Conor Casey’s article makes an important point that supporters of the ECHR need to bear in mind when trying to persuade others that the UK should remain party to it.
Thanks. Much food for thought. I have been pondering upon the potential legal ramifications of the recent proscribing by the UK government of Palestinian Action upon northern born and resident (still legally under UK state jurisdiction) Irish citizens supporting the Irish government’s stance on Netanyahu’s military actions against innocent civilians in Gaza.
Thank you for this piece. Conor's piece, and yours, are both valuable contributions to the discussion about the ECHR.
I wanted to add something about the relationship between Conor's piece, and Catholic teaching. I think we need to pay careful attention to the question: how far does Conor expect the ECHR and the ECtHR to go in supporting Catholic ethical positions?
Conor refers to three ethical issues: abortion, euthanasia, and commercial surrogacy. As you point out, Catholic teaching is opposed to all three.
There are two different senses in which an international human rights framework might be said to cohere with official Catholic teaching on issues such as these. I shall call these the "strong" sense and the "weak" sense.
A framework coheres with Catholic teaching in the strong sense, if it requires states to prohibit those things that Catholic teaching holds to be impermissible. For instance, a human rights framework that prohibited abortion in most or all cases, on the basis of a right to life, would cohere with Catholic teaching in the strong sense.
A framework coheres with Catholic teaching in the weak sense, if it leaves it open to states to prohibit those things that Catholic teaching holds to be impermissible, but does not require them to do so. For instance, if the framework holds that human rights neither rule out abortion nor confer a right to abortion, then the framework coheres with Catholic teaching in the weak sense.
As I read Conor's piece, he is concerned that the ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR should cohere, in the weak sense, with Catholic teaching on the three issues he mentions. But he does not ask that it should cohere in the strong sense. His position appears to be that Catholics (and others) who advocate e.g. for prohibitions or restrictions on abortion should be free to advance their cause through the normal democratic process, without the issue being pre-emptively decided (either way) by the ECHR/ECtHR.
Conor can speak for himself but I read his position as being the weak one. My point (in a footnote because it’s tangential to the main point my article was making) was more that it is a feature of the concepts of “natural law” and “common good” as deployed in common law constitutionalism that - when given concrete form - they have a habit of coinciding with (often contentious) Catholic teaching: it is in that context notable that (out of all the things that might have been cited as things that the ECHR should not be interpreted as requiring states to permit), Conor cited three things that happen to be condemned by the Catholic Church, but much less strongly, if at all, by other Christian denominations, let alone by non-religious moral thinkers q(he could, after all, have used less obviously Catholic examples like “unlimited donations to political causes”, or “holocaust denial”).
Thanks. Much food for thought. I have been pondering upon the potential legal ramifications of the recent proscribing by the UK government of Palestinian Action upon northern born and resident (still legally under UK state jurisdiction) Irish citizens supporting the Irish government’s stance on Netanyahu’s military actions against innocent civilians in Gaza.
Thank you for this piece. Conor's piece, and yours, are both valuable contributions to the discussion about the ECHR.
I wanted to add something about the relationship between Conor's piece, and Catholic teaching. I think we need to pay careful attention to the question: how far does Conor expect the ECHR and the ECtHR to go in supporting Catholic ethical positions?
Conor refers to three ethical issues: abortion, euthanasia, and commercial surrogacy. As you point out, Catholic teaching is opposed to all three.
There are two different senses in which an international human rights framework might be said to cohere with official Catholic teaching on issues such as these. I shall call these the "strong" sense and the "weak" sense.
A framework coheres with Catholic teaching in the strong sense, if it requires states to prohibit those things that Catholic teaching holds to be impermissible. For instance, a human rights framework that prohibited abortion in most or all cases, on the basis of a right to life, would cohere with Catholic teaching in the strong sense.
A framework coheres with Catholic teaching in the weak sense, if it leaves it open to states to prohibit those things that Catholic teaching holds to be impermissible, but does not require them to do so. For instance, if the framework holds that human rights neither rule out abortion nor confer a right to abortion, then the framework coheres with Catholic teaching in the weak sense.
As I read Conor's piece, he is concerned that the ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR should cohere, in the weak sense, with Catholic teaching on the three issues he mentions. But he does not ask that it should cohere in the strong sense. His position appears to be that Catholics (and others) who advocate e.g. for prohibitions or restrictions on abortion should be free to advance their cause through the normal democratic process, without the issue being pre-emptively decided (either way) by the ECHR/ECtHR.
Conor can speak for himself but I read his position as being the weak one. My point (in a footnote because it’s tangential to the main point my article was making) was more that it is a feature of the concepts of “natural law” and “common good” as deployed in common law constitutionalism that - when given concrete form - they have a habit of coinciding with (often contentious) Catholic teaching: it is in that context notable that (out of all the things that might have been cited as things that the ECHR should not be interpreted as requiring states to permit), Conor cited three things that happen to be condemned by the Catholic Church, but much less strongly, if at all, by other Christian denominations, let alone by non-religious moral thinkers q(he could, after all, have used less obviously Catholic examples like “unlimited donations to political causes”, or “holocaust denial”).