Forum menu
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]
🙄
It's been posted before by others, but it doesn't seem that half of you have actually read the proposals and the reasoning. I can't see much to object to:
[url= https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/files/downloadable%20Files/human_rights.pdf ]Conservative proposals on Human Rights[/url]
Don't let the facts get in the way of your knee jerk left wing paranoia.
Their proposal document should have just stopped here:
The Convention is an entirely sensible statement of the principles which should underpin any modern democratic nation. Indeed, the UK had a great influence on the drafting of the Convention, and was the first nation to ratify it.
And this is coming from a PM who actually just said this:
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”
But yeah, it's all just lefty knee-jerk paranoia. 🙄
Some terms used in the Convention rights would benefit from a more precise definition, such as ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, which has arguably been given an excessively broad meaning by the ECtHR in some rulings.
ie - we want to be able to inflict degrading treatment or punishment on people more often
The ECtHR has ruled that if there is any ‘real risk’ (by no means even a likelihood)
of a person being treated in a way contrary to these rights in the destination country, there is a bar on them being sent there
ie - we want to be able to send people to countries where they will probably get tortured
Limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases.
Who gets to decide which cases are serious enough?
The only other country in Europe that isn't signed up to this is Belarus - a military dictatorship. I think that tells you all you need to know.
The whole thing feels like appeasement to me: a sop to the frothing anti-Europe loons so they'll support the government in the forthcoming EU referendum.
Conservative proposals on Human RightsDon't let the facts get in the way of your knee jerk left wing paranoia.
That link doesn't work, but found the same thing elsewhere. I now feel soiled. Liberty have a far better response to it than I could manage, from earlier Tory proposals:
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/blog/legally-illiterate
One thing I find particularly distasteful is the idea that human rights are linked to responsibilities. Human rights should be fundamental - everyone has the same rights, full stop.
There are many other problems - the Scottish Government will fight this all the way, and general legal opinion is that Scotland could prevent this happening across the UK - though it could still happen in England. In Ireland, it's tied into the Good Friday agreement, and you really, really don't want to mess with that. Then there's Europe, who will take a very, very dim view of the UK deciding to opt out of Europe-wide human rights - though the Tories probably care less about that.
It's alright they're going after freedom of speech first so you won't be able to complain about it online when they do get around to scrapping your human rights.
Was that the kind of knee jerk left wing paranoia you were after len?
🙄“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”
<edit> I've just noticed our new equalities minister voted against gay marriage. Awesome work. (but she has now tweeted a U turn so that's ok)
I'm guessing a google-search brings up things like this:
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
aka [s]boiling a frog[/s] kochendes einen Frosch
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
Well its already been started
[img] 
[/img]
“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',”
Does the statement continue "Now at last we are ready to take matters in hand and we call on all citizens to find grabbing, entitled, condescending toffs and chain them to concrete blocks before throwing them in the canal"?