Human rights law may be changed

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4768259.stm

The UK government might have to bring in new legislation to prevent the Human Rights Act endangering public safety, the lord chancellor has said.
Lord Falconer said cases such as that of rapist Anthony Rice, who murdered a woman while on parole, raised concerns over how the law was working.

The act was also cited when a court ruled nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked a plane could stay in the UK.

Human rights groups said the current concerns were not a fault of the act.

"Amending our human rights act because of gross public service failures is like handing a repeat burglar the key to your house," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of campaign group Liberty.
 
#2
It’s about time something was done to end the ludicrous state of affairs. This country is journeying itself into a dark hole of oppression of freedom of speech “unless you are a member of an ethnic minority” It’s happening in every corner of politics the workplace and for me personally the Army.

People should not be allowed to hijack planes as an easy excuse to escape tyranny and oppression. What they should be doing is standing their ground and fighting the thing they feel is wrong, and if their cause is just the majority will join and they will win. I am sure something similar to this happened during the 2nd World War.

People, who immigrate to this country, have every right to sustain their beliefs and culture, but not when it is to the detriment of the host nation. If this is not acceptable to them then they should return on the soonest flight back to their own country. And they should not be conspiring about blowing our tube trains and buses up, and whatever else they have planned.

It is also the same reason why we should no longer be in Iraq, the people of Iraq have sent us a message for several months now saying the want us out of their country, I think we should take the hint and let them sort the problems they currently have out by themselves, as we with our outlook on democracy, will not be able to resolve the problems that country has.

It is time the British government listened to the British people and started controlling immigration and asylum seekers, along the same lines as Australia, if there is no real need for you to be here or you can’t offer this country anything but turmoil, then FCUKOFF.

If they don’t then our own extremist parties like the BNP will start to make an impact on local government then possibly God forbid National government.
 
#3
Not surprising considering the press its been getting and how popular it is with most people.

Seems the Conservatives are also talking about either amending or abolishing the act as well if they were elected. Not sure how feasible withdrawing from the convention as a last resort would be but it sounds on the face of it like a fairly reasonable proposal. I'm actually quite shocked, a politician that sounds like he's talking sense and with a policy that I could actually support! Who would have thought? :)
 
#4
I'll wager a pipe of port that any proposed changes will contravene the European Human Rights Act. To achieve any meaningful change will require us to pull out of the EU completely which I would fully support! The biggest problem with the HRA is the Government are powerless to force their intent and interpretation on the Judiciary who enforce the Act, as we have seen several times this week with the rights of murderers and foreign scum being put before the agrieved and we who pay for it all. The BNP might not be such a bad lot after all!!!
 
#6
Reality tells me you're entirely correct about the BNP but it would be a hell of a fcukin' wake up call if one of them ever became an MP! I seem to recall that Sinn Fein were thought of in a similar light and look at what happened there!
 
#7
That I cannot deny you are entirely correct, it would be the wake up call this country needs. As far as Sinn Fein is concerned I am a Soldier and know what that name means, the name disgusts me, and they way the British Government has let them into the political arena is a travesty.
 
#8
Too many times have suspect's hidden behind the HRA. The doo gooders of the world overlook the victim so as not to upset the perpetrator on the basis of their Human Right's being abused.How many times have we seen someone from Amnesty Int standing up for the perp?
It's about time the Gov removed the HR shield from abuse by making it harder to hide behind.
 
#9
Did you know that there are over 100 organisations that look after "offenders" but there's only one, "Victim Support" to look after the offended! Speaks volumes about Bliars' claim "to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"!
 
#10
An_Englishman said:
Did you know that there are over 100 organisations that look after "offenders" but there's only one, "Victim Support" to look after the offended! Speaks volumes about Bliars' claim "to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"!
Yup! 80% of them are up the Falls/Shankill Rd! :lol:
 
#11
An_Englishman said:
I'll wager a pipe of port that any proposed changes will contravene the European Human Rights Act. To achieve any meaningful change will require us to pull out of the EU completely which I would fully support! The biggest problem with the HRA is the Government are powerless to force their intent and interpretation on the Judiciary who enforce the Act, as we have seen several times this week with the rights of murderers and foreign scum being put before the agrieved and we who pay for it all. The BNP might not be such a bad lot after all!!!
I think I should dispel some myths.

One, at least as far as the UK is concerned, the ECHR is seperate from the EU! In addition, compliance with the ECHR does not require an act like the Human Rights Act. The ECHR was applicable in the UK since before the HRA. The HRA merely makes ECHR rights available to be pursued in UK courts. Before, whoever wanted to do so had to exhaust all national remedies before he is allowed to bring his case before the European Court of Human Rights.

Two, the government is not powerless.

The HRA requries all public authorities, including courts, to act, so far as is practicable, in compliance with the ECHR. The HRA also requries courts to interpret all legislation, as far as possible, in compliance with the ECHR. But the HRA specifically states that the validity of any act of parliament cannot be questioned! So you are wrong. The government, as I said in another thread, has played the media like puppets. The government imposed a duty on the judiciary and all public authorities. If the government really wanted to do so, it could use its majority in parliament to push through legislation with express provisions that are incompatible with the ECHR, and the courts will be bound to apply that law.
 
#12
TartanTerror said:
...

It is also the same reason why we should no longer be in Iraq, the people of Iraq have sent us a message for several months now saying the want us out of their country, I think we should take the hint and let them sort the problems they currently have out by themselves, as we with our outlook on democracy, will not be able to resolve the problems that country has.

It is time the British government listened to the British people and started controlling immigration and asylum seekers, along the same lines as Australia, if there is no real need for you to be here or you can’t offer this country anything but turmoil, then FCUKOFF.

...
IMO, immigration to the UK is more difficult than immigration to australia! A university graduate who studies for about another 2 years in australia, is young and speaks english will probably be granted Permanent residence.

By contrast, in the UK, such a person will not normally get indefinite leave to remain (akin to PR) unless he has worked in the UK for 4 years. And to work here you need a work permit. To get a work permit, your employer must prove that no one in the EU can do the same job.
 
#13
I don't really see 'new' legislation being brought in as any good. Whatever it says... as soon as it influences the first case, that case will go to the European Courts and it will be overturned as usual.

What we need is the Human Rights act to be scrapped - but so long as Cherie Blair is running the UK or the Blair nest egg depends on the HR act, that will never happen.
 
#14
spoomo said:
I don't really see 'new' legislation being brought in as any good. Whatever it says... as soon as it influences the first case, that case will go to the European Courts and it will be overturned as usual.

What we need is the Human Rights act to be scrapped - but so long as Cherie Blair is running the UK or the Blair nest egg depends on the HR act, that will never happen.
Your first statement does not support your second.

The UK signed onto the ECHR years before the HRA. The HRA does not affect the validity of the UK's ratification of the ECHR. So scrapping the HRA does not mean that a case cannot be brought the european court.

Also, IIRC, the UK is free to to disregard European Court of Human Rights judgements because there are not real sanctions for failure to comply. The only sanctions are political.
 
#15
An_Englishman said:
I'll wager a pipe of port that any proposed changes will contravene the European Human Rights Act. To achieve any meaningful change will require us to pull out of the EU completely which I would fully support! The biggest problem with the HRA is the Government are powerless to force their intent and interpretation on the Judiciary who enforce the Act, as we have seen several times this week with the rights of murderers and foreign scum being put before the agrieved and we who pay for it all. The BNP might not be such a bad lot after all!!!
As others have pointed out, the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU - it is the product of the Council of Europe that Churchill was instrumental in setting up. The UK was one of the first countries to ratify the Convention in 1951. The Convention itself is heavily influenced by English conceptions of the liberties of the subject, as many English legal draftsmen were central to its drafting.

For example, the article concerning free speech reads:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
and merely sets out the principles that have applied in England for hundreds of years, and which any Englishman would accept without question.
 
#16
Scabster_Mooch said:
Your first statement does not support your second.

The UK signed onto the ECHR years before the HRA. The HRA does not affect the validity of the UK's ratification of the ECHR. So scrapping the HRA does not mean that a case cannot be brought the european court.

Also, IIRC, the UK is free to to disregard European Court of Human Rights judgements because there are not real sanctions for failure to comply. The only sanctions are political.
Ok I see what your saying and was not aware of that - however I do not understand how The statement is not supported, I meant it like two seperate statements (one which you have set me right with - thanks).

How does scrapping the act not support that?

Essentially we would be free of the whole mess bar some pressure from the EU, which as you say, we could just disregard anyway.
 
#17
The HRA, along with the data protection act and all health and safety legislation, are the most misunderstood laws we are subject to. They are constantly held up as limits to our freedom, safety and lifestyle where, in fact, they are written to protect those very things.

It is all to easy for the government to blame one of these pieces of legislation for a malaise affecting society and equally for the media to trot out experts who will argue both sides of the same coin.

The current administration is obsessed with enacting new legislation every time there is a crisis. In most cases what is needed is competent management and adequate funding under current legislation - the 7/7 bombings and foreign criminal deportations are recent cases in point.

I personally rather like the idea that there is a court which is above any legislation that big Tone and the boys bring in. The two examples cited in the initial news piece could have be dealt with by greater parole management funding and clarity on asylum claims, neither needing new legislation.
 
#19
Just saw this news on BBC World Service TV. Shattered and stunned.
UK law is a mess I suppose what happens when you get a Parliment dominated by Lawyers.
I seem to recollect that German Law has Precident over Euro Law.
The common man must be protected againt Evil Doers, that is the basis of having a formal organized socity.
The law must place victims before criminals.
A country must be able to deport foriegners who create trouble, if their home country is considered a bad place then their problem.
However much as I feel uncomfortable quoting Ms Chackrabati
"Without the act, ordinary people in Britain would have precious little protection from maladministration."
john
Lawyers Mucking Lawyers.
 
#20
spoomo said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
Your first statement does not support your second.

The UK signed onto the ECHR years before the HRA. The HRA does not affect the validity of the UK's ratification of the ECHR. So scrapping the HRA does not mean that a case cannot be brought the european court.

Also, IIRC, the UK is free to to disregard European Court of Human Rights judgements because there are not real sanctions for failure to comply. The only sanctions are political.
Ok I see what your saying and was not aware of that - however I do not understand how The statement is not supported, I meant it like two seperate statements (one which you have set me right with - thanks).

How does scrapping the act not support that?

Essentially we would be free of the whole mess bar some pressure from the EU, which as you say, we could just disregard anyway.
Sorry, I meant to say that your two statements don't seem to gel very well with each other.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top