Habsburg heir takes Austria to human rights court

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
news.yahoo.com...


A descendant of the Habsburgs is taking Austria to the European Court for Human Rights for not allowing him to run for president.

Ulrich Habsburg-Lothringen could not become a candidate in April elections because he lacked the required number of signatures and Austrian law bars members of ruling or former ruling families from running for the post.

The Habsburg dynasty was once Europe's most powerful royal house.

Lawyer Rudi Vouk said Tuesday the complaint filed with the Strasbourg-based court argues that Austria's ban violates Habsburg-Lothringen's human right to participate in democratic elections.

Austria's next presidential elections are set for 2016. The largely ceremonial position is currently held by Heinz Fischer, a Social Democrat.


How can they bar any non-criminal or non-foreign born citizen from not running for president? As long as he matches the age limits and other rules I don't see why a members of the former royal family cannot run for President of Austria.

What's your opinion?




posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
BUMP



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



I don't see why a members of the former royal
family cannot run for President of Austria.

Because that's the law? The article even says so.



As long as he matches the age limits and other rules

And other rules. Well, he failed on two accounts: he's a member of a legally excluded group, and even if he wasn't, he still failed to get the required number of signatures.



I don't see why a members of the former royal
family cannot run for President of Austria.

For exactly the reason the article states: " It was meant to quash any aspirations to reclaim the throne by members of the former royal family."



What's your opinion?

My opinion is that it's reasonable for people to make their own rules and live by them. Austria is entitled to make its own rules. You not liking them isn't their problem.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by Misoir
 



I don't see why a members of the former royal
family cannot run for President of Austria.

Because that's the law? The article even says so.



As long as he matches the age limits and other rules

And other rules. Well, he failed on two accounts: he's a member of a legally excluded group, and even if he wasn't, he still failed to get the required number of signatures.



I don't see why a members of the former royal
family cannot run for President of Austria.

For exactly the reason the article states: " It was meant to quash any aspirations to reclaim the throne by members of the former royal family."



What's your opinion?

My opinion is that it's reasonable for people to make their own rules and live by them. Austria is entitled to make its own rules. You not liking them isn't their problem.


Spot on, spot on. The big thing is that he was a member/still is a member of the royal family. If you haven't noticed that many European nations that had monarchs at one time still have them trying to get back into govt., but they get stopped all the time. So many have family or are exiled to other countries and are essentially a monarch or family of royals without a country just the "title" they use to impress people. Also here is a quote from wiki that pretty much sums up why the idiot can't go into office.

"On November 11, 1918, with his empire collapsing around him, the last Habsburg ruler, Charles I (who also reigned as Charles IV of Hungary) issued a proclamation recognizing Austria's right to determine the future of the state and renouncing any role in state affairs. Two days later, he issued a separate proclamation for Hungary. Even though he did not officially abdicate, this is considered the end of the Habsburg dynasty. In 1919, the new republican Austrian government subsequently passed a law banishing the Habsburgs from Austrian territory until they renounced all intentions of regaining the throne and accepted the status of private citizens. Charles made several attempts to regain the throne of Hungary, and in 1921 the Hungarian government passed a law which revoked Charles' rights and dethroned the Habsburgs.

The Habsburgs did not formally abandon all hope of returning to power until Otto von Habsburg, Emperor Charles' eldest son, renounced all claims to the throne."

The Europeans got tired of much of their Aristocracy.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


I was saying other than that one absurd law I don't understand why he can't run, and the whole signature thing.

And yes I know it doesn't matter what I say it is their own nation, but I was simply stating my OPINION.



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Assuming that all of mankind is equal and should be judged by individual actions rather than the actions of their ancestors or next of kin then the banning of a former monarch family descendant is against that fundamental idea.

In any case it makes sense that this law was instated in that time as these monarchs were basically a mafia structured organization as all royal and noble families still are today. It should be clear however that basic laws should protect us from the individuals that have a broader agenda from entering politics. Unfortunately I see no difference between an oil monarch and a monarch born by blood. Or their henchmen that entered the political arena solely to serve their own egoism.

Unless we ensure that all processes that control the government and vice verse are fully transparent anybody with a hidden agenda can operate from within. I do not believe that a banning a handful of people from the political arena from historical reasons is productive to establishing such transparency because it's a decision that was made to exclude an organization (family) that already had shown their capabilities to rule and parasite. Perhaps it is more productive to establish ways to seek out and eliminate that what can bring certain people on these ruling positions.

Just my 2 cents perhaps some disagree



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I am so glad that this is a thread! I saw it in the free newspaper and was intrigued. Let's talk monarchs!

The human rights court will most likely favour the prince, it does not look kindly on discrimination based on heredity!

The emperor did not officially abdicate; he granted the assemblies of his realms a greater share in governance, much like the English monarchs have done for centuries. The difference is that the English have gradually expanded the 'government club,' but the Austrian, German and Russian monarchs had been far too conservative to allow gradual democratization. Otto von Hapsburg may have abdicated, but this does not cancel out his son's birthright.

As I predicted in one of my threads (please check my profile if you care!) the popular sentiments in Europe are turning back towards monarchism. After each of the world wars, the monarchies that lost to the Anglo-American Allies were left severely weakened and unable to maintain power over the country. The main appeal of a monarch is that they are personally responsible for the maintenance of state affairs; if the state falters, so do their own fortunes. This motivates monarchs to be very careful and conservative, and leads them to try to stabilize the realm. Elected presidents and sovereign Assemblies lack this personal investment in the affairs of state; it does not matter to them whether or not the realm is stable, as long as they can achieve their own agendas. Monarchs will present themselves as forces of stability and fiscal responsibility when they are ready to run for public office again. It is easy to see how they can present monarchy as an alternative to messy presidential governments.

An important note: after the world wars, because the surviving monarchies had so depleted their resources, they were unable to support monarchists in other countries. The White Russians, for example, were defeated by the Red Army despite the support of the House of Windsor. The power that filled the vacuum was the United States, which promoted republican groups in the former monarchies; the free states that resulted from the world wars adopted republican constitutions for the most part (Yugoslavia is an important exception, I suspect because the King of Italy had vital interests in the region). I suspect that, as the USA's power wanes due to the economic crisis, their republican comrades across Europe will find themselves without their greatest backer and will wane alongside the Americans.
edit on 6-10-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join