[Closed] What is so wrong with Human Rights?

Perhaps some politicians are shitting themselves that they may be prosecuted under Eu law for their crimes, and no friendly mates in HoL etc to protect them.

The Gov does not have the final say on rulings & in that scenario I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

The big reason is that what is being proposed cannot be squared with Britain's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is a [url= http://www.scribd.com/doc/241813468/Opinion-on-HRA-Repeal ]Legal Opinion[/url] by two leading barristers. This isn't my field, but it is pretty widely regarded as being sensible. We cannot do what the Tories want, and stay in the ECHR. We would end up leaving.

The European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up after WWII. There was a feeling (for obvious reasons) that national governments should not be left in charge of not murdering their own people.

Since that time, 47 countries have signed up. That includes Russia, and places like Croatia and Bosnia that were still doing a lot of really serious murdering really recently.

The only country between the Caspian and the Atlantic which is not a member is Belarus, a country where, to quote Wikipedia "[i][url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Belarus ]opposition parties are allowed, but...[/url][/i]"

The ECHR is one of a number of international human rights agreements drawn up in that period. Most countries in the world are signatories to most of them. Two countries have signed such agreements and have subsequently walked away: take a bow, Venezuela and North Korea.

That is not company I'm remotely comfortable with the British Government keeping, personally.

Some detail here about what's been promised:
https://fullfact.org/law/conservative-party-bill-of-rights-39308/

It really is a dogs dinner of a proposal and a rational

Its a good point about how they praise it only to say why its poor [ often , as the lawyers have noted, getting the rational and the facts wrong]

From the link above for example

The Conservatives want to limit the use of a British Bill of Rights to “the most serious cases”, so it won’t cover “trivial” issues. At present, human rights arguments can be used in any case where they’re relevant.

They also want human rights laws to be restricted in terms of who can use them. The Conservatives cite the examples of “a foreign national who takes the life of another person”, and “terrorists”, who would be prevented from invoking human rights law to resist being deported.

I am not sure what exactly constitutes as trivial breaching of your inalienable human rights. I am not sure why the later cases are not to be considered. The Govt appear to be saying everyone has human rights except the trivial ones [ or possible in trivial cases] and the people we dont really like or want to have them *. In essence we have all the rights the govt wants us to have if we are "responsible" and dont break the law.

* Seriously is this the kind of example we want to set to the world ? Is this really the international company we want to keep. Below Putin in the credible in Europe stakes....embarrassing tbh

"terrorists”, who would be prevented from invoking human rights law to resist being deported"

So torturing people and extra judicial killing are considered to be Trivial matters by the conservatives.

Hard to tell if they are trivial or they are just going to ignore your rights when they really dont like you/what you have done.

Like free speech we have to protect the rights of the bastards to make sure we all are protected
its may well be a balancing act but the balance is not to allow it only when you approve of it.

The Gov does not have the final say on rulings & in that scenario I see no reason why the Gov shouldn't try to revise it so the final ruling lies here in the UK rather than abroad.

*Belarus excluded apparently
**this is bollocks, I'm very sure I don't want that.

Trivial. You have a cat (this was a true story, the individual concerned did have their lawyer raise the issue of having a cat as one of the reasons they should be allowed to stay). More controversial, you have a wife/girlfriend - she can move out of the country with you IMO.

Those convicted of terrorism related crimes have used the right to a family life to try and avoid deportation.

I am fully in support changing the law to include detention orders (as under Labour), if this overshoots from a human rights perspective so be it. We can consider revising the law in the future as/when we see cases which show such an overshoot.

Nice concise piece by Keir Starmer
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/arguments-human-rights-act-michael-gove-repeal-myth-busting ]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/arguments-human-rights-act-michael-gove-repeal-myth-busting[/url]
If you understand the law in this area then you understand just how weasely the wording of the tories' proposals is--and it's truly frightening that people are so easily hoodwinked

You have a cat

<edit>yep

"As part of [the] application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the United Kingdom to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship.

"One detail provided, amongst many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time."

Yes terrorists aren't nice people but you don't change the rules just for people you [i]really [/i]don't like other wise you end up arguing over shades of grey. Same rules for everyone.

It's interesting that nations agreed the principals of human rights 70 years ago but the act only came into force in 1998. We seemed to do just fine from a Human Rights perspective up to then. We'll do just fine when we have the new UK act too.

Jambalaya- what about normal citizens who the government deems to have waived their family right to life by not earning enough? Should they too be forced to leave the country because no one was there to stand up for their human rights?

It's one thing to point to exceptional cases like you mention and quite another to look at the vast majority of cases which are helped by the ECHR every day. Yes, I'm sure a terrorist once said they had to stay because they had a cat, but there are hundreds of women in the UK with non-EU spouses who have chosen to stay at home to look after young children who are being forced to leave because they don't earn money. They are dependant on the future outcome of a verdict affected by the ECHR too.

It's more important that they stay together and one bad man stays and is imprisoned here as a side effect than one bad man is sent home along with hundreds of families as a side effect. It's only ignorance and cruelty that can think otherwise.

I thought the cat was just a supporting detail to the fact that he had a partner here.
Yes terrorists aren't nice people but you don't change the rules just for people you really don't like other wise you end up arguing over shades of grey. Same rules for everyone.

It's interesting that nations agreed the principals [sic] of human rights 70 years ago but the act only came into force in 1998.

This is a red herring. Before the HRA was enacted, [url= http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf ]Article 46[/url] of the ECHR provided that:

[i]"The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final
judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties."[/i]

The HRA was not what obliges the UK to abide by ECtHR judgments: that has been there all along.

Cat, yes correct that's what I was trying to say.

@munro, I appreciate what you are saying. This means test was brought in as a result of a significant number of cases where people did not have the ability to support their partner. These are often arranged marriages including those in order to "get a passport" which I think form a very significant part of the 100's of cases you are referring to. The country quite rightly does not want to see people coming in who then become a burden on the state. The country is trying to deal with arranged marriages for passports/right to remain. Its harsh and I don't mean this to be personal but you can have a family life with your wife if you go and live where she is from, you have a choice. Our law states that your wife does not automatically get a passport. Our law is different to France for example, I was recently married there to a French person and I can get a French passport automatically. During the application process they asked me many questions about my job etc as they wanted to verify it wasn't a convenience marriage for a passport

Jam when you have to add a caveat to the its the same rule for everyone then clearly your own point negates its starting premise 😳

See me after class 😕

What DONK said you clearly repeating the Tory line that the cat was somehow part of the argument rather than an example that proved the argument. He did not get to stay here because he had a cat- there is no human right to own a cat. He got to stay her because he had a relationship and the cat was but one example in many that showed he had a relationship
That was not what you tried to say anymore that it was what May meant to say

Donk I was trying to say yor Cat was deifitely trivial and yes it was just one thing listed. I am also saying that having a partner here is "trivial" too, ie it's not a good enough reason to be allowed to stay

EDIT (into one post for my Scottish friend)
I have an issue with with legislation aimed at terrorists being used for non terrorism cases, eg deportation to the US of the Nat West 4 but if necessary we can have one single law with no separate categories if it pleases you all. The important thing is to have that law.

.

Whether having a partner is a good enough reason to stay is not my decision but I'm pretty sure having a partner is not trivial, ask yours, see what they say.

And the cat thing is still trying to use a tiny detail to trivialise the case as a whole.

I am also saying that having a partner here is "trivial" too, ie it's not a good enough reason to be allowed to stay

I am sure all our wives/husbands/partners would be delighted to be described as trivial and as not a good enough reason 😯
Is love really this unimportant to you shudders

Jambalaya, the moment you said this-

The country quite rightly does not want to see people coming in who then become a burden on the state.

your argument was void.

People coming in on a spouse visa have NEVER had the right to any state money, it explicitly states it on the visa, even under the old rules. Theresa May gave exactly the same reasons as you for bringing in this rule so that you and Terry from Thanet think "well, she's dealing with immigrants on benefits".

You still have to go for an interview at your council head offices to ensure that the marriage is real, same as you ever did (we went twice). Yes, we could live elsewhere but our lives are here. What the new rules say is "you have a right to a family life. Unless you're poor". Which is against the ECHR and if you can come up with a valid reason why people shouldn't have their family in this country because they're poor but not entitled to state money I'd be amazed. You also used to be able to get a family member or similar to sponsor you and say "I'll cover their bills". They removed that right too. Because apparently the poor shouldn't be in this country.

It's interesting that nations agreed the principals of human rights 70 years ago but the act only came into force in 1998

Also, our constitution is ... let's go with 'quirky', so whereas the constitutional set-up in most other member states meant that the convention was incorporated into their domestic law, we were very late to the incorporation party

teahhurtmore said:
I did and still could not find what you are claiming. Headlines, headlines....

Hmm.. perhaps I haven't been clear enough about what I was claiming then?
What is it you think I claimed that isn't supported by the Tory proposal document?

Trivial. You have a cat (this was a true story, the individual concerned did have their lawyer raise the issue of having a cat as one of the reasons they should be allowed to stay).

So...?

Clients can ask their lawyers to raise all kinds of nonsense in all kinds of cases. That doesn't make the laws bad.

It's not like the judge said: [i]"Oh, you have a cat? Why is the prosecution wasting my time with this? The defendant clearly has deep family roots here. Case dismissed."[/i]

all the Act does is allow our domestic courts to apply the convention here

This. What seems to have been lost in the Tory tubthumping is that the HRA was introduced (partly) to give us more control over our legal affairs - the very reason they are now asserting as justification for leaving it.

O and the 'Bolivian cat' case? More DM/tory spin <sigh>. The student in question (who'd overstayed his visa) sought to remain based on the government's own policy giving credit to long-term couples (he and his partner had been together for four years). On appeal the government conceded that its own policy was applicable--the cat didn't swing it.

@munro, I appreciate what you are saying. This means test was brought in as a result of a significant number of cases where people did not have the ability to support their partner. These are often arranged marriages including those in order to "get a passport" which I think form a very significant part of the 100's of cases you are referring to. The country quite rightly does not want to see people coming in who then become a burden on the state.

You really do regurgitate a load of unsubstantiated, often borderline bigoted tabloid nonsense.

On appeal the government conceded that its own policy was applicable--the cat didn't swing it.

Indeed, student accommodation is often limited in size.

It's interesting that nations agreed the principals of human rights 70 years ago but the act only came into force in 1998. We seemed to do just fine from a Human Rights perspective up to then

Like chemically castrating homosexuals, for instance. Or detaining single mothers.

Here's a tip, when you think of something just pause for second and ask yourself, 'is this bollox?'.

Edit: bit harsh, apols, you seem like a decent bloke but you're clearly not for turning so I'll leave it there.

[img] [/img]

More [url= http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/as-long-as-you-obey-the-law#.relMVMmDza ]here[/url]

ROFL listening to people pretending to be moderate and reasonable arguing for extreme knee jerk B&W solutions (LOL subjective terms I know) it's so British! Heres some British views I've heard trotted out by our lovely fellow citizens with a straight face, on more than one occasion!

1) Bring back national service young people are lazy shites that need discipline

2) Make lazy bar stewards do unpaid work and community service in return for dole money

3) Abolish all state benefits (except the pension of course), round up the poor and arm the police to shoot them on a regular basis to keep the numbers down

4) Bring back hanging

5) Bring back corporal punishment and public flogging

6) Use Navy ships to sink migrant boats

7) Deport all "certain race" and drop nuclear bombs on "certain" states

IME in my social and work life British people are two faced lying ****ts who support by proxy bullying and interfering in other peoples lives, as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty on the front line 🙂

IME in my social and work life British people are two faced lying ****ts who support by proxy bullying and interfering in other peoples lives

Have you managed to leave the UK ?

@ernie - Not yet you going to make me?

Am I going to make you ?

I'm surprised anyone would need to. Why would anyone want to live in a country full of "two faced lying *ts"?

Or are you going to tell me that you love living in the UK despite the fact that "British people are two faced lying *ts"?

It's a good question.

Maybe you can give me counsel on the 2 options you provided.

I hadn't realised that I had given you 2 options.

What do you think those 2 options are......leave the UK or stay here and avoid too much contact with British people ?

JHJ: that is awesome! 😆

IME in my social and work life British people are two faced lying ****ts

Sounds like you need a better job and nicer friends!

What would you suggest? or is this it?

@Graham S - Definitely not friends, I don't keep company like that long term, unfortunately have had to endure it from time to time though.

You really do regurgitate a load of unsubstantiated, often borderline bigoted tabloid nonsense.

Here's a cheery thought on a bright and sunny morning:

"...something like 1984 could very well happen; this is the direction the world is going in at the present time. In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement... but always there will be the intoxication of power...if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face... forever."

Clever bloke that Orwell:

I don't understand why the UK govt feels restricted by the Human Rights laws.

The govt didn't seem to find them unduly restrictive when dealing with Northern Ireland when there was a far more serious "terrorist' threat.

Maybe they're getting ready for dealing with the Scots...

I don't remember Labour campaigning against this issue in the election.

Have a look at this [url= http://www.petethetemp.co.uk/workfare-forced-labour-and-the-new-business-and-community-wardens/ ]article[/url] and the reference to article 4 of the HRA.