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 >>
BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ?Correcting? Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim Fri May 09, 2025 17:00 | Will Jones
The BBC has quietly edited Question Time after wrongly 'correcting' Reform's Richard Tice on a claim about CO2 emissions. Tice said humans are behind just 4% of emissions but Fiona Bruce falsely said it was a third.
The post BBC Quietly Edits Question Time After Wrongly ‘Correcting’ Richard Tice on Key Net Zero Claim appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs ?550,000 Family Home Fri May 09, 2025 15:10 | Will Jones
The moment an electric car suddenly burst into flames on a driveway has been captured on CCTV, as the vehicle sparked a raging blaze which engulfed a van and a ?550,000 family home.
The post Electric Car Bursts into Flames on Driveway and Engulfs ?550,000 Family Home appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
?I Was a Super Fit Cyclist Until I Had the Moderna Covid Vaccine. What Happened Next Left Me Wishing... Fri May 09, 2025 13:10 | Will Jones
Danielle Pieton was a super fit cyclist until she had the Moderna Covid vaccine in January 2022. What happened next left her wishing she was dead.
The post “I Was a Super Fit Cyclist Until I Had the Moderna Covid Vaccine. What Happened Next Left Me Wishing I Was Dead” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ?Climate Damages? on Oil Companies Fri May 09, 2025 11:09 | Tilak Doshi
A new Nature paper claims to pin liability for 'climate damages' on oil companies so they can be sued in court. This escalation in the climate wars is scientifically bogus and economically disastrous, says Dr Tilak Doshi.
The post Nature Paper Claims to Pin Liability for ‘Climate Damages’ on Oil Companies appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
What Does David Lammy Mean by a State? Fri May 09, 2025 09:00 | James Alexander
Foreign Secretary David Lammy has said it is "unacceptable" that Palestinians don't yet have a state. Professor James Alexander wonders if Lammy has thought through what a Palestinian state would actually look like.
The post What Does David Lammy Mean by a State? 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.