Cameron and the Human rights act

[Mrr T]

cirian75 said:

What the act covers
......
Anyone else think Cameron's plan to try a ditch it combined with Teresa Mays new proposed new anti terror law is very bloody dangerous?

Its easy to quote the terms of the Convention/Act and say what's wrong with them. There is nothing wrong with the words or the concepts originally considered by the drafters. The problem is about 20 years ago the ECHR decided the document was a living concept which should be developed. Must of that development tended to follow a leftist perspective of fundamental rights. This has now been followed by the UK Supreme Court,

Lets consider some of the words:

cirian75 said:

Right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment

Where does the above say the UK should not be able to deport asylum seekers under the Dublin convention to France or Germany?

cirian75 said:

Right to a private and family life

Where does the above say the UK should not be able to deport foreign criminals found guilty of serious crimes in the UK, including rape and murder, to their country of origin because they have a family in the UK? Where does it say a foreign criminal with serious convictions is entited to a Family Visa to live in the UK because their family is here?

cirian75 said:

Right to a fair trial

Just to add amusement why did the ECHR consider this is a qualified right when considering the UK s54 RTA?

[cirian75]

It was mainly written for the Good Friday agreement.

The RUC did not have a good reputation, in fact it had a bloody awful reputation of collusion with the Loyalists

If you was Catholic, you could not depend on the RUC to protect your rights even though your a British citizen.


The HRA 1998/Good Friday agreement along with the massive reform of the RUC into the PSNI is the reason we've have 17 years of relative peace in Northern Ireland.

[sugerbear]

Cheese Mechanic said:

We did not need this act before 1998 ,we do not need it now.

The simple fact is, we can make our own laws for our own needs, far better than anyone else can make laws for us.

Parliament should be supreme in such matters, not a bunch of unelected foreign judges.

May be a help in putting a stop to the "uman rights" trough fest the "legal profession" gorge themselves on.

You prefer our unelected British judges instead?

[Cheese Mechanic]

sugerbear said:

You prefer our unelected British judges instead?

Unelected judges representing laws written by democratically elected members of our national Parliament. A country mile preferable to unelected foreign judiciary enforcing laws made by those not elected to our Parliament.

The simple fact is our own laws , made by our own elected parliamentarians must be paramount in our affairs.

[JagLover]

Cheese Mechanic said:

May be a help in putting a stop to the "uman rights" trough fest the "legal profession" gorge themselves on.

To quote a Telegraph columnist most of the outrage about scrapping it comes from Human Rights lawyers wanting their "human right" to a second home in the Dordogne.

[Derek Smith]

Cheese Mechanic said:

We did not need this act before 1998 ,we do not need it now.

So you are saying that Cameron is wrong and he should not bring in a state sponsored HRA?

I think if you look back from 1998 at some of the actions of the government, you will see that perhaps your suggestion that we don't need an HRA is not strictly correct.

[SamHH]

JagLover said:

To quote a Telegraph columnist most of the outrage about scrapping it comes from Human Rights lawyers wanting their "human right" to a second home in the Dordogne.

Would reapealing the Act alter how much money lawyers earn? Ignoring for the moment that it may be replaced with largely similar legislation, would the Act's repeal not increase expense, because litigants would have to go to the European court to enforce their Convention rights, instead of being able to do so in domestic courts?

[Johnnytheboy]

Most of the problems seem to relate to "Right to a private and family life", which to be fair could be extremely broadly interpreted.

[onomatopoeia]

Mrr T said:

cirian75 said:

Right to a private and family life

Where does the above say the UK should not be able to deport foreign criminals found guilty of serious crimes in the UK, including rape and murder, to their country of origin because they have a family in the UK? Where does it say a foreign criminal with serious convictions is entited to a Family Visa to live in the UK because their family is here?

Such cases generally consider the rights of the child, not the rights of the (possibly, in extradition cases) criminal parent. Or do you think the child should not get human rights because parts of the press don't like one of its parents? It raises the scenario of parents of minor children being treated differently from everyone else, which is a whole other aspect.

I would agree that article 8 is possibly in some cases being interpreted too broadly, and a sensible debate about this is needed. I don't think starting from a position of throwing out the HRA and potentially withdrawing from the ECHR is the right way to do it.

It's a pity BV72 isn't around here any more - I didn't always agree with him, but he has considerable knowledge and insight on this subject.

[Mr Whippy]

I wonder if the new HRA will be a deal done behind closed doors like the TTIP, because it's in our best interests to not know

I honestly believe that this Cons government will be looked back upon as the worst in modern history for the destruction of liberty and freedom.

Afterall, are the issues we face because of the current HRA really that bad? Are the Germans, or Italians, or French, struggling because of it and changing it? If not, why not?

Dave

[wst]

HD Adam said:

cirian75 said:

so no human rights for criminals?

not every criminal is a murder, rapist, armed robber etc by the way.

But what about the ones who are and avoid deportation because of their right to a family life under Article 8 because they've got a cat or something?

Er, you are falling for myths. You did post a link to the Telegraph, a notoriously biased paper, though, so it's understandable.

Here is a list of 14 myths about the HRA. One of them is about the man who had a cat.

"He had a cat (named Maya) but the cat wasn't the reason he was allowed to stay in the UK. The man was allowed to stay because the Home Office failed to apply its own guidance dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK."

[Mr Whippy]

wst said:

HD Adam said:

cirian75 said:

so no human rights for criminals?

not every criminal is a murder, rapist, armed robber etc by the way.

But what about the ones who are and avoid deportation because of their right to a family life under Article 8 because they've got a cat or something?

Er, you are falling for myths. You did post a link to the Telegraph, a notoriously biased paper, though, so it's understandable.

Here is a list of 14 myths about the HRA. One of them is about the man who had a cat.

"He had a cat (named Maya) but the cat wasn't the reason he was allowed to stay in the UK. The man was allowed to stay because the Home Office failed to apply its own guidance dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK."

You mean, the government and it's media supporters and building straw man arguments for their own failures of existing policy, to then support new changed policy which they can equally misuse or fail to use correctly?

Hmmmm

[wst]

Oh I don't like to attribute malice to the original idea of ditching the HRA. I think it was an attempt to pander to europhobes as UKIP became more popular. And then people started suggesting ways to exploit it, I suspect a "British Bill of Rights" would have nice loopholes to make the Snooper's Charter more far reaching, to allow greater cuts to benefits, well before the point when human rights abuses start occurring. It used to take 5 years and £30k to get a case through the ECHR, back pre-98. I'd like to see a disabled person undergoing benefit sanctions manage to afford all that (and even if it all goes wrong, DC won't be PM when it comes back to bite the party, so he doesn't care).

[richie99]

wst said:

r, you are falling for myths. You did post a link to the Telegraph, a notoriously biased paper, though, so it's understandable.

Here is a list of 14 myths about the HRA. One of them is about the man who had a cat.

"He had a cat (named Maya) but the cat wasn't the reason he was allowed to stay in the UK. The man was allowed to stay because the Home Office failed to apply its own guidance dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK."

To the best of my knowledge the existence of the cat was considered sufficiently significant by the judge that he included it in his judgement. i. Not going to look for the judgement because I'm sure facts will go nowhere towards convincing you.

I particularly enjoy the rejection of the Telegraph as 'notoriously biased' but you take the laughingly named website Rightsinfo as gospel truth. Totally unbiased I'm sure.

Checked it. the cat is there.

Edited by richie99 on Saturday 16th May 11:55

[wst]

richie99 said:

To the best of my knowledge the existence of the cat was considered sufficiently significant by the judge that he included it in his judgement. i. Not going to look for the judgement because I'm sure facts will go nowhere towards convincing you.

I particularly enjoy the rejection of the Telegraph as 'notoriously biased' but you take the laughingly named website Rightsinfo as gospel truth. Totally unbiased I'm sure.

Checked it. the cat is there.

Edited by richie99 on Saturday 16th May 11:55

OK it's a site about human rights, but it doesn't make it wrong.

Even the BBC disagrees with you

Even the Telegraph disagrees with you about the cat

[NicD]

I like this from the telegraph article:

'This is the Theresa’s cat fallacy; because an issue is sensationalised in the press, it is therefore of concern only to idiots, and so not important. The Home Secretary may have got her facts slightly wrong, but she was still meowing up the right tree.'

[NicD]

The aptly named former Lord Chief Justice weighing in with an argument that appeals to me:

'In 2015 it seems to me that in a democracy power shouldn't be invested in judges anywhere and no more [in] Europe than here.'

'But Lord Judge said a clear decision needed to be taken by parliament. He said the European Convention on Human Rights had been written 'for a concentration camp filled, war-torn Europe in which things we take for granted had been brushed aside'.
He added that 'everything that is in the ECHR is there to be found in the common law. No torture, no arrest without reasonable suspicion.'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3096237/Bo...

[cirian75]

Does not change the fact that its an integral part of the Good Friday agreement

The Unionist and Republic terrorists had the wind taken out of the sails with that act.

If any one thinks they are full disarmed, they are a fool.



Also there are several test cases going to court over the bedroom tax and its application to disabled people under the discrimination part of the HRA 1998.


Cameron n co are trying to ditch the HRA before these cases get to the high courts.

Edited by cirian75 on Tuesday 26th May 07:36

[Corpulent Tosser]

MarshPhantom said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

I think it is a good idea, get a Bill of Rights which is right and fair primarily for the people of Britain.

Why do human right need to be tailored specifically for Britain?

Why should The BRITISH Bill Of Rights not be tailored specifically for the British people ?

[richie99]

wst said:

url=http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/10/06/what-the-first-catgate-appeal-judgment-actually-says/]OK it's a site about human rights, but it doesn't make it wrong[/url].

Even the BBC disagrees with you

Even the Telegraph disagrees with you about the cat

Ok, you made me check the judgement. Here is the reference the the cat.

"7. The Immigration Judge’s determination is upheld and the cat, [ ], need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice."
You can argue all you like but the appeal judgement makes reference to the animal. How important was it? Who knows what was going through the mind of the useless immigration judge.