"Conservatives would abolish the Human Rights Act"

#1
Taken off the Conservative Party website.

David Cameron has promised to scrap the Human Rights Act after the widow of murdered head teacher Philip Lawrence warned that the law 'bypasses humanity'.

Reaffirming the Conservative policy stance, the Party Leader seized on the controversy sparked by immigration judges ruling that Mr Lawrence's killer Learco Chindamo should not be deported because it would infringe his human rights, and called for common sense to prevail.

Mr Cameron declared: "The fact that the murderer of Philip Lawrence cannot be deported flies in the face of common sense. It is a glaring example of what is going wrong in our country. What about the rights of Mrs. Lawrence?"

He stated: "We ought to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights that we can write ourselves that sets out clearly our rights and responsibilities.

"We clearly need to recognise human rights - we believe the British Bill of Rights would do this but in a common sense way. The problem for this Government is that the Human Rights Act is their legislation and they appear to be blind to its failings."

Meanwhile, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis accused Justice Secretary Jack Straw of 'wriggling' after he sought to claim that most of the issues raised in the Lawrence/Chindamo case arose not from the Human Rights Act, but from EU legislation negotiated and passed by Labour.

Stressing that the relevant "European Union law" was the 2004 Free Movement Directive negotiated in 2004 and passed under this Government in 2006, Mr Davis declared: "Jack Straw says the Chindamo decision is the result of an EU law not Labour's Human Rights Act.

"The court applied both laws in this case, so Mr Straw is wriggling with good reason. He was the Home Secretary that made the Human Rights Act law. And he was Foreign Secretary when the Government negotiated the 2004 EU Directive."

The Shadow Home Secretary added: "The Government has made a mess of our laws at every level with serious consequences for public safety. A Conservative Government would put a stop to this endless abdication of responsibility to Brussels, on matters affecting UK security. And we would replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights that strikes a more sensible balance between fundamental rights and the responsibilities of those claiming them."
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=138115
 
#7
Sven said:
lsquared said:
About time somebody did, provided the European Soviet Union lets it happen!
They won't, therefore Camerons UK would have to leave the EU
To leave the corrupt, expensive, unelected, unaccountable European Soviet Union would be the best, very best, thing to happen to GB since May 1979 when Mrs. Thatcher was elected and dragged this country back from the abyss!
 
#8
Sven said:
lsquared said:
About time somebody did, provided the European Soviet Union lets it happen!
They won't, therefore Camerons UK would have to leave the EU
What a day that'll be. If he coupled it with a new public Holiday (as being threatened) it will taste all the more sweeter. Not for you though Sven. The possibility of a Republic and tree hugging for all would be right out the window.
 
#10
Listened to a bit of this on Radio 2 todey and it would seem that it is not the HRA that is the problem (which we can change if we want) nor the European Convention on HR but the European Directive which we cannot change unilterally.

Better said here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/main...radio/aod/radio2_aod.shtml?radio2/r2_vine_tue

go to about 19mins in and the lawer who is a lawyer for the Immigration types states it quite clearly.

So yet again a vote grabbing gob off by another politition.

BTW whilst I empathise with the Lawrence family the guy was 5/6 when he got here and this is not the correct case on which to highlight the flaws. I seem to recall two cases recently where both were adults when granted assylum, one from Nigeria (murderer?) and another one from Egypt (terrorist) who cannot be sent home due to this.
 
#11
What difference would it make?

All it would mean is that Human Rights issues could not be addressed in the domestic courts and that legislation would not require a declaration of compatability at the time the proposals for the legislation are made.

The Human Rights would still exist - its just that the cases would need to be heard in Strasbourg, just like they were in between 1952 and 2000.

It is more bluster than anything else - the tories pandering to the readers of "The Sun" in an attempt to win more votes.

Like a previous poster said - to reshape the UK constitution would take real leadership.
 
#12
Last time I looked the British didn't have a constitution, and never looked like needing one. God forbid we get one now, doubtless it will be some shadow of the US version, one which ensures our continued adherence to the European Soviet Union and ignores all the good US bits about the rights of the indigenous population.
 
#15
Last time I looked the British didn't have a constitution, and never looked like needing one.
The entire point of one is that it's there when you need it. It's a bit late to put one together when we end up with an authoratarian fascist state is all prodding us into line.
 
#17
I think the should be a Tier system in place for certain crimes & countries of origin.
If say a nonce kills a copper he should be deported.If he cant go back to his home country for some imaginary persecution,he should still be deported but have leave to appeal however the severity of the crime & the views of the victims relatives should have overall bearing on the outcome.
 
#18
And do you really believe that Europe's constitution, sorry treaty, wouldn't override the national versions anyway?
Does it really matter whether the source is Europe or the UK? The important thing is having human rights enshrined in law.

It's like having an army. You don't wait until you get invaded to raise an army, do you?

"Excuse me, enemy chappies, can you just pull back to the beaches while I recruit from the populace, train them up, organise them, arm them and send them off to combat you? Jolly good, thank you."
 
#19
Oh_Bollox said:
Does it really matter whether the source is Europe or the UK? The important thing is having human rights enshrined in law.
It does matter.

The HRA is domestic law and is enforceable in the UK Courts.

European law may be enforceable depending on whether it is directly applicable with either horizontal or vertical effect (in other words, against the state or against each other). Most EU law is not enforceable against each other - not that this is a relevant comparison with the HRA, as that can only be enforced against the state.

Some EU law may be enforced agaisnt other individuals, in the case of directives where the time for implementation has passed by a pre-set period and the law conplies with certain other criteira (known as the Van Gend criteria - taken from the case that established the rule). There are other rules here too (emanation of the state etc)

I agree though that it is important to have human rights enshrined in law - but it is of massive importance whether that law is enshrined in UK domestic law or not - for the reasons cited.
 
#20
Old thread but 8 years later they are now going to attempt to do it.

So far it's been claimed it will breach the Scotland Act and the GFA, whatever happens i guess the same lawyers currently abusing the HRA to get their clients off and enrich themselves will be lining up to challenge any change to the HRA
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top