The political conference season is over and the usual prattling on from all sides has been heard.
One bit of prattling on that caught my attention was Theresa May's wish to have The Human Rights Act 1998 abolished.
Now, call me a cynic, but if someone wants a law abolished that protects me, I suspect that they don't want that protection to apply to me and therefore plan to introduce rules in the future that makes it easier for these things to be done.
Now if she talked about removing abuses of the human rights legislation, that would be a different thing, but she didn't.
Just be aware of politicians who want rights removed. Next thing we know, it will be jack boots at the door.
Just as a reminder, the HRA covers these basic rights:
Right to life
Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to liberty
Right to a fair trial
Right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
Right to respect for private and family life
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
The right to marry and to start a family
The right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
The right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
The right to an education
The right to participate in free elections
The right not to be subjected to the death penalty
|
|
No it shouldn't - it was written by, primairily, the British after the end of the last war to prevent the horrific abuse of rights by the Nazis and others. It is a well written and and has a good track record before it was ever brought inton UK law. Mayis a right winger and is clearly a little mad - Ken Clarke as usual was spot on.
|
>> Mayis a right winger and is clearly a little mad
>> - Ken Clarke as usual was spot on.
What a stupid tart that Theresa May is.
As soon as I heard
βThe illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because β and I am not making this up β he had a pet cat.β
I knew it was going to be made up, or taken completely out of context. I know she didn't write the speech, but as a speaker I would have wiped it out. Cheap laughs about a serious problem that does her cause harm.
With such poor judgement she really isn't fit to be Home Secretary.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 7 Oct 11 at 17:56
|
|
I tried to pick my adjective Zero - I have to confess that made a brief appearance in my post.
|
|
It needs some fine tuning.
Last edited by: Meldrew on Fri 7 Oct 11 at 17:35
|
Nothing wrong with the HRA.
It's the judges who interpret it...
|
As someone who believes the state is far from the benevolent uncle with our best interests at heart that it purports to be I am fully in favour of the HRA.
You can always produce isolated examples of laughable abuse, especially if you aren't aware of the full facts of a particular case - ie you read it in the Daily Mail.
|
|
Sorry I don't read the Daily Mail. Is it a newspaper?
|
>> Sorry I don't read the Daily Mail. Is it a newspaper?
No
|
madf has it riight - about the Human Rights Act, not the Daily Mail.
Too many lawyers play the Act card when it's barely relevant.
A good - and sometimes brave - judge is needed to decide if the case is a genuine human rights one or not.
|
Why become a judge if you are not good and brave.?
And how does one become a judge they must be special people with a high knowledge of the law.Me thinks.
|
>> Why become a judge if you are not good and brave.?
>>
>> And how does one become a judge they must be special people with a high
>> knowledge of the law.Me thinks.
Boaz.
|
|
You are right Roger Boaz don't know what it means problaby balls.>:)
|
>> Sorry I don't read the Daily Mail. Is it a newspaper?
>>
It's fondly known as the Daily Fail around most of twitter.
|
|
The HRA should only apply to decent human beings not low life scumbags.
|
But someone has to make a legal ruling about what side of the low life scumbag fence you fall into.
Would that be domestic home bred low life scumbags or imported low life scumbags for example?
If you are just a low life or a scumbag do you qualify?
|
|
Some people think posters on internet forums are scumbags... :-)
|
Leave the act alone.
Just define who can be termed as humans.
|
Absolutely not, what might be the motive of politicians who want to do so???
The act incorporates the Convention into domestic UK law. It means cases in our courts can rely on it and that the courrts much interpret legislation in a way consistent with the act. British cases are decided by British judges. Repeal would not change the rights, just make them more difficult to access - they'd be heard instead in Strasbourg by foreign judges.
East access to HRA remedies is particulalry important in the UK. We lack a written constitution. We have an electoral system that gifts massive majorities to a Prime Minister who has almost unlimited powers of patronage in making ministerial appointments. Legislation is then nodded through parliament with limimted debate and perfunctory challenge. Hailsham coined the term electoral dictatorship - he wasn't far wrong.
The right to use ECHR/HRA to challenge government actions is a bulwark agaist executive power. We should recognise and defend it as such.
Of course wild things are claimed as 'Human Rights'. Sometimes they're conceded by ill trained staff and even by maverick court judgements.
But before you swallow the unelected judges line spend some time looking up the 'notorious' cases and read the judgements (mosy are on the BAILLI website). Few are as simple as they seem in the Mail or Express.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 8 Oct 11 at 16:00
|
|
Mrs Blair makes a tidy living from the HRA.
|
Human Rights Act - should it be abolished? - R.P.
