Blair to curb human rights
Discussion
Scary. Is there any other part of the European convention on human rights that they don't like that they might want to abolish whilst they're at it? 
Still, refreshing to see the Blairs disagreeing with each other in public.
But seriously, I'm torn on this one. I can see the benefit of being able to throw people out of this country who are a threat to national security, but at the same time I am concerned with yet more erosion of civil liberties.
>> Edited by JonRB on Saturday 6th August 15:35
Still, refreshing to see the Blairs disagreeing with each other in public.
But seriously, I'm torn on this one. I can see the benefit of being able to throw people out of this country who are a threat to national security, but at the same time I am concerned with yet more erosion of civil liberties.
The Telegraph said:
Tony Blair served notice yesterday that he was ready to renounce parts of the European convention on human rights if British and European judges continued to block the deportation of Islamic extremists in the wake of the London bombings.
In a significant shift away from the human rights policies championed by Labour since 1997, Mr Blair indicated that he was no longer prepared to allow Britain to be a haven for Muslim extremists whose presence in London has resulted in its being dubbed "Londonistan".
He said he was prepared for "a lot of battles" with the courts, which have repeatedly intervened to prevent the Home Secretary from deporting "preachers of hate" and other foreign nationals regarded as a threat to national security.
"Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further, including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the European convention on human rights," the Prime Minister said.
At a Downing Street press conference before leaving for his summer holiday, he outlined 12 far-reaching curbs on civil liberties to tackle the growth of Islamic extremism.
The sweeping package of anti-terrorist laws included deporting Islamic extremists, closing mosques that fomented hatred, outlawing radical Muslim groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, vetting foreign imams before they came to Britain and stronger powers to deal with home-grown fanatics.
Mr Blair said that because of the London bombings the public wanted new laws to deport and exclude religious fanatics and extremists who were abusing the country's traditional values of tolerance and fair play. The mood was now different and people no longer accused the Government of "scaremongering".
"Let no one be in any doubt," he said, "the rules of the games are changing."
At the heart of the security measures was Mr Blair's determination to regain the right of the elected government to deport foreigners it believed posed a threat to national security.
This was a recognition that the Human Rights Act, introduced by Labour in 1998, had made it virtually impossible to deport foreign militants and enabled the law lords to strike down anti-terrorism laws because they considered them incompatible with the European convention.
Mr Blair's wife, Cherie, a human rights lawyer, has said that the Government should not be provoked into interfering with the independence of the courts. Questioned about her views, the Prime Minister said the right to life and freedom from terrorism was a basic human right.
New grounds for deportation published by the Home Office included fostering hatred, advocating or justifying violence, or active engagement with extremist websites, bookshops and networks.
Mr Blair acknowledged that, since 1996, deportations had been blocked as a result of a European Court ruling that article 3 of the convention on human rights prevented people from being sent back to countries where they could face torture or ill-treatment. He said the circumstances of Britain's national security had changed and the Government was ready to test its new powers in the courts at home and in Europe.
The Government was seeking assurances from the countries where deportees would be returned that they would not be ill-treated. Agreement had been reached with Jordan and discussions were continuing with 10 other countries, including Algeria and Lebanon.
In what will be seen as a plea to British and European judges to reflect the public demand for action, Mr Blair said that France and Spain, both subject to the same human rights convention, were able to deport by administrative decision, with their courts ready to accept assurances that deportees would not be ill-treated on their return.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, welcomed the Government's proposals. He said it was vital that the Home Secretary was able to use his powers to deport or exclude non-British citizens who threatened national security.
Mr Blair ran into opposition from civil rights campaigners and the Liberal Democrats, who said the Government risked inflaming tensions and alienating Muslims.
Eric Metcalfe, of the human rights group Justice, predicted that any attempt to amend the Human Rights Act to force the courts to deport foreigners was "doomed to failure".
Some mainstream Muslim groups backed the measures. Omar Farook, of the Islamic Society of Britain, said that measures to deal with "the menace" of foreign extremists who based themselves in Britain were long overdue. But the Islamic Council of Britain said the ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir would be counter-productive.
Mr Blair acknowledged that while the public had responded with tolerance to the attacks on London, there was also a determination "that this very tolerance and determination should not be abused by a small fanatical minority".
He confirmed that there would be new anti-terrorist legislation in the autumn, including an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism which would apply anywhere, not only in Britain.
If it could be prepared in time, the Government was ready to recall Parliament next month from its 80-day summer recess.
Mr Blair acknowledged that there was now a need to consider whether the policy of multi-culturalism had resulted in ethnic groups failing to integrate.
The Government would consider whether requirements for people who became British citizens were adequate: swearing allegiance to the country, taking part in a citizenship ceremony and having an adequate grasp of the language.
He emphasised that the new powers were aimed at a "fringe of extremists" and not the law-abiding Muslim community.
"Coming to Britain is not a right and, even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty," he said. "That duty is to ensure and support the values that sustain the British way of life.
"Those who break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country or our people have no place here."
>> Edited by JonRB on Saturday 6th August 15:35
JonRB said:
but at the same time I am concerned with yet more erosion of civil liberties.
Why should the introduction of harsher and more decisive treatment of people who preach death and destruction for citizens of this country worry you? They can erode those civil liberties as much as they like in my opinion - don't turn this into another "Labour introducing another ban" thing.
Criminals' civil liberties have been considered too highly previously, that's the problem.
Mr Blair is currently in Knee Jerk central.
Whatever it is that's coming out of his mouth at the moment, it isn't very well considered.
I think he believed in humanity and the triumph of good people over bad ones. He now realises that that isn't always the case, and that his ideas and actions have been central to the problem.
For quite a long time people have been telling him about this, and he's now having a rude awakening.
The trouble is that he doesn't have a plan, or know how to formulate one. The things that he has to do are against his principles.
At least that's what I think.
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 6th August 15:43
Whatever it is that's coming out of his mouth at the moment, it isn't very well considered.
I think he believed in humanity and the triumph of good people over bad ones. He now realises that that isn't always the case, and that his ideas and actions have been central to the problem.
For quite a long time people have been telling him about this, and he's now having a rude awakening.
The trouble is that he doesn't have a plan, or know how to formulate one. The things that he has to do are against his principles.
At least that's what I think.
>> Edited by dilbert on Saturday 6th August 15:43
Clucking bells, so if I came on here and said I thought the bombers had a point and maybe it would make our crazy war-mongering government think twice about invading our peace-loving islamic friends, I'm advocating and justifying violence and can expect a knock on the door?
How about if I said our government was absolutely right to go sort those towel-heads out once and for all, nasty job but it had to be done, am I inciting racial hate and violence now?
This stinks of the 'patriot act', carefully named and timed to catch the wave of anger caused by the attacks. I think it's time we stopped using the 'T' word in this connection. They're criminals, and not fundamentally different to criminals who kill somebody while robbing a bank. On that basis then use the existing criminal law to stop them.
How about if I said our government was absolutely right to go sort those towel-heads out once and for all, nasty job but it had to be done, am I inciting racial hate and violence now?
This stinks of the 'patriot act', carefully named and timed to catch the wave of anger caused by the attacks. I think it's time we stopped using the 'T' word in this connection. They're criminals, and not fundamentally different to criminals who kill somebody while robbing a bank. On that basis then use the existing criminal law to stop them.
While those Lentils are simmering away spare a thought for us the silent 
majority, that want to see the end of the nutjobs spouting death and destruction upon their next door neighbour. If it means new laws..(though the existing ones cover it anyway) and that we opt out of the stpid ECHR then its good news at last.
majority, that want to see the end of the nutjobs spouting death and destruction upon their next door neighbour. If it means new laws..(though the existing ones cover it anyway) and that we opt out of the stpid ECHR then its good news at last. JonRB said:
but at the same time I am concerned with yet more erosion of civil liberties.
You are working under the illusion that before the Human Rights Act of 1998 we had no human rights in this country which is fundamentally wrong.
This country has led human rights in the world for hundreds of years starting with the Magna Carta. There are numerous occasions where this country has led the world in the area of human rights.
At the end of the day - who has benefitted most from the HRA? The people of this country? Or the lawyers?
Its only a matter of time before a prisoner takes the Govt to court that being locked up is an infringement of his right to freedom under the HRA.
Perhaps if Blair had listened when the whole country was complaning about Abu Hamza and others abusing our freedoms, perhaps if he'd listened when he was told the immigation problem was real and perhaps if he listened to people who told him he had neutered our police he wouldn't need to over react like he is now.
This government has a long history of enacting draconian laws that are so broad in their scope that they negatively affect people who they did not intend to affect.
I am concerned, like Pete (GreenV8S), that these laws are going to have ramifications for ordinary folk like ourselves. That in some way our own civil liberties will be eroded.
In the same way that the cry of "tax the rich bastards" always refers to people richer than those uttering it, I'm concerned as to where the line is going to be drawn.
After all, are not car enthusiasts like ourselves seen as dangerous anti-social lunatics by people such as BRAKE and Transport 2000?
I am concerned, like Pete (GreenV8S), that these laws are going to have ramifications for ordinary folk like ourselves. That in some way our own civil liberties will be eroded.
In the same way that the cry of "tax the rich bastards" always refers to people richer than those uttering it, I'm concerned as to where the line is going to be drawn.
After all, are not car enthusiasts like ourselves seen as dangerous anti-social lunatics by people such as BRAKE and Transport 2000?
They are not, and wil not be, eroding my rights, as I don't preach death, plot terorist offences, conceal information, belong to extremist groups, or provide them with money. In fact they are protecting my human rights to go about my life free from fear. My right to life, to enjoy my property, associate with whom I like, follow a religion, and say what I like free from threats of death or attack are safer in Blair's hands than the lawyers and judges who seek to make my life more dangerous to fullfuill their own sense of 'justice' or swell their coffers so they can retire to Surey.
shirepro said:By whose definition, though? I support the Association of British Drivers. Might that not be seen by the "Speed Kills" brigade to be preaching death? Might that not be considered an extremist group that I am providing with money?
They are not, and wil not be, eroding my rights, as I don't preach death, plot terorist offences, conceal information, belong to extremist groups, or provide them with money.
As I said, it is all to do with definitions. If one's definition of what is acceptable and unacceptable coincides with the definitions of these laws then there is indeed nothing to fear.
But what if it is not?
The Orwellian state will not come about overtly, but covertly and little-by-little. What assurances are there that this isn't another small step towards it?
JonRB said:
By whose definition, though? I support the Association of British Drivers. Might that not be seen by the "Speed Kills" brigade to be preaching death? Might that not be considered an extremist group that I am providing with money?
As I said, it is all to do with definitions. If one's definition of what is acceptable and unacceptable coincides with the definitions of these laws then there is indeed nothing to fear.
But what if it is not?
The Orwellian state will not come about overtly, but covertly and little-by-little. What assurances are there that this isn't another small step towards it?
Oh dear, this is just another pop at Labour isn't it. Damned if he doesn't and damned if he does.
IvIark said:Not at all. I would question and debate any erosion of civil liberties, regardless of source or policial bent.
Oh dear, this is just another pop at Labour isn't it. Damned if he doesn't and damned if he does.
To dismiss this as "just another pop at Labour" is to belittle the debate.
Unnecessary legislation.
This government (and sometimes the Tories before them) often introduces laws that are not required - just so that it appears they are "doing something".
On a different topic, I have just read a review of the effect of the government's recent introduction of the Inland Revenue Form 42. This form is a declaration relating to the issuing of company shares to individuals who are employees or directors of the company and comes with the usual batch of deadlines, fines, penalties, criminal offence regulations etc etc etc.
For 2003/04, 400,000 forms were completed and returned to the Inland Revenue. Of these the number of forms which actually contained information which disclosed the information the Inland Revenue originally intended to be caught under these new disclosure requirements was 6,000.
The rules (as always) are FAR too widespread and catch out FAR too many circumstances not originally envisaged. This is a very strong aspect of the New Labout legislative process.
This government (and sometimes the Tories before them) often introduces laws that are not required - just so that it appears they are "doing something".
On a different topic, I have just read a review of the effect of the government's recent introduction of the Inland Revenue Form 42. This form is a declaration relating to the issuing of company shares to individuals who are employees or directors of the company and comes with the usual batch of deadlines, fines, penalties, criminal offence regulations etc etc etc.
For 2003/04, 400,000 forms were completed and returned to the Inland Revenue. Of these the number of forms which actually contained information which disclosed the information the Inland Revenue originally intended to be caught under these new disclosure requirements was 6,000.
The rules (as always) are FAR too widespread and catch out FAR too many circumstances not originally envisaged. This is a very strong aspect of the New Labout legislative process.
It is not the laws, it's the lack of fairness.
Nick Griffin of the BNP was the subject of a BBC documentary and as a consequence was taken to court and charged for a bit of name calling behind closed doors.
Omar Bakri and Abu Hamsha, preach hatred and death in the open air outside Finsbury mosque, whilst milking the benefit system and nobody does nothing.
Mick
Nick Griffin of the BNP was the subject of a BBC documentary and as a consequence was taken to court and charged for a bit of name calling behind closed doors.
Omar Bakri and Abu Hamsha, preach hatred and death in the open air outside Finsbury mosque, whilst milking the benefit system and nobody does nothing.
Mick
shirepro said:
They are not, and wil not be, eroding my rights, as I don't preach death, plot terorist offences, conceal information, belong to extremist groups, or provide them with money. In fact they are protecting my human rights to go about my life free from fear. My right to life, to enjoy my property, associate with whom I like, follow a religion, and say what I like free from threats of death or attack are safer in Blair's hands than the lawyers and judges who seek to make my life more dangerous to fullfuill their own sense of 'justice' or swell their coffers so they can retire to Surey.
what Pete said, entirely my thoughts too. This aresoles are in my country are invading my Human Right to live in a Free LAW ABIDING Country of which those who dont are put inside(hopefully..Ok..Ok..Iknow the laws need a sorting).
A little to late but at least they are doing something, Like Apache said they should have listened earlier.
My only concern is true law abiding Muslim are gonna be victimised...Its a very hard path to walk from Govement to police to the general public IMHO
BB
Ballistic Banana said:
My only concern is true law abiding Muslim are gonna be victimised.
BB
Get real: Already happening. Of course, it depends on how you see "victimisation" versus "probable cause".
Is it a basic human right to be allowed to wear baggy clothing, have a rucksack on yer back and ride on public transport? Particularly if you are of asian descent?
Cops don't need to stop people in a suit or T-shirt and shorts only carrying a handbag/clutch bag...
How do you know you are fully law abiding? Are you aware of ALL the laws you might transgress in your lifetime. I am pretty sure that, although I consider myself "law abiding" in the general sense, I have in fact, broken hundreds of laws, many of which could, in theory, result in a crminal charge.
I am just wary of politicians giving themselves more and more powers.
Don't forget the old adage of "absolute power corrupting absolutely". It is true you know.
I am just wary of politicians giving themselves more and more powers.
Don't forget the old adage of "absolute power corrupting absolutely". It is true you know.
JonRB said:We managed fine before it and we'd manage better than now without it. What on earth was it that sustained us in our primitive existence before that legislation hit the statute book? It feels so much better these days with jailbirds demanding pornography and suing the government over the size of their dessert portions, terrorists blowing us up and hearing crackpots incite more of the same, yobbos and chavs having asbos overturned to menace their communities again - but then there's the exceedingly worthy applications to allow us our basic freedoms which we've hitherto been denied, in this country these are...er...
Scary. Is there any other part of the European convention on human rights that they don't like that they might want to abolish whilst they're at it?
An amendment or two is acceptable. Getting rid of it altogether would be better.
A bit more - and with no disprespect to the thread originator - this title is misleading. It's not a case of BLiar curbing human rights, it's about stopping not very nice people from doing things they shouldn't ever have had the right to do anyway. Not that they did have the right but you see what I mean.
If an Act of Parliament lets extremists foment terror, then as often happens our muppet MPs have excelled themselves. If another more sensible move from Westminster is about to put things right then not before time.
If an Act of Parliament lets extremists foment terror, then as often happens our muppet MPs have excelled themselves. If another more sensible move from Westminster is about to put things right then not before time.
As long ago as 1886 Thomas B Reed said:The Human Rights Act is a prime example.
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff