What is so wrong with Human Rights?

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:

Conservative proposals on Human Rights

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 Rights

Don’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:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9335701/Deported-criminal-returned-to-Britain-to-claim-his-right-to-family-life.html

“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 boiling a frog 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

“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”?

“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’,”

This is genuinely, seriously scary.

My point is people (such as the OP) posting stuff in effect saying ‘Outrageous! The Tories want to abolish all human rights!’. They clearly haven’t read the actual proposals which are nothing of the sort. It strikes me as any excuse to make the Tories out as pure evil, with disregard for the facts. That is the left wing paranoia I mention.

In a nutshell, I see it as a clarification in the law which stops the most ridiculous uses, such as muderers not being able to be sentenced to actual life term imprisonment, or terrorists protesting against being deported because they claim it goes against their rights.

@Graham the Human Rights Act was a manifesto commitment, we’ve just had a referendum on that issue it was called the General Election.

As many know I am very much in favour of a UK Bill on Human Rights and withdrawl from the EHRA. If Scotland and Northern Ireland have to have a carve out that’s perfectly fine with me.

@hora a camera which checks your road tax and insurance plus your speed seems reasonable to me.

bails – Member
“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’,”

This is genuinely, seriously scary.

Not so scary when actually read in context! ( And this is from The Guardian):

A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalise young people is to be included in the Queen’s speech, David Cameron will tell the national security council on Wednesday.

The orders, the product of an extremism task force set up by the prime minister, were proposed during the last parliament in March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.

The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.

David Cameron will tell the NSC : “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. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values.

“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.

“We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.”

which stops the most ridiculous uses

LIke free speech it is only ever useful for when we most dislike its use

we’ve just had a referendum on that issue it was called the General Election.

Is this your daft thing of the day entry?
Did the Scots just vote for Independence then?

We voted for a govt, who did not get a majority of votes cast, so its rather difficult, even for you, to claim there was a mandate from the people do to this.

General elections and referendums are two entirely different things …everyone knows this even you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bella-sankey/human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights_b_7257376.html

This is interesting if a little bit “angry leftie”. One thing that did hit home is the idea of a British bill of rights – what about the non Brits? Also, if we can amend our bill of rights to suit us, why can’t other regimes do the same – we carry far more moral weight if we are part of a larger union of countries signed up to the same agreement.

EHRA? whats that? Do you mean the Human Rights Act or the ECHR? Or do you know the difference? Or are you just trotting out the same old crap you always do?

Len – detention without hope of release is contentious I grant you but I for one would prefer it to the state having the power to lock people up forever without challenge (incidentally you can lock people up for life if they pose a risk to the public – see Peter Sutcliffe etc.)

Theresa May didn’t have a frickin clue about any of the definitions or enforcement of any of this crap when she was interviewed this morning. I suggest your shiny headed leader has even less idea, it’s just ‘look how busy I am being a thoroughly good right winger chap’ basically making dissent a crime.

JY you know you vote for a manifesto. The Conservatives absolutely have that mandate. I imagine the SNP manifesto says somewhere the ultimate goal is an independent Scotland, so in that case yes people voted for that “journey” but in the knowledge that it wasn’t going to happen in the near future.

@Graham the Human Rights Act was a manifesto commitment, we’ve just had a referendum on that issue it was called the General Election.

Err no that’s nonsense. Anyone who thinks that everyone who voted for a particular party agrees with every single manifesto commitment is a fool. It might have been the case when manifestos were only a few pages long but the conservative one is over 80 pages long.

I see the rabid mob is out again in force. Of course feel free to do the shouty shouty thing on here.

There was an election which the Tories won and this is a manifesto commitment.End of story really bar the shouting, of which I am sure there will be plenty. The Labour party or any other can make it a manifesto commitment to restore it

So Len, jamabalaya – why do you think it is it that every other country in Europe is ok with being bound to the ECHR except Belarus, a military dictatorship?

JY you know you vote for a manifesto.

You do but to argue that everyone who voted for them supported everything is disingenuous and it has been proved in court that manifestos cannot be legally enforced. Its not a simple yes or no answer.

The Conservatives absolutely have that mandate.

The mandate of the majority being against them……most unlike a referendum

Trying to move the goalpost there fella

GE are not in any way shape or form referenduums and if they were they have no mandate as most folk oppose them.

I see the rabid mob is out again in force. Of course feel free to do the shouty shouty thing on here.

So you cannot defend the referendum claim so you will hurl abuse whilst suggesting others are being abusive to you …lolz at the irony.

Embarrassing 😳

Anyone who has properly read and digested the proposals is quite valid in disagreeing if they want to. I’m just saying too many have taken it at face value because it suits their anti-anything-Tory-and-to-hell-with common-sense mindset.

thestabiliser – Member

Theresa May didn’t have a frickin clue about any of the definitions or enforcement of any of this crap when she was interviewed this morning. I suggest your shiny headed leader has even less idea, it’s just ‘look how busy I am being a thoroughly good right winger chap’ basically making dissent a crime.

Was this aimed at me? I didn’t vote Conservative.

Criticising you for your comparison of a referendum and a general election is hardly a rabid mod. In a referendum there are two choices, yes or no, and the total number of votes on each side determine the outcome. Our electoral system is based on the number seats won, not the number of votes and the two are very different things. A cursory glance at the result of any UK election will pretty much tell you that.

To say that a UK general election is the same as a referendum is foolish.

as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone

What David Cameron saw when he looked in the mirror

Authoritarian regimes always start by taking a red pen to human rights

such as muderers not being able to be sentenced to actual life term imprisonment

That’s just not true–Google Hutchinson v UK
The tory document is full of misinformation

My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It’s not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine.

huckleberryfatt – Member
Authoritarian regimes always start by taking a red pen to human rights
such as muderers not being able to be sentenced to actual life term imprisonment

That’s just not true–Google Hutchinson v UK
The tory document is full of misinformation

Fair enough. (Though I wouldn’t count a democratically elected government as an ‘Authoritarian regime’.)

The Conservative proposals are quite embarrassing to read riddled with factual error and legally illiterate rightly described as “back of a fag packet. ” For example in addition to the one above they fail to understand that given the fact we have the Human Rights Act then it is going to be quoted in the majority of judgements that does not mean that the HRA dictated the outcome see the Drugs burden of proof illustration that would have been decided the same way on first principles in any event.

Bottom line as Cameron acknowledges there is nothing wrong and everything right with the Human Rights Act nothing wrong with the Convention it his attempts to withdraw are a political sop to the UKIPPER right of his party if he follows through he will create a hell of a mess for nothing .

My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It’s not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine.

It’s going to mean sending more people to countries where they are likely to get tortured. Or haven’t you read the actual proposals and are just posting knee-jerk anti-lefty statements?

My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It’s not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine.

Have you ever dealt with the UK Govt, what on earth makes you believe that it will remove areas of ‘ambiguity’? I’d bet that they create different areas of ambiguity…

so Hora how would you balance the case you link to ? Two British citizens who are minors should be forcibly deported to a foreign country because of the sins of their parents or two British citizens who are minors should be forcibly separated from their parents who are then deported or we swallow the Sandwich and make the best of a bad job and not deport the parents secure in the knowledge he actually served his sentence for his crime and indeed give him some more prison for illegal entry and any id offence ?

A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalise young people

Are there not incitement laws that cover ‘grooming’ kids to commit crimes?

Have you ever dealt with the UK Govt, what on earth makes you believe that it will remove areas of ‘ambiguity’? I’d bet that they create different areas of ambiguity…

I imagine half the idea is to create different areas of ambiguity, after over 50 years of the ECHR most of the ambiguity will have been ground away.

Well, now they’re proposing to fiddle the Freedom Of Information law as well – jumping on the “right wing nutter” to-do list with commendable enthusiasm!

grum – Member
My guess is that the proposed replacement British Bill of Human Rights will be 99.9% the same as the original ECHR, but remove areas of ambiguity. It’s not going to say that torturing people is suddenly fine.
It’s going to mean sending more people to countries where they are likely to get tortured. Or haven’t you read the actual proposals and are just posting knee-jerk anti-lefty statements?

My point, as per my original post, is that some are immediately up in arms as they think the Tories are actually trying to scrap the whole human rights act (and I’m talking about some alarmist posts on Facebook too here), they are happy to believe this and immediately oppose anything the Conservatives propose out of principle. I was just highlighting the actual proposals.

Whether the proposals are sound, or even workable legally, is another matter.

Take one part fact and bake for 10mins until a half opinion is formed.

Google is full of Human rights manipulation by Solicitors for the wrong reasons

My point, as per my original post, is that some are immediately up in arms as they think the Tories are actually trying to scrap the whole human rights act

Well they are proposing to scrap the whole human rights act, but admittedly they are planning to replace it with something similar (but worse).

Cos you know that of course

Google is full of Human rights manipulation by Solicitors for the wrong reasons

What are the “wrong reasons” for Human Rights?
Do you mean applying them to dogs or something?

Because otherwise I’m pretty sure that even the worst criminals are still human and therefore entitled to some rights.