Comment by jessriedel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessriedel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In the first case, the court found that the Swiss state had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the "right to respect for private and family life", according to the ruling.

> The Swiss association of Elders for Climate Protection—2,500 women aged 73 on average—had complained about the "failings of the Swiss authorities" in terms of climate protection that could "seriously harm" their health.

Is this “interpretation” of the ECHR really as disconnected from the plain meaning of the words as it sounds? What sort of beneficial government policy would the judges be unable to order?

Yikes that is one hell of an over interpretation. These short sentences instead of huge legal speak sound good on paper but things like this make it clear why every law nowadays is hundreds of pages minimum.

I'm all for keeping the ECHR but this will just give further ammo to the argument that the ECHR has over extended its original remit.

This has parallels to Roe v Wade in the US. The 14th amendment states that:

    [...] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

which is interpreted as guaranteeing a "right to privacy" which was then interpreted as including the right to have an abortion.

Personally, I agree with both results, but not the process, since they're both judicial overreach.

That paragraph and the whole ECHR was originally created to protect people from government overreach. You could apply your interpretation to anything. How about suing your government over immigration after an islamist terror attack for not sufficiently protecting its populace? But yeah not gonna happen, because we all know which way these activist judges lean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com