the pub industry next month by Rachel Reeves and the Labour Government will push the average price of a pint of beer above ?5 for the first time, bosses have warned.
The post ?5 Pints to Be the Norm After Reeves Tax Raid appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Crash of London?s Latest LTN Mon Mar 24, 2025 13:00 | Mike Wells
A Labour-run council has been forced to scrap London's latest LTN following a huge swell of local opposition pointing out the anti-car scheme's obvious flaws. No proper consultation as usual, says Mike Wells.
The post The Crash of London’s Latest LTN appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
?Hilariously Abysmal? Extent of Snow White?s Flop Revealed as Woke Disney Reboot Sells Zero Tickets ... Mon Mar 24, 2025 11:25 | Will Jones
The "hilariously abysmal" extent of Snow White's flop has been revealed by screenshots showing that the woke Disney reboot sold zero tickets during a prime weekend slot in the US.
The post “Hilariously Abysmal” Extent of Snow White’s Flop Revealed as Woke Disney Reboot Sells Zero Tickets During Prime Weekend Slot appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Lockdown Skeptics >>
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5Need to discuss precisely what we DO mean when we say "X has a right to Y"
It is clear that this means "No Z can take Y away from X or place an obstruction between X getting Y".
It is far less clear that it means "Z has an obligation to provide Y to X"
STOP -- don't take me wrong here. I am not saying that this shouldn't be so, not saying that there isn't an obligation to provide Y to X. But I am saying that this wouldn't come just from "X has a right to Y" but from the much stronger "X has an entitlement to Y".
And even in that case, you can't necessarily make the jump from SOMEBODY must have the obligation to privide Y to X to lay that obligation where you please. You need some additional assumptions about "assignment of duties" becuase otherwise you can't get from "somebody has this duty" to "HE (or she) has this duty".
All good points there but a lot of what you're asking for has been laid out. The treaty guarantees the rights. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the implementation of the right and interprets it through what are called General Comments. Every State is also obliged to periodically report to the Committee on what it has done to deliver these rights.
So the mechanisms, structures and interpretations you're asking for are, in many cases, laid out in Committee decisions or comments.
More here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/
Shell to sea was informed 2 years ago that the civil servants studying the Arhus convention found it satisfactory but that the politicians did not want to ratify it. Eamon Ryan knows all about it but chooses to ignore it.
It would be great if Amnesty International added this to their agenda as well.
THE IRISH PEOPLE ARE BEING CONNED BY FIANNA FAIL CONTINUOUSLY. WHEN WILL THEY WAKE UP?
"We’re supposed to have a right to free primary education but 74 per cent of parents are asked for a contribution to their school’s running costs every year"
Key word here is 'asked'. Not required. Not that terrible that a school that relies on minimum funds to ask for a voluntary contribution.
"We’re supposed to have a right to housing but four and a half thousand people are homeless at any one time, about a thousand of whom are children"
Homelessness isn't just a matter of no free housing, it is a complex social problem that cannot be solved by offering people houses. Ask any homeless advocate group.
"We’re supposed to have a right to health but hundreds of children are detained in adult mental health facilities because there is not enough child appropriate accommodation"
Not exactly denying the right to health by providing the same services to children as provided to adults. Not appropriate, but as long as the govt provides a minimum standard of care they aren't in violation the treaty
"Homelessness isn't just a matter of no free housing, it is a complex social problem that cannot be solved by offering people houses. Ask any homeless advocate group."
Yes it is. You could also ask anyone who's worked on housing rights issues. Nowhere is 'free housing' being proposed as the one and only solution to the issue.
"Not exactly denying the right to health by providing the same services to children as provided to adults. Not appropriate, but as long as the govt provides a minimum standard of care they aren't in violation the treaty"
Yes they are. The right to health as explained in General Comment 14 specifically states that health care must be appropriate, not minimum, and under progressive realisation (Article Two of ICESCR) the achievement of the right must be done progressively. In other words if you can't deliver the right straight away you need to prove progress towards it. That's not 'minimum'.
http://www.aspire-irl.org/General%20Comment%2014.pdf
I get the point you're trying to make, that it's a lot more complicated than simply saying the right exists and you're right. But where I think you're wrong is the suggestion that decades of human rights law and decisions haven't already covered and gone into a lot of these areas.