Cameron and the Human rights act

Cameron and the Human rights act

Author
Discussion

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
What the act covers

Right to life

Right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment

Right not to be held as a slave

Right to liberty and security of the person

Right to a fair trial

Right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime

Right to a private and family life

Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Right to freedom of expression

Right to freedom of assembly and association

Right to marriage

Right to an effective remedy

Right not to be discriminated against

The right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property

Right to an education.

Duty of the government to provide free and fair elections.



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?

Fat Fairy

503 posts

186 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
More than happy to be corrected, but as I understand it, the 'Human Rights Act' has been so buggered up with case law, it is easier to write a new 'Bill of Rights' than to try to amend the old act. We will see if a new 'Bill of Rights' also has some responsibilities written in to it, so for instance, if you remove someone's right to life, ie murder, then your rights are now somehow curtailed.

We will see.....

FF

(Not a legal type in any way!!)

ofcorsa

3,527 posts

243 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
cirian75 said:
What the act covers

Right to life

Right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment

Right not to be held as a slave

Right to liberty and security of the person

Right to a fair trial

Right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime

Right to a private and family life

Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Right to freedom of expression

Right to freedom of assembly and association

Right to marriage

Right to an effective remedy

Right not to be discriminated against

The right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property

Right to an education.

Duty of the government to provide free and fair elections.



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?
Prior to 1998 the world was a terrible place eh?

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
We all know most of the above rights will be in his new proposed bill of rights

It's "will he remove or some modify the above rights?" that worries people

anonymous-user

54 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
cirian75 said:
We all know most of the above rights will be in his new proposed bill of rights

It's "will he remove or some modify the above rights?" that worries people
Which people? I don't know anyone who's worried.

Corpulent Tosser

5,459 posts

245 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
Which people? I don't know anyone who's worried.
Not worried but making political capital over it would be Labour and their supporters, SNP and their supporters, LibDems and their supporters, Greens and their supporters.

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

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
ofcorsa said:
cirian75 said:
What the act covers

Right to life

Right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment

Right not to be held as a slave

Right to liberty and security of the person

Right to a fair trial

Right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime

Right to a private and family life

Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Right to freedom of expression

Right to freedom of assembly and association

Right to marriage

Right to an effective remedy

Right not to be discriminated against

The right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property

Right to an education.

Duty of the government to provide free and fair elections.



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?
Prior to 1998 the world was a terrible place eh?
In Northern Ireland it was, the HRA 1998 is an intergal part of the Good Friday agreement!

Derek Smith

45,654 posts

248 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
ofcorsa said:
Prior to 1998 the world was a terrible place eh?
The point is that for many the current world is a terrible place. We need a check on the power and authority of the government. The HoL is chocolate teapot level.

We have the police being turned into a political support group, the press will be controlled by legislation, ostensibly to protect actors and comedians, although it seems strange that it didn't become a factor in politics until the corrupt MPs and lords were exposed by the press. The law is part of the establishment. We have a neutered monarchy.

Still, if you've got nothing to protect, you've got nothing to worry about.

People keep mentioning Magna Carta but they forget what the bloke in charge of the country did about it a few minutes after it was signed.

No one is suggesting it is perfect, but then it is probably better than the one they want to put in its place.


BrassMan

1,483 posts

189 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
ofcorsa said:
cirian75 said:
Prior to 1998 the world was a terrible place eh?
1950. UK signs convention on Human Rights
1966. Recognised the power of the European Commission on Human Rights to hear individual complaints from UK citizens
1998. Protocol 11 of 1994 amalgamates Court and Commission into one body due to increasing workload (between 1981 and 1997 applications went from 404 to 4750 and cases referred went from 7 to 119).

The UK does not have a good record in the ECHR, when my source was written (2000) it was second only to Turkey. Source states that ECHR precedent is binding in UK law.

Malone v UK (1984) Phone tapping was was against the convention because it was not in accordance with law but rather governed by an unregulated discretion. It could not be necessary in a democratic society as there were no constitutional safeguards against misuse of the power. The UK government reacted with the Communications Act 1985, requiring a warrant from the Home Secretary on grounds of National Security, Serious Crime (detection or prevention), economic wellbeing of the UK.

R v Saunders (1996) DTI inspectors could interview without right to silence under provisions of companies legislation. Law changed (not retroactively), no compensation issued.


The real point appears to be that it is a court which the UK government cannot strong arm.

williamp

19,255 posts

273 months

Thursday 14th May 2015
quotequote all
Lot of panic over nothing. Read thIs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11356512/...

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
so no human rights for criminals?

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

HD Adam

5,148 posts

184 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
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?

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
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?
It swings both way, rock and a hard place, the current act is easy to abuse by some really unpleasant types

But the proposed replacement makes it way way to easy to deport genuine asylum seekers to face death and torture.


Looking at the current act and doing some well thought out amendments would seem to be a better idea.

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
This is what really make huge minefield

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement...

Does Cameron and co really want to mess with that !?

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

137 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
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?

confused

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
currybum said:
williamp said:
Lot of panic over nothing. Read thIs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11356512/...
So you are guaranteed basic human rights unless the government decided you shouldn’t have them…sounds like a great idea.
Yes, what is criminal enough to make you loose them, and who decides what is criminal.

answers on the back of your boarding to where ever your grandfather came from while G4S throw on that plane.

MarshPhantom

9,658 posts

137 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
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?
Why should we remove the rights of the majority because of a very, very tiny number of cases such as this?

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,260 posts

233 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
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?

confused
The key is the removal of the word human

Human makes it universal, remove it and well, its not universal any more

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

169 months

Friday 15th May 2015
quotequote all
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.