# US Billof rights and European Convention on Human Rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2014, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225 "2014-07-28T09:17:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/61 "2014-07-29T20:52:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No. The Ninth Amendment explicitly states that other unlisted rights exist. I’ll grant that people are reluctant to invoke a claim to rights based on the Ninth Amendment. Of course, it’s an easy mistake to make. Antonin Scalia himself said that if gays want to marry, they should push for a law that approves this, rather than trying to make up a constitutional right that doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2014, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/62 "2014-07-29T21:31:55Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Of course, it’s an easy mistake to make. Antonin Scalia himself said that if gays want to marry, they should push for a law that approves this, rather than trying to make up a constitutional right that doesn’t exist. You’re missing the part about federal vs state law. States have plenary power, but the feds do not. Scalia is saying that it’s up to the states to determine whether SSM is the correct social policy, and the feds don’t have the authority to impinge on an area that has traditionally been reserved for the states. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/63 "2014-07-30T00:21:31Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The ECHR . . . doesn’t even allow for single sex marriage. > [@Nava](#): > > Uh, yes it does, SSM happens to exist in several of the countries under it and in fact one of the big arguments used to defend its implementation is that not having SSM available goes against HRs as it amounts to discrimination by reason of sexual orientation . . . The Convention doesn’t _forbid_ same-sex marriage, but equally it doesn’t affirm a right to same-sex marriage, or provide grounds for compelling any state either to provide for the celebration of same-sex marriages or to recognise same-sex marriages celebrated in other states (_Schalk & Kopf -v- Austria_). ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/64 "2014-07-30T01:15:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re missing the part about federal vs state law. States have plenary power, but the feds do not. Scalia is saying that it’s up to the states to determine whether SSM is the correct social policy, and the feds don’t have the authority to impinge on an area that has traditionally been reserved for the states. Quite a few higher courts have ruled otherwise, and that opposite-sex-only marriage laws violate the constitution. Scalia is dismissing the 9th amendment and the 14th. His phrasing was acutely bad. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/65 "2014-07-30T01:28:32Z")
Seems to me that there are merits in both documents, although I’d note that the section on freedom of expression in the EU document seems to be self-negating. “You have the right to express yourself, but we can pass reasonable laws limiting your right of self-expression for the common good.” They also add these caveats to freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. And being secure in your home. They actually allow the infringement of that right for “economic wellbeing”, which is actually kinda scary. What policy to promote economic wellbeing can possibly justify search and seizure without a warrant? And given how broad the economic powers are, including taxation, spending, and economic regulation, doesn’t this mean that the people don’t actually have any right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures at all? I think they are confused about what a “right” is. A right, as it’s understood in the US, is something that the government has to meet a very high legal bar in order to limit. We call it “strict scrutiny”. What the EU document does is establish a much lower bar: rational basis. Which basically means that legislatures can limit these rights in any way they see fit, as long as it’s not absolutely ridiculous or oppressive. and sometimes even then. I believe booing the French national anthem is still illegal. Whereas in the US, we can’t even prosecute flag burning without an amendment to the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/66 "2014-07-30T01:32:34Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > If we’re talking about human rights abuses by governments, in general governments have rather more power within their own territory than they do outside it, and correspondingly more scope for the abuse of that power. But in modern conditions a superpower like the US also has considerable scope for wielding (and abusing) power outside its own borders. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > If by “power” you mean “capability”, I agree. But the US has a wider range of authority for activities outside US borders. I’d be surprised if that were not true of European countries as well, else they would not be able to spy. I mean capability, yes. Probably lots of countries have legal/political systems which have limited effective oversight/control on things done by the government outside the borders. But where the US differs from most other countries is in its enormous practical _capacity_ to do things outside its own borders. So I’m not saying that the European legal and constitutional arrangements for defending human rights are any better in this respect; rather that their deficiencies are likely to have less terrible consequences. For example, lots of European governments might claim the theoretical legal right to practice “extraordinary rendition” and to operate “black sites” in third countries free of domestic judicial oversight, but (so far as I know) none of them in fact do so. (Of course, many of them have co-operated in various ways with the US’s program, and European human rights mechanisms have been patchy at best in their response to that. My point here is not so much that European mechanisms are better than US mechanisms with regard to this problem, but that there is a common problem that human rights defence mechanisms tend to be poor when it comes to controlling the acts of one government done in the territory of another, and that the governments most likely to be guilty of human rights abuses in that context are those with the greatest ability to project power and influence outside their own territory. And, on that criterion, the US is a standout.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/67 "2014-07-30T01:36:56Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Quite a few higher courts have ruled otherwise, and that opposite-sex-only marriage laws violate the constitution. Scalia is dismissing the 9th amendment and the 14th. His phrasing was acutely bad. Not going to get into a debate about SSM, but I see no reason that Scalia’s reasoning is wrong. You just don’t agree with his legal analysis. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/68 "2014-07-30T01:40:00Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The difference between the U.S. Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights is that between apples and apple pie. The U.S. is a raw framework created by the founders with the expectation that the legislature and the courts would fill in the specifics. Think of it as a building. Over time, the incredibly varying circumstances of a nation of millions and the changes brought on with time not only stuffed the insides of the building with a rabbit warren of ever-shifting rooms but also found that by necessity it padded the framework a bit with extra stories, balconies, antennae, and a selection of gargoyles. > > The ECHR, like many other modern constitutions, looked at that experience and decided to try to design a new building. It’s much more elaborate in its specifications about what is allowed inside and incorporates in its structure all those extra bits and pieces to reinforce it better against storms. > > . I think this is a great point, and in my first reading, that’s exactly what I thought. Then I went back and looked again and realized that there are so many exceptions allowing governments to infringe on these rights that it’s really hard to call them rights at all. Or at least not rights at the same level that the US protects them. If they were looking to guarantee these rights at a higher level, they should have put in language similar to the US doctrine of strict scrutiny. That for say, limiting freedom of expression, EU states could only pass laws that served a compelling government interest, was narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest, and used the least restrictive means to do so. Instead, we get this: **2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.** So they’ve got the compelling interest part written down, sort of, but if that’s the only bar they have to meet it sure looks like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/69 "2014-07-30T02:06:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Seems to me that there are merits in both documents, although I’d note that the section on freedom of expression in the EU document seems to be self-negating. “You have the right to express yourself, but we can pass reasonable laws limiting your right of self-expression for the common good.” They also add these caveats to freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. And being secure in your home. They actually allow the infringement of that right for “economic wellbeing”, which is actually kinda scary. What policy to promote economic wellbeing can possibly justify search and seizure without a warrant? And given how broad the economic powers are, including taxation, spending, and economic regulation, doesn’t this mean that the people don’t actually have any right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures at all? > > I think they are confused about what a “right” is. A right, as it’s understood in the US, is something that the government has to meet a very high legal bar in order to limit. We call it “strict scrutiny”. What the EU document does is establish a much lower bar: rational basis. Which basically means that legislatures can limit these rights in any way they see fit, as long as it’s not absolutely ridiculous or oppressive. and sometimes even then. I believe booing the French national anthem is still illegal. Whereas in the US, we can’t even prosecute flag burning without an amendment to the Constitution. I don’t think the European Court does adopt a “rational basis” criterion for reviewing legislative encroachments on the enumerated rights, though, does it? And I think you’re making an assumption when you suggest, e.g., that Article 8 would allow search and seizure without warrant in the interests of promoting economic well-being. All that Art. 8 says is that that the interest of promoting economic well-being _may_ justify a limitation of the right to privacy - e.g. a law allowing customs officers to obtain a warrant to search premises for smuggled goods - not that it will necessarily justify _any_ limitation of that right. The real control, I think, lies in the phrase “in accordance with the law”. A particular limitation of the right to privacy doesn’t just have to have the proper motivation (e.g. the promotion of economic well-being); it also has to be “in accordance with the law”. And the ECHR has consistently held that this doesn’t just mean in accordance with the terms of some piece of legislation which apparently authorises it; it also means that the legislation has to be compatible with the rule of law. Which introduces a whole range of further criteria; legislation limiting a right has to be accessible; it has to be foreseeable; it has to be precise; it has to be such that the citizen can know what it requires of him; it has to not support arbitrary behaviour by the public authorities; it has to not afford an excessively wide or unfettered discretion, etc, etc. And the more fundamental the right infringed, and the greater the extent of the infringement, the more rigorously these tests are applied. So for example in _Gillan -v- UK_, UK anti-terrorist legislation authorising stop-and-search or cars and their occupants by the police on the basis of temporary authorisations issued by senior police officers was struck down by the European Court as being insufficiently circumscribed, potentially arbitrary, not subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse and therefore not “in accordance with the law”. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/70 "2014-07-30T03:31:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Article 12 – Right to marry > Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right. This seems to be completely devoid of substance: Doperia National Law Regarding the Exercise of Marriage Rights All men and women between the ages of 41 and 43 may marry a person of the opposite sex and of the same race as himself or herself. Marriage licenses are available between the hours of 2am and 2:30am at the bottom of the English Channel at cost of 1 million euros. It seems that such a provision meets the requirements of Article 12. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/71 "2014-07-30T03:34:39Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > And the ECHR has consistently held that this doesn’t just mean in accordance with the terms of some piece of legislation which apparently authorises it; it also means that the legislation has to be compatible with the rule of law. Your description of how the EU courts interpret the ECHR sounds very good. In the same way, U.S. courts have at various times also struck down stop-and-search laws that were considered onerous. At other times, though, they have allowed these laws precisely because of considerations of national security or public safety, both mentioned in Article 8. Without being familiar with case law I simply can’t know whether similar rationales have been accepted by EU courts or might be next week or next year. But the way that case law has been applied in this period is not the same argument as whether the two documents provide equivalent protection of rights. This discussion might have been conducted in hugely different ways if the Warren Court held sway rather than the Roberts Court. And this is my point. I cannot conceive of a structure that is not interpretable by courts in varying ways at varying times by varying judges. There can be an argument over which one better reflects one’s personal standards; there is no good argument that one is a priori better. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/72 "2014-07-30T04:23:57Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Your description of how the EU courts interpret the ECHR sounds very good. In the same way, U.S. courts have at various times also struck down stop-and-search laws that were considered onerous. At other times, though, they have allowed these laws precisely because of considerations of national security or public safety, both mentioned in Article 8. Without being familiar with case law I simply can’t know whether similar rationales have been accepted by EU courts or might be next week or next year. > > But the way that case law has been applied in this period is not the same argument as whether the two documents provide equivalent protection of rights. This discussion might have been conducted in hugely different ways if the Warren Court held sway rather than the Roberts Court. And this is my point. I cannot conceive of a structure that is not interpretable by courts in varying ways at varying times by varying judges. There can be an argument over which one better reflects one’s personal standards; there is no good argument that one is a priori better. Ultimately, you are dependent on the quality of the courts and the quality of the judges; your human rights documentation can never do more than give the courts and the judges the tools with which to defend human rights, but they have to be willing and able to use them. The whole “strict scrutiny” approach is not set out in the US Bill of Rights; it’s an approach the courts have developed to give the provisions of the Bill of Rights meaningful practical effect. The ECHR is taking a different approach, by reading a great deal into the phrase “in accordance with the law”, but the objective is the same; to make sure that the rights recognised in the Convention have force and effect, and the kind of tokenism that jtgain suggests won’t work to circumvent the Convention. Dependence on the judges is a weakness (or a strength?) shared by both systems, and so not a point of distinction between them. If there is a distinction, it’s probably to be found in the slightly differing lists of rights - the right to keep and bear arms being an obvious example, protected in the US but not under the Convention, or the right to freedom of conscience, protected under the Convention but only having limited protection under the Bill of Rights under the rubric of the free exercise of religion. But (a) I think these distinctions are fairly marginal, compared with the enormous amount recognised and protected by both systems, and (b) in many cases what we are really talking about is the balancing of competing rights. The US right to keep and bear arms, for example, may help to create an environment in which the right of the people to be secure in their homes and in public places is not vindicated as effectively as it might be. Or, the US and Europe may strike a different balance between the right to free speech, and the right not to be victimised on account of race or religion. Ultimately these are value judgments; you can’t show that the US has got it wrong by showing that Europe has struck a different balance, or vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/73 "2014-07-30T04:28:21Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > The whole “strict scrutiny” approach is not set out in the US Bill of Rights; it’s an approach the courts have developed to give the provisions of the Bill of Rights meaningful practical effect. . It seems to me that it serves to weaken the protections in the Bill of Rights. The text of the 1st amendment is absolute. Strict Scrutiny at least gives the government some leeway for truly vital cases. While this might seem a bit ad hoc, I think it’s served us well. You’ve allayed some of my concerns about the EU charter, but it still seems like there’s a much lower bar to clear than in the US. Just not as low as I feared. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/74 "2014-07-30T06:38:00Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This seems to be completely devoid of substance: > > Doperia National Law Regarding the Exercise of Marriage Rights > > All men and women between the ages of 41 and 43 may marry a person of the opposite sex and of the same race as himself or herself. Marriage licenses are available between the hours of 2am and 2:30am at the bottom of the English Channel at cost of 1 million euros. > > It seems that such a provision meets the requirements of Article 12. Which misses out interpretation by judges and the body of case law. In the 1950s when this was drafted when remarriage of divorcees in Catholic countries would have been a bar to this Article being included without the exception for National Laws. AFAIK no country in Europe now bans civil remarriage of divorcess (have checked Ireland and Italy, the obvious suspects which both now allow civil remarriage.) This site gives some background to the current position re Gay Marriage and Article 12 > **[No Right to Same-Sex Marriage under the ECHR](https://www.ejiltalk.org/no-right-to-same-sex-marriage-under-the-echr/)** > > Today a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04. The applicants alleged a violation of Art. 12, and Art. 8 combined with Art. 14, on the basis that Austrian law did not allow... which indicates that the court refers to intentions at the seting up of the convention that a marriage was a man and a woman. It is doubtful that anything like your proposal would be seen as reasonable currently. More than half a dozen European countries currently allow Gay Marriage and I suspect that at some future point the EcTHR will decide that such is a universal European right. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/75 "2014-07-30T06:39:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And being secure in your home. They actually allow the infringement of that right for “economic wellbeing”, which is actually kinda scary. Check Eminent Domain for the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/76 "2014-07-30T07:16:08Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Check Eminent Domain for the USA. I didn’t realize you were a fan or Ayn Rand. What you’re referring to also demands that those be give “just compensation”. Let’s compare that to the number of bigoted, backwards savage nations that actually deny citizenship to the children born within their borders Stop me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the xenophobic Island your nation resides one of those that refuses to join the 21st Century and follow the lead of the culturally superior nations of the US and Canada? I ask, because unless I misremember you took a position to the right if the most racist American politicians and said you thought it was idiotic of America to grant citizenship to the children of Mexican illegal immigrants. Here in America we deem people with such an attitude to be racist morons, but presumably you disagree and feel that it’s ridiculous. Thankfully for Muslim Americans and Hispanic Americans the US is culturally superior and less racist than Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/77 "2014-07-30T07:19:51Z")
BTW, I realized you still haven’t answered my question from the other thread. You claimed it was quite understandable that nearly half of all British citizens felt that British Jews were “more loyal to Israel than the UK”, because Jews were so “clannish”. Please, for the third time, explain how British Jews are “clannish”? Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be a well thought out answer. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/78 "2014-07-30T07:20:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What the EU document does is establish a much lower bar: rational basis. Which basically means that legislatures can limit these rights in any way they see fit, as long as it’s not absolutely ridiculous or oppressive. and sometimes even then. I believe booing the French national anthem is still illegal. Whereas in the US, we can’t even prosecute flag burning without an amendment to the Constitution. Well, that’s better than how the Bill of Rights started out. It didn’t apply to the states at all until the 20th century. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/79 "2014-07-30T07:22:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > BTW, I realized you still haven’t answered my question from the other thread. > > You claimed it was quite understandable that nearly half of all British citizens felt that British Jews were “more loyal to Israel than the UK”, because Jews were so “clannish”. > > Please, for the third time, explain how British Jews are “clannish”? > > Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be a well thought out answer. My full answer pointing out that I made no such specific claim about the Jews is on the other thread. You really must stop erecting Straw Man arguments. In summary, all I have ever said is that any out group in society will tend to be clannish for self protection. I teach in the field of devaluation and there is massive anthropological and sociological support for such a concept. Now stop embarrassing yourself by stalking. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2014, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225/80 "2014-07-30T07:29:14Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > My full answer pointing out that I made no such specific claim about the Jews is on the other thread. You really must stop erecting Straw Man arguments. > > In summary, all I have ever said is that any out group in society will tend to be clannish for self protection. Really? Then please explain to me why Jews are an “out group” in the UK but not in the US? Certainly in the US, anti-Semitism does occur but it’s not like almost 50% of all American citizens believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than the US government. > [@](#): > > I teach in the field of devaluation and there is massive anthropological and sociological support for such a concept. Congratulations. What university do you teach at? Also, can you tell me which, if any European countries have joined the 21st Century and don’t deny citizenship to any child born in the US the way civilized countries like the US and Canada do? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-billof-rights-and-european-convention-on-human-rights/694225.md?page=5)