What is so wrong with Human Rights?

What does it tell you about our wonderful new government that they appear to be making this a priority?

I’m sure the the UK Bill could be a robust and thorough piece of legislation properly enshrining the rights of UK citizens.

But

It would still still be just UK law (possibly just English law) which could be amended by parliament as they see fit whenever it proves to be inconvenient for them

The whole point of the EHRC is that it can’t be changed (at least not very easily). It exist outwith the strict political influence of a single country, making it a much more robust piece of legislation.

The UK judiciary has not always proven itself to be beyond political influence so having an external body to be used as a final overseer of peoples rights seems like a perfectly sensible idea, unless of course your only source of information is the Daily Mail

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

I think others covered this but if you were waiting for my response: no, it’s not the same as a referendum. A referendum requires a majority on a single issue. The general election gives a minority on multiple issues.

The SNP had a majority in the Scottish Parliament before the Independence Referendum. But we still held that referendum because that’s the proper democratic thing to do with such a major change.

The Poke[/url]

😆

I think what a lot are missing is the fact the Act is enacted & decided in Strasbourg/Brussels rather than Westminster. 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.

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.

That’s the main thing that concerns me! Without external oversight you’ll be relying on the British judiciary to rule against the British judiciary.

It should be pointed out though that the vast majority of UK based Human Rights cases are settled in UK courts by UK judges. That’s the whole reason for the Human Rights Act 1998, to allow them to be dealt with domestically.

So can someone explain why Tories are so keen for us abolish it?

Sorry, graham I missed this. Where did they announce the abolition and what right do they have to do this

Which bit do they object to?

I don’t think they have released any details but their basic ideas where published late last year. Much better than the headlines which might just be a wee bit sensational?

“Google is full of Human rights manipulation by Solicitors for the wrong reasons”
Google is not the best resource to find accurate information about complex cases as your first couple of pages tend to be red top / Tory press faux outrage and genuine misrepresentation to support a particular agenda.
See a few pages ago where the link threw up genuine outrage that a criminal who had served his sentence in full could not then be deported to a country where he would face extra judicial execution for his sexuality.

I think what a lot are missing is the fact the Act is enacted and decided in Strasbourg/Brussels rather than Westminster. The Gov does not have the final say on rulings and 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.

So much wrong there. You need to brush up on your constitutional/public international law–maybe start by googling parliamentary sovereignty[/url]

Sorry, graham I missed this. Where did they announce the abolition and what right do they have to do this

It’s in the Conservative proposal that was linked to earlier, though they use the word repeal which is probably more correct than abolish:

The key objectives of our new Bill are: • Repeal Labour’s Human Rights Act

Parliament has the right to repeal laws. That’s what they do.

As I understand it (and IANAL) the HRA is what binds the ECHR into UK law and allows UK courts to handle human rights cases, taking into account the ECHR rulings.

They want to remove all trace of the ECHR from the UK law and instead have a “British Bill of Rights” where they can “clarify” those rights that the ECHR has apparently “misinterpreted”.

i.e. they want slightly less rights and they want them applied to less people. And they don’t want those pesky Europeans pointing out policies which break the convention (as has happened several times in the past).

Headlines, headlines 😉

Eh? What headlines thm? I quoted from the official Conservative policy!

Well perhaps we were reading different announcements. Seems off to announce “abolishing” something with this as an introduction

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.

Yes, keep reading, like any one who has been on a middle-management training course they do a lovely intro saying what a great job they think you’ve done and how much respect they have for you, before slipping into the bit explaining why you are being made redundant.

I did and still could not find what you are claiming. Headlines, headlines….

I think what a lot are missing is the fact the Act is enacted & decided in Strasbourg/Brussels rather than Westminster. 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.

Utter bollocks but this is the common media narrative.

Well perhaps we were reading different announcements. Seems off to announce “abolishing” something with this as an introduction

Yes it is ridiculous to admit that there isn’t really anything wrong with the thing they are repealing – but that’s exactly what they’ve done.

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 Legal Opinion 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 “opposition parties are allowed, but…“

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.

the only reason to revise it would be so that our government can do something that the rest of europe* would disagree with. Dunno about you but I’m not sure** I’d want that situation. Do you?

*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
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/arguments-human-rights-act-michael-gove-repeal-myth-busting
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

I thought the cat was just a supporting detail to the fact that he had a partner here.

<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.”from here so no, owning a cat is not used as a human rights argument

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 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.

Cat, yes correct that’s what I was trying to say.
It is the same rule for everyone in general, terrorists, murderers etc with some extra provisions to deal with the specific threats of terrorism and radicalisation

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, Article 46 of the ECHR provided that:

“The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final
judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”

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.

it’s not clear to me what you were saying with that. Is it trivial to ask to stay in the UK because you have a partner here? The cat was just one of a host of things offered as proof that this was a proper relationship not some sham to allow him to stay in the country. You (and theresa may) bringing the cat up just attempts to “trivialise” a more serious case.

@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

We had/have a right of individual petition to the ECtHR; all the Act does is allow our domestic courts to apply the convention here (slight oversimplification but it’ll do). If you scrap the Act then you go back to having to schlep over to Strasbourg to assert your convention rights. But the tories don’t just have a problem with the Act; they want to scrap convention rights too.

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: “Oh, you have a cat? Why is the prosecution wasting my time with this? The defendant clearly has deep family roots here. Case dismissed.”