Human Rights legislation has been abused and misused and as such discredited.
Whereas what a bunch of increasingly unhinged, right-wing, shamelessly politically motivated, populist, self-serving, tabloid-pandering, UKIP-lite, Tory career politicians come up with as an alternative will be a massive improvement, and doubtless a faultless piece of legalisation, and a legal masterpiece?
🙄
great analysis of the document here;
[url= http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/10/03/protecting-human-rights-in-the-uk-the-tory-human-rights-plan/ ]http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/10/03/protecting-human-rights-in-the-uk-the-tory-human-rights-plan/[/url]
[i]
"The spelling used suggests no lawyer has been involved in drafting the document."[/i]
so chances of there being loop holes that the 'sort of people' (ie. everyone they disagree with) it's designed to let the government of the day deal with as they choose will be able to find legal room to maneuver.
Is it actually possible to end the UK's adherence to the ECHR? It may be a case of being able to sign the convention, but not leave it; so no matter what laws the UK parliament may pass in this regard a UK or European citizen will still have redress to the European courts (via the judicial system of another EU member state if a UK court refuses to hear the case) with the judgement and remedies remaining binding on the UK govt, no matter how the choose to deem any judgement 'advisory'.
The country is all the richer for these people continuing to live here:
http://www.****/news/article-2646634/Mum-killed-baby-deported-human-right-family-life.html
http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-foreign-rioter-we-cant-deport-due-to-human-rights-74574
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/489750/Jamaican-killer-cannot-be-deported-because-of-human-rights
http://www.****/news/article-2519621/Vicious-rapist-deport--right-family-life.html
Daily Mail, Telegraph, Daily Express...
well done robdixon, youve nicely summed up the naive, confused and idiotic stance of the rightwing press and the gullibility of those that swalllow that BS
The whole point of human rights is that they are UNIVERSAL, however uncomfortable that may sometimes be...
We're fond in this country of lecturing the rest of the world about democracy. We're doing it in Iraq. Daves in Afghanistan banging on about it at the moment. The hypocrisy is staggering, but unsurprising is this shameless, oily bunch of shysters.
So what message does this send out then? Yeah... we've decided to abandon a universal commitment to human rights, because bits of it didn't suit our political agenda. So we're going to get some tabloid editors to sketch us a 'Bill of Rights' on the back of a fag packet, and use that instead
that express story ! 😯
Is it actually possible to end the UK's adherence to the ECHR? It may be a case of being able to sign the convention, but not leave it; so no matter what laws the UK parliament may pass in this regard a UK or European citizen will still have redress to the European courts (via the judicial system of another EU member state if a UK court refuses to hear the case) with the judgement and remedies remaining binding on the UK govt, no matter how the choose to deem any judgement 'advisory'.
But that seems to be largely what its actually designed to curb - that we will still be bound by the charter of fundamental rights (and lets remember that most of that charter originated here) however within a framework of UK law, where UK courts and parliament are supreme.
This debate is reminding me of the one we had 12-18 months ago on immigration and how it wasn't an issue according to many here. Now we have UKIP on 20-25% of the vote (I read yesterday there is a decent shot they may overturn the Labour majority in the upcoming by-election and plenty of quotes from Labour voters who where worried about immigration). This is an issue the population cares about, trying to categorise the majority who do as gullible shows what some here think of democracy. Why not produce a list of all the good things the ECHR has done for the UK ?
I love the assumption that rulings made by a selection of mostly foreign judges, often from jurisdictions with less than exemplary systems of jurisprudence, are somehow our last defence against subjugation by the evil Tories.
Yes there is electioneering going on here, but can any of you usual suspects explain to me why the European court should be the final arbiter of justice for British citizens? No arguments about the general principles of the UNHCR are being made here, just their implementation, interpretation and exercise.
My personal view is that we wrote the thing and I generally agree with it. However it's application is a travesty and I don't believe foreign judges should have a right to overrule our legislative system.
@binners what is being proposed is absolutely democratic !
+1, the proposal means that ultimate responsibility rests in the people, via the elected UK parliament, not unelected foreign judges, its more democratic than what we have at the moment.
Yeah... because the motivation for this is the Tory's steadfast commitment to democracy, and their constant championing of the needs of the British people
This would be more democratic? In what way? So what you're saying is that British justice is inherently superior to the justice systems of everybody else signed up to the ECHR?
That just sounds like the kind of typically small-minded, Faragist, little englander mentality peddled by the Mail, and which, rather depressingly, seems to be gripping our political system at the moment
the proposal means that ultimate responsibility rests in the people, via the elected UK parliament, not unelected foreign judges, its more democratic than what we have at the moment.
Sorry..... remind me when we started electing our judges in this country again? I must have missed that one. I got the impression they were pretty much all drawn from the same narrow, unrepresentative elite. If its a choice to who's writing our legal framework between non-political impartial judges (foreign or otherwise), and a bunch of right wing career politicians, I know which I think we'd be safest with
Klunk - Member
that express story !
I know its ridiculous, fails to mention some very important points, that he was found not guilty of murder, and that he was already serving 9 years for manslaughter
terrible reporting
I know its ridiculous, fails to mention some very important points, that he was found not guilty of murder, and that he was already serving 9 years for manslaughterterrible reporting
Like anything found in the right-wing papers bar the Times, their stories are invariably never based on fact as they know their readership are to thick, lazy or outright unwilling to check them.
jambalaya - Member
Why not produce a list of all the good things the ECHR has done for the UK ?
how about the 99.15% ECHR of appeals that go in favour of the UK government according to a lawyer on the news just now
or you can just keep on falling for the politics of fear; hook, line and sinker.
You're suggesting I read the personal opinions of a member of the house of Lords, and view that as some kind of impartial analysis of the ECHR?
A member of an unelected, wholly politically appointed legislature criticising the ECHR as undemocratic? Did you forget to switch your irony filter on this morning? 😆
ah, sorry, are you arguing that he's actually wrong in anything that he says?
or just that you won't listen to him because he's a member of the house of lords?
[i]"Lord Judge (called 1963, Silk 1979) was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal in 1996. He was Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales (1998-2003), and in 2005 was appointed as the first President of the Queen’s Bench Division."[/i]
I'd say he's likely to know something about the subject...
probably ought to read this then ninfan
If the President is correct, what constitutes a necessity in a democratic society is left, in the ultimate analysis, exclusively, to a body of unelected judges, and has been removed from the legislative body elected through the ordinary democratic processes
The point is, is that certain values should be beyond the scope of democracy - otherwise we end up with Ochlocracy. Putting human rights beyond easy manipulation by politicians as the Americans did with the supreme court and as we did with the ECHR protects those values, meaning that a system of political checks and balances can't be destroyed by the passions of the electorate or the corruption of government.
I don't think I'll be listening to lectures on democratic accountability from an appointed member of the House of Lords, probably the most indefensibly undemocratic legislature this side of a tinpot dictatorship, thanks.
Does anyone know what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks on the subject?
probably ought to read this then ninfan
Happy to, unlike Binners I thoroughly support the concept of reading and digesting opinions of people with knowledge and experience who might disagree on an issue, because thats how you further your own knowledge 🙂
bainbrge - MemberYes there is electioneering going on here, but can any of you usual suspects explain to me why the European court should be the final arbiter of justice for British citizens?
Simply, because the best way to protect a citizen from their own government is to have a further level of appeal that goes outwith the state.
kimbers - MemberI know its ridiculous, fails to mention some very important points, that he was found not guilty of murder, and that he was already serving 9 years for manslaughter
terrible reporting
???
Express
Johnson was cleared of murder saying he used the sharpened piece of wood and knuckle duster in self defence.
Daily Mail
Drug-dealing killer jailed for nine years for manslaughter can't be deported
kimbers - Memberwell done robdixon, youve nicely summed up the naive, confused and idiotic stance of the rightwing press and the gullibility of those that swalllow that BS
As opposed to the deafening silence of the left wing press who simply chose not to report it? 😛
What about the soldiers who raised a claim because their colleagues were being sent out in ill-equipped 'snatch' landrovers and being blown to shreds?
They'll be limited by this, as its UK only:
"Limit the reach of human rights cases to the UK, so that British Armed forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job and keep us safe."
🙂
I like that double-talk of claiming it will allow them to do their jobs, when its going to deny them the right to protest if they're sent out with rifles made of cheese!
Thought the Tories were pro-squaddy? Not by this they aren't.
well done robdixon, youve nicely summed up the naive, confused and idiotic stance of the rightwing press and the gullibility of those that swalllow that BS
Would you like to have another go at that, so you can have a go at playing the ball rather than the man ?
scotroutes - Member
Not applicable in Scotland...
All it takes is an amendment to the scotland act, which they can do any time they like.
So i wouldn't be particularly confident about that.
I think this whole issue symbolises how far to the right UKIP has dragged the political conversation in this country. To even be proposing this is utter madness. God only knows what other barking mad ideas they've got lined up to try and out-UKIP UKIP. Its pretty terrifying the direction the present Tory party is heading in. And I genuinely believe, if this kind of nonsense is anything to go by, a Tory victory would be absolutely catastrophic for this country.
If the labour party worth worth calling an actual opposition, they'd be busy pointing out the insanity of all this right wing reactionary claptrap. Whats that we hear from Ed..... oh... what a surprise.... nothing at all.
Simply, because the best way to protect a citizen from their own government is to have a further level of appeal that goes outwith the state.
Well the United States think a constitution is the best way. The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.
Would you like to have another go at that, so you can have a go at playing the ball rather than the man ?
well by omission the Express fail to report that hes in prison for the manslaughter, inferring hes at large, which he isnt
and he hasnt been granted indefinite leave to stay in the UK, the judge has agreed that he is able to have his appeal heard by the immigration tribunal, (although the assylum and immigration tribunal was disbanded in 2011 even then the majority of appeals -70%- did not succeed)
and it was replaced by the office of immigration at the first tier court which (apparently) rejects even more appeals
so in all likelihood he will be deported and we can all sleep a bit safer in our beds
Well the United States think a constitution is the best way. The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.
You can bet the Tories would never bring in a constitution that was for all intents and purposes out of the reach of politicians. So I'd rather keep the ECHR.
Thought the Tories were pro-squaddy? Not by this they aren't.
They never have been, squaddies are usually lower class oiks that shouldn't be complaining.
the best way to protect a citizen from their own government is to have a further level of appeal that goes out with the state.
The prisoner voting issue sums it up perfectly though - regardless of whether you think prisoners should have the vote personally, do you think that the correct jurisdiction for that decision is with our own parliament, or somewhere else?
If that decision were left to the present Tory party, they wouldn't have the right to vote, as they'd have hung them all. But with Paul Dacre apparently now writing their policy for them, on the hoof, give it a few weeks and that'll be a policy proposal too
binners - Member
I think this whole issue symbolises how far to the right UKIP has dragged the political conversation in this country. To even be proposing this is utter madness. God only knows what other barking mad ideas they've got lined up to try and out-UKIP UKIP. Its pretty terrifying the direction the present Tory party is heading in. And I genuinely believe, if this kind of nonsense is anything to go by, a Tory victory would be absolutely catastrophic for this country.If the labour party worth worth calling an actual opposition, they'd be busy pointing out the insanity of all this right wing reactionary claptrap. Whats that we hear from Ed..... oh... what a surprise.... nothing at all.
As someone said, the tories are combating UKIP, by becoming UKIP.
@binners how can it be catastrophic for the UK not to be subject to the ECHR ? We managed OK for a very long time without it. I don't think UKIP have dragged the debate to the right, I think the British people have done that and politicians have responded. The same is true in other countries, there are some significant issues politicians have been trying to ignore.
You're right. When you ask most people about their priorities, they don't talk about the NHS, education, or our bawked economy, they get straight onto the stuff that really matter to peoples day to day lives. The European Convention of Human Rights.
The swivel eyed loons of the Tory Party and UKIP are always banging on about the European Bogeyman, but it just never registers in the top ten of voters concerns, who've generally got more important stuff to be thinking about. So, to me, this is just yet another example of reactionary little englander nonsense that the right just obsesses about. And I don't want those people in power thanks, with frankly ludicrous proposals like this, because that'd be ultimately incredibly bad for us as a country
My personal view is that we wrote the thing and I generally agree with it. However it's application is a travesty and I don't believe foreign judges should have a right to overrule our legislative system.
It's not overruling the UK legislature. The legislature voted to adopt the ECHR and to make all subsequent legislation consistently with it. The court just finds whether or not the other legislation is consistent with the ECHR and returns it to the member state. The member state is free to act like Belarus and legislate inconsistently with the ECHR.
The UK legislature could also vote to renounce the ECHR and be like Belarus.
I think this whole issue symbolises how far to the right UKIP has dragged the political conversation in this country.
I don't think you can lay all the blame at UKIPs door. The Conservatives also have to distance themselves from Labour.
jambalaya - MemberWell the United States think a constitution is the best way. The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.
Absolutely, a constitution is another way to do it. But having today's government write a constitution is not a good way to defend citizens from today's government (regardless of who they may be)
ninfan - MemberThe prisoner voting issue sums it up perfectly though - regardless of whether you think prisoners should have the vote personally, do you think that the correct jurisdiction for that decision is with our own parliament, or somewhere else?
I think that having the right to vote be a political football is an incredibly bad idea (and that the case demonstrates that really well), so yes, I think it should lie somewhere else.
And it sums up the issue perfectly in other ways- because the facts of the story are far more nuanced than most people know (or care). And the government would rather spin it and bluster rather than put into place the minor changes in process required to make us compliant. If anything, you learn more about the ECHR by watching their subsequent actions over the subsequent 10 years- slow, patient, considered, ruling against compensation payments etc, it's hardly the actions of an overbearing powertripper.
kimbers - Memberhow about the 99.15% ECHR of appeals that go in favour of the UK government according to a lawyer on the news just now
It seems he was referring to the number that the ECHR throws out as inadmissable.
The actual number of cases that they proceeded with involving the UK last year was 35, of which 12 were upheld.
It amazes me the Tories utter hypocrisy on anything EU related anyway. They bang on and on about the ECHR, because they instinctively dislike it. Yet they're all for the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/eu-us-free-trade-deal-ttip-transatlantic-trade-investment-partnership ]EU US Trade Deal[/url] which has some pretty sinister implications that we should all be very concerned about. But they're ok with that because it suits their neo-con corporatist agenda perfectly. So what they want is to wave through the EU legislation that suits their political agenda, whilst choosing to ignore any part of it that doesn't fit their narrow right wing narrative
It's Friday binners so I shall thoroughly endorse your last comment on the EU/US trade deal, quite ridiculous that a foreign company could overule UK government policy via a trade treaty and get compensation. Very sinister indeed.
