MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
The European Convention on Human Rights all seems like fairly cool stuff:
[img] 
[/img]
So can someone explain why Tories are so keen for us abolish it? Which bit do they object to?
I know they got a bit upset when they weren't allowed to have compulsory ID cards or indefinitely store the fingerprints and DNA of innocent people.
But is that really a good reason to join Belarus, the last dictatorship in Europe, as the the only country not signed up to the European Human Rights Convention?
They're not means tested.
Those pesky foreigners wont let us be mean to our own citizens...the bastards
Well raised GrahamS. How many people have benefitted from this? Sadly, the likes of the Daily Fail, only raise it when mentioning the likes of Abu Hamza.
The notion that the nasties want to abolish this makes me very, very angry indeed.
Remember that they've a small majority and I daresay they won't get every right-wing mentalist legislation change passed.
Human rights are only needed by terrorists, are you a terrorist? Sounds a bit like it TBH.
The brain dead pond life that think it needs abolishing should be deported to one of the lovely countries that doesn't have/regularly flouts these rights, to see what fun times it can be for people at the wrong end of state abuse these rights protect against.
Britain has been there and done it, we moved on long ago.
The perceived problems are the one in a million cases where "perceived common sense" doesn't seem to apply. Deporting people seems to be the main one, also prisoners voting (may be to do with the prison locations and marginal seats though) makes lots of right wing headlines but not much else, to get round this would allow many more bad things unfortunately.
There's nothing wrong with the Act IMHO, it's the interpretation that the rights of one person can outweigh the rights of the many
Is it right that one anti-social person can invoke the act to the detriment of their victims and justice (all of which may be in another country)?
Let's not forget the enormous cost of the process to the general population (through taxes) in both countries
(...opens up a whole debate on judicial systems in other countries and the price of justice 😳 )
Timba gets it.
The act is fine, the interpretation by well meaning but brain dead academics in the judicial system can be farcical.
As Timba said, when a scumbag can invoke his 'human rights' to the detriment of the victim, the cost to the tax payer and as a nice triple whammy seemingly be at odds with common sense then it seems sensible to give it an overhaul.
We don't need it and could instead draw up a UK style constitution or bill of rights instead....the better informed may be able to correct me on this but didn't the UK have common law, Magna Carta etc which covered an awful lot of what the EU human rights duplicates?
It's a cliche now but at one point (maybe still now?) the British justice system was the envy of the world for its fairness and equality, that sentiment predates the EU and didn't evaporate on joining up, Jesus we don't give ourselves enough credit most of the time!....whatever did we do before the EU was there to hold our hand?! FFS
The human rights scrapping is a probably a diversionary tactic from some other severe cuts in social care or some other privatisation bill.
The act is fine, the interpretation by well meaning but brain dead academics in the judicial system can be farcical.As Timba said, when a scumbag can invoke his 'human rights' to the detriment of the victim,
I'd like to see one written with a Scumbag exclusion clause, problem is you then have to define scumbag and what a scumbag is and how scummy the scumbag is. One of those problems when you write down rules.
the better informed may be able to correct me on this but didn't the UK have common law, Magna Carta etc which covered an awful lot of what the EU human rights duplicates?
Yes we did, and that's one of the reasons that we were founder members of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, lead by David Maxwell-Fyfe a British Conservate MP ironically enough.
the British justice system was the envy of the world for its fairness and equality, that sentiment predates the EU
Then why did the ECHR have to step in on matters such as compulsory ID cards, detainment without trial, indefinite storage of fingerprints and DNA of innocent people, and the rights of homosexuals?
The act is fine, the interpretation by well meaning but brain dead academics in the judicial system can be farcical.
Do you mean educated experienced legal professionals (like judges) who disagree with you? Thats the thing really the opposition to the act is based on a fantasy that it creates some kind of terrorist/criminal utopia.
My biggest problem with it is that article 8 has not been implemented any where near strongly enough. The right to privacy in the digital age has been completely brushed aside, partly by knee jerk Government agency data collections, but mainly by commercial use of private data.
Are the Tories getting rid of the HRA which is UK legislation, or are they refusing to be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights?
They want to amend the HRA but can't really without breaking away from EHRC. As I see it, if they reject EHRC then we'd have to leave EU (another of their fine plans)
And as for "educated experienced professionals" - I work with some of those (albeit not in the legal sense) and a lot of them don't really understand how to relate to reality. Principles and policies are all well and good to guide but i don't see much difference between someone who lives their lives based on 200 yr old written laws and fundamental religionists who interpret good from evil by reading a 2000yr old book
The Act just allows domestic courts to apply the convention--we still have a right to individual petition. So if you want to assert a right you will have to schlep over to Strasbourg. If the tories want to try to renege on its international obligations altogether they'll have to withdraw from the convention. So the UK will have to leave the Council of Europe (of which the Uk was a founding member--Google 'churchill' and 'place kleber'). So the UK will be the only member of the EU that isn't also a member of the CoE and a signatory to the convention (o and the the EU as an entity's accession to the convention is a looong standing work in progress--I assume if that happens the tories will have us leave the EU too). Tbh the convention norms are so established that on an international level the UK is probably bound under customary international law anyway.
[url= https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/withdrawal-from-the-echr-a-venn-diagram/ ]https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/withdrawal-from-the-echr-a-venn-diagram/[/url]
It will be great PR for dictators everywhere, next time the West chastises them for stringing people up without trial they just say that the UK binned Human Rights.....
Utterly shameful if we bin the EHRC.
It needs updating not abolishing.
And as for "educated experienced professionals" - I work with some of those (albeit not in the legal sense) and a lot of them don't really understand how to relate to reality. Principles and policies are all well and good to guide but i don't see much difference between someone who lives their lives based on 200 yr old written laws and fundamental religionists who interpret good from evil by reading a 2000yr old book
They are Judges, who's job is to deal with criminal law on a daily basis.
Can anyone explain where these fantasy academics and theists come into the application of the human rights convention? Other than in some peoples imagination.
It needs updating not abolishing.
Which part of it would you update? I mean of the real thing, not the bullshit imaginary version that the daily mail gets all frothy about.
It's just another step on the road to becoming an absolute laughing stock on the international stage
It needs updating not abolishing.
Why? As the ECtHR says on a regular basis, the convention is 'a living instrument which ... must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions'. The UK falls often foul of the convention because its practices are way behind developments in other member states.
Maybe Human Rights interferes with the commercial rights of the non-dom billionaire owners of the the UK media who sponsor the Tory party?
Isn't it something to do with straight bananas?
Human rights acts are always going to be unpopular with "The Masses" as they are not there to protect them, they are there to protect a minority of people who need it. It's one of those policies that shows strong government as they need to say "I know a lot of you don't like this but this is why it's here to stay and why it's important". Sadly, no current party has the strength to do this.
Timba plus one.
Anything written down is open to interpretation, and lawyers earn a fortune arguing any vagueness left by incompetent legislators.
All laws should cone with coomon sense and common good clause.
The act is fine, the interpretation by well meaning but brain dead academics in the judicial system can be farcical.
Ad hom and not even an accurate one.
As Timba said, when a scumbag can invoke his 'human rights' to the detriment of the victim, the cost to the tax payer and as a nice triple whammy seemingly be at odds with common sense then it seems sensible to give it an overhaul.
Ah the Daily Mail argument Can you cite examples where this happens ? ie the scumbag gets more rights than the victim or does better out of it that the victim?
We don't need it and could instead draw up a UK style constitution or bill of rights instead
Which is of curse any govt could then re write when they are found to not be obeying it. We lose a check and balance on what govt can do to us. There will be no check to their power and this is not a good thing.[ narrowly avoids a goodwin]
....
the better informed may be able to correct me on this but didn't the UK have common law, Magna Carta* etc which covered an awful lot of what the EU human rights duplicates?
Well as we were at the forefront of drafting and the leadt person was British then yes. The real question is why we cannot live by stnadards we woucl in 1950
[u][b]Its not the EU its seperate from the EU
[/b][/u]
It's a cliche now but at one point (maybe still now?) the British justice system was the envy of the world for its fairness and equality, that sentiment predates the EU and didn't evaporate on joining up, Jesus we don't give ourselves enough credit most of the time!....whatever did we do before the EU was there to hold our hand?! FFS
That statement is so full of wrong its embarrassing.
Indeed and when it was the envy of the world [ jingoistic pish tbh] we gave Europe the human rights acts which we signed way before we joined the EU . Could you at least read up on the thing you are criticising ?.
Do you really think unilaterally withdrawing will some how increase our prestige in the eyes of the world?
This is the problem we have to debate emotive uniformed and inaccurate DM style frothing like this as the RW press has blamed everything in Human rights...the rights we helped form and give to Europe that we now cannot live by
Its embarrassing for the nation tbh that "informed" views like that are winning out
*I would read up on the Magna carta as I doubt you are a noble man needing your relationship with the monarch formalised. It was not about ordinary folk on their rights.
I would read up on that as well as you dont seem to know what that was about either
Which bit do they object to?
I don't think they object to any of the articles in their entirety, but inconvenient parts of many. Article 8 and Snoopers Charter stands out for me. How the f*** we have let people believe that dragnet surveillance is a useful and resource efficient way of catching bad folk is beyond me.
Would its removal ease the passage of TTIP?
I know they got a bit upset when they weren't allowed to have compulsory ID cards or indefinitely store the fingerprints and DNA of innocent people.
I'm not sure the EHRC stops ID cards, after all most of Europe have them. They were stopped more by public outrage.
Anyway Junkyard +100.
There are some daft examples of the Convention being used in ways that are not popular with the public. However the whole point of the Convention is that it needs to be completely watertight- these laws need to apply to everyone, no exceptions. If you start making exceptions in particularly nasty cases you then have a precedent set which may be used in cases where generally vulnerable people need help. It is also the sign of a bigger man if you can go "I know you are nasty, but we will not be so barbaric as to stoop to your level".
The Convention helps people who are vulnerable most of the time, with some examples of it being exploited, and it will help more people than you could ever imagine. Speaking from my point of view I am one of a large number of people married to a non-EU citizen who is currently holding out for the success of a case brought by Marianne Bailey.
The delightful government that has just been voted in changed the rules on non-EU spouses during their last term and decided that if a British citizen has non-EU family and earns less than £18,000 a year then they waive their right to family life and a visa will not be granted, regardless of any other circumstances. If I lost my job tomorrow then my wife's next visa application would not be granted, despite us being married for nearly 3 years and her having lived here for 8 years. Bailey is in a situation where she technically doesn't meet the criteria (she is self employed and makes a second income from rents) and her husband was due to be deported a few weeks before the birth of their child. She has gone to the courts to appeal this and the judges decided that the rules broke the Convention. The government appealed, and won, and now Bailey is heading for the European Human Rights Court, and will likely win.
The Convention is there so vulnerable people are not picked on, and it keeps governments in check. If you have a government that sacks it off and self regulates then they can effectively do what they want, and that will lead to a lot of people not having their rights upheld.
It's a good thing, and I can't see how you could think otherwise.
The reasoning and planning is laid out in this document
Timba has it. Nothing wrong with the act but overtime through judgments/caselaw the interpretation has been diluted particularly under, imo, Article 8
I'm not sure the EHRC stops ID cards, after all most of Europe have them. They were stopped more by public outrage.
They were stopped because Labour lost the election, otherwise they were a done deal.
We invented human rights and made the Europeans sign up to them as they clearly had no idea what the hell they might be. Unfortunately we put the Europeans in charge of them and they still don't understand them.
It would seem from a brief skim that they do not disagree with the convention itself but the implementation and scope creep from the EU courts.
I'm not sure what the implications will be but I await the usual suspects to put on the tin foil hats and tell us we'll all be barcoded and in gulags b the end of the month.
the interpretation has been diluted particularly under, for me, Article 8
How? Why don't people have a right to family life? Can you imagine if the government came to your door tomorrow and said "you don't earn this much money, so your wife has to leave"? Can you really, honestly say that having an outside body stopping families from being ripped apart is a bad thing?
😆
What is so funny jonba? I take it you find reading difficult and failed to see how munrobikers statement directly related to his life.
All laws should cone with coomon sense and common good clause.
AND a set of John Wayne commemorative wall plates.
Although maybe you shouldn't draft them.
Can anyone using the "common sense" argument please give examples of when the HRA has been misinterpreted?
Just because you don't understand why a court has reached the decision it has doesn't mean that their decision is wrong.
Just because the HRA is cited when decisions you don't understand are reported to you by journalists who also do not understand them, it doesn't make the HRA wrong, or out of date or liberal hogwash or whatever.
What is common sense, anyway?
The revised version
[img] 
[/img]
What is so funny jonba? I take it you find reading difficult and failed to see how munrobikers statement directly related to his life.
I think it's fair actually, I got my articles confused 😳
Still, Article 8 is just as important. It's a bit 1984 losing it.
The Human Rights Act is common sense and directly intends the common good that is why the Torys hate it. It stands up for the rights of the citizen against the state just like The Rule of Law and Judicial Review both of which the Torys have sought to undermine.
Their is nothing wrong with any of it and by definition it cannot be eroded or expanded by case law and precedent each issue is decided on its individual merits .
It is not a "scumbags charter" it enforces victims rights as much as suspects .
It does not sacrifice the good of the many to the rights of the individual draconian preventative orders such as SOPO's ASBO's and Mental Health Protection orders are all Hunan Rights compliant.
[b]It would seem from a brief skim that they do not disagree with the convention itself but the implementation and scope creep from the EU courts.[/b]
The convention and its enforcement mechanism didn't happened [i]to[/i] the UK--the UK was a founding member of the Council of Europe, it was instrumental in drafting the convention, it has a judge in the ECtHR. But it appeals to the DM mentality to blame those pesky Europeans
And the ECHR isn't an EU treaty, it's a convention of the Council of Europe enforced by the ECtHR
I'm not sure the EHRC stops ID cards, after all most of Europe have them. They were stopped more by public outrage.
Article from 2005:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1482652/ID-cards-could-fall-foul-of-human-rights-law.html
The UK has one of the strongest records on Human Rights, we as a country are perfectly capable of having our own Human Rights Bill.
The single biggest problem with the European bill is that it overrides our courts on matters of human rights, as a secondary issue this is a commonly used tactic by lawyers to bypass UK law - almost like a "get out of jail free" card
As that article points out it's not the concept of ID cards that falls foul of human rights laws, but the particular implementation that the Labour government had drawn up.
The single biggest problem with the European bill is that it overrides our courts on matters of human rights, as a secondary issue this is a commonly used tactic by lawyers to bypass UK law - almost like a "get out of jail free" card
Examples?
The single biggest problem with the European bill is that it overrides our courts on matters of human rights, as a secondary issue this is a commonly used tactic by lawyers to bypass UK law - almost like a "get out of jail free" card
Bollocks.
"as a secondary issue this is a commonly used tactic by lawyers to bypass UK law - almost like a "get out of jail free" card" not even slightly true.
"we as a country are perfectly capable of having our own Human Rights Bill."
We have it's called The Human Rights Act 1988.
The single biggest [s]problem[/s] [b]plus[/b] with the European bill is that it overrides our courts on matters of human rights [b]when UK law does not protect human rights[/b]
An alternative viewpoint
The single biggest problem with the European bill is that it overrides our courts on matters of human rights
Number of times in 2014 that the UK was judged to be in violation of the act by the ECHR?
Anyone?
[url= http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_violation_2014_ENG.pdf ]Four[/url].
How? Why don't people have a right to family life? Can you imagine if the government came to your door tomorrow and said "you don't earn this much money, so your wife has to leave"? Can you really, honestly say that having an outside body stopping families from being ripped apart is a bad thing?
Not saying they dont have a right to family life but its about balance with with other laws: if someone entered the UK via clandestine means, has no lawful status & has been convicted of a crime in a court of law, why should their Article 8 right take precedence? We could play around with scenarios all day but judgements/caselaw have tipped the balance more towards Article 8 being engaged despite the breaking of other rules/laws
The single biggest problem with the European bill is that it overrides our courts on matters of human rights, as a secondary issue this is a commonly used tactic by lawyers to bypass UK law - almost like a "get out of jail free" card
You have to have an exceptional case to get there- they won't review anything and everything, and you have to have been through the UK courts to get there. Also their decision isn't binding in the UK, although you'd be pretty foolish to ignore them.
I wonder if the existing UKHRA legislation is 'repeal proof' under european law?
Cameron might be biting off more than he can chew in trying to take the EU judiciary on.
abolishing our rights is all a part of their 'new world order plan' yea, that new world order that they Still haven't really told us about in any real detail 😕
the Only reason they could want to abolish OUR human rights ACT is for underhanded reasons that you can bet yer ass will Not be good for the people in any way.
Abolish Government as we know it! now THAT would be much better for the people 🙂 ha ha ha
You have to have an exceptional case to get there- they won't review anything and everything, and you have to have been through the UK courts to get there.
Yep, the ECHR reject or refer the vast majority of cases:
[img] 
[/img]
([url= http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2014_ENG.pdf ]Source: 2014 figures for the UK[/url])
They are Judges, who's job is to deal with criminal law on a daily basis.
not in question - but as I tried to point out, those who professionally interpret the written 'law' in order to make it fit in a changing world often lose track of the original purpose
You cannot bypass UK law by using UK law.
Again we have to fight falsehoods and great insights like this.
As for overruling being the biggest problem it the whole point of what it does or it would not be a check on the power of the state would it 🙄
The electorate is so dumb down its embarrassing.
"if someone entered the UK via clandestine means, has no lawful status & has been convicted of a crime in a court of law, why should their Article 8 right take precedence?"
Their Article 8 right would not and does not take precedence in that scenario. Article 8 is not one of the non derogable rights.
we as a country are perfectly capable of having our own Human Rights Bill.
The problem is not that we are incapable of having our own HRB, it is that we have not actually used that capability to create one. A second problem is the question of the impartiality of UK judges and how such a HRB would be enforced.
[b]those who professionally interpret the written 'law' in order to make it fit in a changing world often lose track of the original purpose[/b]
What would be the point of interpreting a right today in the context of 65 years ago?
A second problem is the question of the impartiality of UK judges and how such a HRB would be enforced.
Exactly!
Who are you going to take your case to when the British Bill of Sub-Human Rights is violated by the British judiciary?
The British judicary? Good luck with that.
Maybe the government will set up a nice toothless ombudsman who can write apologetic letters to you while you are in Guantanamo:
[i]"Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter regarding the waterboarding you are receiving. The UK government have confirmed to us in writing that they do not use any torture methods that are not approved by the BBoSHR. I hope this concludes the matter satisfactorily."[/i]
Which raises the interesting conundrum of an aggrieved UK citizen, denied their EU human rights by the UK government, and bounced out by the 'new' UKHRA taking their case directly to the EU in the hope of forcing the EU to impose its jurisdiction upon the UK...
Their Article 8 right would not and does not take precedence in that scenario
Depending on the family life of the individual in the scenario, in front of a judge it could
denied their EU human rights
[b]ITS STILL NOT THE EU ITS STILL SEPARATE FROM THE EU AND IT STILL PREDATES OUR MEMBERSHIP[/b]
"Their Article 8 right would not and does not take precedence in that scenario
Depending on the family life of the individual in the scenario, in front of a judge it could "
So you agree that the Article 8 right does not take precedence automatically it would only be persuasive dependent on the circumstances and the individual in the scenario and it would be decided by a judge applying the principals to the facts ie doing the common sense fair minded thing. What's not to like about that ?
How? Why don't people have a right to family life? Can you imagine if the government came to your door tomorrow and said "you don't earn this much money, so your wife has to leave"? Can you really, honestly say that having an outside body stopping families from being ripped apart is a bad thing?
I don't think the intention was to remove that bit so blatantly.
I am skeptical of the whole thing - I don't trust politicians and the government in general not to put in some clauses that let them use underhand tactics. However, if you want to challenge the idea then perhaps straw man arguments aren't the best way to go. They have put together a logical and seemingly "safe" plan for change. Arguments such as those above will be dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theories.
I would guess the biggest changes we would see immediately would be to privacy laws. The snoopers charter may be taken further, quicker.
The convention and its enforcement mechanism didn't happened to the UK--the UK was a founding member of the Council of Europe, it was instrumental in drafting the convention, it has a judge in the ECtHR. But it appeals to the DM mentality to blame those pesky Europeans
And the ECHR isn't an EU treaty, it's a convention of the Council of Europe enforced by the ECtHR
Again this is already countered in the document. We were founding members but times have moved on significantly since the legislation was written. There is a "feeling" that the EU courts are being over enthusiastic and over riding British law - this will be used to gain public support for the changes on the back of anti Europe sentiment clearly seen during the election.
Is there another source for the document as it wont open on my computer.
Is the link correct?
Can you copy and paste or is it a bit long?
ta
The problem is that judges in the UK AND judges in Europe are misinterpreting the spirit and intention of Human Rights laws with the result that our society not properly protected from those who wish us to do harm, and those that do harm do not face the proper consequences.
It needs sorting out on a number of levels - there's a selection of cases below but if it was our family members that had come to harm would we see the rulings in these cases as fair "justice"?
http://tinyurl.com/is-this-justice
I have no problem with the Human Rights Act unless they are twisted to a criminals benefit. If Article 6 has been applied, the criminal should forego certain articles of the Human Rights Act that avoid them been punished or deported as they will have wilfully broken other peoples right to protection under the act mainly articles 1 to 5.
just5minutes:
Upholding Human Rights means that sometimes you have to uphold the rights of some fairly nasty people. It's a lot like free speech in that regard.
Ultimately laws like the Human Rights Act don't exist to make us do the right thing when it is easy. Instead they remind us of the clear promises that we made when things weren't so difficult. They guide our actions by our own words.
We lose all of that once we start picking and choosing which rights to apply, or devising our own edited versions with a few less rights and no external oversight.
If you start down the road of saying that criminals forfeit their human rights then where does that stop? Can we torture them, sell them into slavery, execute them?
That might sound like hyperbole, but bear in mind that some countries still hang people for being gay. That's a clear example of a "criminal" that needs human rights protection.
the criminal should forego certain articles of the Human Rights Act that avoid them been punished or deported as they will have wilfully broken other peoples right to protection under the act mainly articles 1 to 5.
So in other words you would try to uphold Human Rights by subjecting people who break the Human Rights Act to punishments which break the Human Rights Act?
I can't help thinking that sends a slightly mixed message.
we're now about 70 years away from when people didn't have human rights in Europe, and therefore it's become inconvenient for it to be universal.
😆
Dont we then need to deport the judge who just violated their rights then and keep going till no one is left here?
I should ask the editor of the Daily Mail.
Dont we then need to deport the judge who just violated their rights then and keep going till no one is left here?
Only if he's not a UK citizen 😉
BTW people should not be able to renege their foreign citizenship to avoid themselves or their kids from being deported. Examples of Egyptians doing so to avoid kids being deported for terrorist related crimes.
@munro I appreciate the complexity of your case and the risk of you losing your job to the application. However, I am confident you would win the case or any appeal. Unfortunately there are far too many examples of the system being abused hence the introduction of the earnings limit.
Unfortunately there are far too many examples of the system being abused
Are there really? Do you have some evidence for this?
Ultimately laws like the Human Rights Act don't exist to make us do the right thing when it is easy. Instead they remind us of the clear promises that we made when things weren't so difficult. They guide our actions by our own words.
Exactly. A moral principle is meaningless unless it costs something from time to time. I'm all for a bit of pragmatism and discussion whether a specific ethic needs to be refined to reflect social conditions, but I haven't seen the case for this yet re. the human rights act.
Just in case anyone wants to add their signature:
Obviously the official government epetition site would be a better place for that, but conveniently enough:
[img] 
[/img]
🙄