What does it feel like to be shot with a water cannon? Dietrich Wagner tells us from personal experience.
“The water from the cannon broke through my eyelids, almost completely blinding me, pierced my cheekbone, and if the spray had continued for another second it would have hit my brain and killed me,” he wrote in his autobiography. Telegraph article.
London Mayor Boris Johnson has approved a request from the Metropolitan police to purchase three Wasserwerfer (water cannon) cannons to quell future disturbances in the capital, despite the known risks. This has sparked headlines such as “Boris Takes Cannon Shot”, “Theresa May Shoots Down Boris Johnson's Water Cannon” and “Theresa May Throws Cold Water on Boris Johnson's Water Cannon”, and the issue has been hotly debated on Twitter, blogs and by everyone.
What was all the fuss about? The emotional impact of such a totalitarian toy, or the very real fear that such repressive measures could result in serious harm or even death? What if someone died as a result of riot police violence?
The answer may surprise you: apart from nationwide protests, there are no legal repercussions for the police. The reason is that the fine print of the Lisbon Treaty mentions another document, the European Convention on Human Rights, which is legally binding on all signatories of the Lisbon Treaty. This human rights document states that states have the legal right to use potentially lethal force against rioters.
Article 2 The European Convention on Human Rights (emphasis added):
Deprivation of life shall not be considered as having been committed in violation of this article if it results from the use of force that does not exceed what is absolutely necessary.
(a) To protect someone from unlawful violence
(b) To prevent the escape of a person lawfully arrested or lawfully detained.
(C) Lawful actions taken to suppress riots or rebellions.
In other words, if Boris Johnson's water cannon kills a protester, no one will be punished. Our politicians and police are totally safe behind the Lisbon Treaty and the European Convention on Human Rights. At least, that's what they think.
Author: Ned May Vienna Gate Or to put it better:
A careful reading of the provision supports the notion that 2(c) merely exempts police and military personnel from liability if they find themselves in a situation during a riot where they have to shoot rioters.
On the other hand, there seems to be some wiggle room in this clause: the American tradition of skepticism assumes that governments are prone to tyrannical behavior unless explicitly prevented, and tyrants might find sufficient flexibility in the European Convention on Human Rights to bend it to their will.
But that is not all. Quite apart from the provision authorising the death penalty by the use of force, there is another provision providing for the execution of the death penalty.
Article 2 of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights: (A protocol is a treaty or international agreement that supplements an earlier treaty or international agreement. A protocol may amend an earlier treaty or add additional provisions):
“A State may provide in its laws for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in or during time of war.” The imminent threat of war; This penalty shall be applied only when and in accordance with the provisions of law…'
This means that there are two separate issues dealt with in separate, but interrelated, provisions and footnotes in the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Charter.
1. Loss of human life due to the use of force by a state in circumstances that the state considers necessary
2. The death penalty in certain circumstances, such as in the event of war or the threat of war
This wording is vague and open to very liberal interpretation by states. Who is to say that nationwide unrest could not lead to civil war, creating the conditions for imposing the death penalty “in case of imminent war”? This combination of the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU seems like a lethal combination for the protection of states.
These documents enacted measures to protect the state from the people, rather than the people from the state.
Did our loyal politicians know what they were signing when the Lisbon Treaty was presented to them?
Unfortunately, our congressional record clearly show How the issue of Article 2 of Protocol No. 6 (Death Penalty in Time of War or Imminent Threat of War) was discussed on 20 May 1998. As we all know, the signing of the Lisbon Treaty went ahead anyway and we now have European law that allows the use of lethal force against anyone willing to oppose the government by protest, as well as the imposition of the death penalty, possibly through the courts, in cases where there is a real or perceived threat of war.
Does Boris Johnson know this? Coincidentally, he is married to Marina Wheeler, a lawyer specialising in public law and human rights. The pair met when Boris was in Brussels reporting for the Daily Telegraph. Their conversation around the kitchen table must have been enlightening to say the least. We can safely assume that Boris is extremely knowledgeable.
What does Boris think about the death penalty? During his time as a reporter at the Telegraph he I confided in my coworkers He was against Europe and against hanging. In 2004 he I asked for a guarantee The government has informed them that Saddam Hussein will be spared the death by hanging when he is extradited to Iraq for trial. Voted against The Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2008. At first glance, Boris doesn't seem to be too happy with either the death penalty or the Lisbon Treaty, but he doesn't seem to care much about the value of human life when it comes to his area of expertise.
Interestingly, the current altercation with the media and other lawmakers over how to deal with the potential for violence coincides with the 50th anniversary of the suspension of the death penalty in the UK.
So who should fear the death penalty today? Should British citizens be worried about the reintroduction of the death penalty under the Lisbon Treaty and the European Charter on Human Rights?
Public attitudes towards the death penalty will always contrast with politicians' preferences, but perhaps a distinction needs to be made between the death penalty for civil crimes such as murder and those for crimes against the state that are recognised by the state.
In 1965, members of Congress voted 200-98. halt executions The death penalty for murder was retained, despite opinion polls showing a majority of voters wanted it to remain. In 1998 the Crime and Disorder Act formally abolished the death penalty for treason.
The survey below does not clearly distinguish between the various reasons for wanting to reinstate the death penalty.
According to a 2009 Channel 4 television survey, 70% of the public Supported the reinstatement of the death penalty He has been charged with at least one of the following offences: armed robbery, rape, pedophilia-related offences, terrorism, adult murder, child murder, child rape, treason, child abuse and kidnapping.
In the 2014 Social Opinion Survey, 48% of people I don't want the death penalty to be reintroducedThe survey counted respondents who agreed that “for some crimes the death penalty is the most appropriate punishment.” The question was, which crimes?
Richard Clarke,author The death penalty in the UK“My research shows that there is more support from the over 50 age group, especially men, and much less interest from younger people,” he explained, adding, “Many people who are liberal on sexual issues are not when it comes to crime, especially crimes like child rape.”
While lawmakers are debating the crime of rioting, the public is more concerned with crimes like pedophilia and murder. Perhaps our politicians are worried about public outrage over the cover-up of institutional and ritual abuse and child rape, economic oppression, and the dismantling of our services. Is that why they selectively vote for extreme measures so that the public can't possibly get their way?
The Lisbon Treaty and its accompanying European Convention on Human Rights give our leaders the tools to protect themselves from their people. Boris Johnson's water cannon is just the visible result of what is already written into European law. The death penalty is there to protect the state from its people, not the people from the state.
“We need to address the huge concerns of the police,” Boris said, explaining the reason behind the purchase. To the BBCHe further explained that this measure was intended to be reserved for cases of extreme discontent.The hidden death penalty clause in the Lisbon Treaty was no doubt approved with the same purpose in mind.
