Be Excellent To Each Other

So, the Tories are casting off any attempt to not be seen as actively evil by attempting to remove the Human Rights Act

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15140742

After all, whilst we wage wars in foreign lands to try to bring democracy and human rights to others, we surely don't need them ourselves.

Thankfully it would appear that the Lib Dems have yet again derailed the nastiest part of the proposition, by putting it into the coalition agreement that any replacement for the HRA must contain all current bits, so they can't actually remove rights from us (but, of course, the Lib Dems are the bad guys... *rolls eyes*).

Which really makes me wonder what the hell the Tories are actually playing at? As far as I can tell, it's just a publicity stunt to try to appeal to Little Englanders.

Anyone else with an opinion or information on this?

Like the Bins thing last week , or the speed limit stuff , or "keep a freeze on council tax" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15145083

What's in the British Bill of Rights, then?

I think that's probably the case. About 99% of the HRA was already in place in various guises and getting shot of it would be not being in the EU or something, possibly.


I get very nervous when people talk about 'removing the rights of criminals' as that's a retrograde step in my opinion, and one that should be avoided.

That stuff, says wikipedia.

As the HRA ic just putting the European Convention on Human Rights properly into the British court system, and Winston Churchill was one of the drivers behind the ECHR I declare anyone opposed to the HRA or ECHR to be anti-British and to hate Churchill and all he stood for.

You've reminded me that it was written primarily by British lawyers, too.

Also, the HRA / ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. The Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights is totally independent, and is not an EU institution, although most people think it is.

Perhaps a better question would be "So what's going to change?".

We will be able to deport dirty forrins from God's green and pleasant land and not really care if they will get tortured in the land we're sending them to, as at present we can't send them back if it would put them in danger of bad things happening.

Apart from they really probably won't be able to do that, as the LibDems would dissolve the government.

A lot would change if this were just a Conservative government.

Also, a lot of stuff 'blamed' on the HRA and the Strasbourg courts are very little to do with it/them anyway.

I'm not convinced they would, you know.
They'd make a lot of noise, sure. Then they'd quietly back down and put their heads back into the sand.

Highly doubtful.

See the NHS Bill they made the Tories back down on for details.

It's a decent target, as people can point the blame at a faceless, alien entity and say "S'not me, guv, it's political correctness gone differently sane. I tell you, we'll do our best to change it", thus allowing people to unite against a common foe, as we're all in this together, the blitz/Dunkirk/Tim Henman spirit, sheltering in the underground, the Krays never hurt a woman or child doncha know?

I was under the impression that even Cameron didn't want the NHS bill.

Quite. Still, yay Lib Dems!

Strange how he only didn't want it when it became quite clear it wouldn't wash.

I don't want to turn this into a 'Aren't the LDs fabulous' thread, but it is genuinely amazing how well the Tories have played the PR game to downplay the LibDem achievements in Parliament and try to saddle them with all the blame. The student loans thing has to be the best example of spin I have ever seen, whereas stuff like equal rights for gay marriage, blocking the backdoor privitisation of the NHS and improving tax conditions for all low income families, etc etc have been swept under the carpet.

Repealing the Human Rights Act would only return us to the pre-1998 situation where cases had to bd taken, at huge cost, to Strasbourg. Unless we abrogate from the treaty, which is never going to happen, the UK still has to abide by it.

Fairly certain that is just May's opinion, and Cameron came out and said, (prior to her) that it wouldn't be going anywhere. Well, that is what Andrew Marr told me yesterday.

Wrong thread, matey..

I think May is going a bit bonkers, as per Kern's theory.

Home Secretary disease. See also Blunkett, Smith etc etc - that post turns eveyone into rapid mentals.

I think you may have your cause and effect a bit skewed there.

It's understandable however. Imagine sitting at the desk, trying to solve a problem:

'So, the public hate crime, and you're certain that Moriaty is behind it all'
'Ye, minister'
'So why isn't he in prison?'
'Because we lack the evidence, minister'
'Why should that stop us?'
'Your predecessor felt the same way, minister'

Next day, the new Home Secretary follows the direction of the previous incumbent and makes a speech about how his hands are tied by wooly liberals and their talk of 'rights'

While I'm nervous about the idea of fiddling with a vitally important bit of legislation like the HRA, I also strongly dislike the idea that any legislation should be an untouchable sacred cow. Our laws should be evolutionary, otherwise you end up with idiocy like the US constitutional right to bear arms.

And isn't that wildly misquoted, and actually means "the right to be protected by someone bearing arms"?

Debatable.

Well, there have been 27 amendments to the US Constitution, so it's not utterly untouchable. And, to be honest, I'm pretty happy to have the items in the HRA be pretty hard for a Government to change.

That's curious, because I seem to remember them all voting for it in January, raising a little stink when it proved to be unpopular, getting a few cosmetic changes to the Bill, passing it again with just a couple of minor dissents, and it's now in the hands of the Lords for final passage.

There's not been an amendment of real consequence for over 50 years unless you count lowering the voting age 35 years ago, and it would be political suicide to go anywhere near the second amendment.

It's reassuring to know that the Yanks still fear soldiers being quartered in their homes in peacetime.

Of course, there's a difference between formal amendment, and the operating rules being changed through judicial interpretation or the actions of the executive or legislative.

Without wishing to open the debate to anything other than constitutional interpretation, the US constitution is silent on whether a state can ban abortion or ensure its legislative districts are independently drawn, or whether the President can initiate military operations short of declaring war. Where the document is silent, people's action will determine the rules.

Um? I thought I posted something here about judicial interpretation. Must be the goblins.

Hmm, I wrote something else after my clever-clever 3rd Amendment post.

Oh well.

Point I think I made before it disappeared down the tubes was that there is, of course, between formal amendment and decisions and actions by the judiciary, executive, and legislature on areas where the document is silent.

Course, I much prefer the short US constitution to the complicated and lengthy German one . At least you can grasp the ground rules in an hour or so, and then colour in the details later.

Of course - but my point is that when you treat a legal document as inviolable, you're in real trouble when you realise that it could probably have been much better worded.

The LD's would, of course, be doing exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed.

Not to the same extent due to the 'unique way in which the BBC LibDems are funded'.

By which I mean bankrolled not by media corporations and big business or unions.

I always thought the UK was ok before the HRA, now all you ever hear about is the the act getting used to allow everyone from scroungers to rapists and worse to stay in the UK.

Let’s not forget the charmer that smashed his landladies head in with an axe then one released decided to use act to get prisoners the vote. Think he was helped by Cherrie Blair as well.

Lawyers have always been the other problem with this act , most of them have less morals that the people they represent

We may have FEWER of them, but at least we can spell MORALS.

I can't be arsed to rehash all the arguments about how the HRA isn't actually letting rapists have pornography in prison and so on, and that even if it were it is still a sensible bloody act. Maybe later.

And it's Cherie Booth QC. She didn't spend all that time getting to wear a silly wig for you to get her name wrong.

I'm quite pleased that we don't deport people to places that would cause them harm, give prisoners the vote and have people that will use the law to help those in need. It's called compassion, and that's a noble quality, lacking in those that seek to abolish the HRA.

I'll cover it tomorrow if you want, big fella.

I think the fact you can't be bothered proves we don't need it! Aaah!

We haven't given the prisoners the vote, though.

Anyway, whilst I'm in favour of it (not least because there's no way we should let the Germans be more civilised than us, MR WINKY FACE) I've never quite understood the fuss with that one - given the average length of prison stays is somewhere south of 5 years, you'd be bloody unlucky to miss the election.

Agreed



As I said previously, I think it's daft to have the opinion that somehow because the HRA is a good thing, making changes to it would automatically be a bad thing.

God, Craster really hates human rights doesn't he?

Also baby deer, and sweet shops.

Thanks F7 can be a real let down sometimes, having done some research I can see how truly sensible and helpful the act has been of late

Afghan hijackers case 2006, in May 2006, a politically controversial decision regarding the treatment of 9 Afghan men who hijacked a plane to flee from the Taliban, caused widespread condemnation by many tabloid newspapers (most notably The Sun), the broadsheets and the leaders of both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. It was ruled by an Immigration Tribunal, under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the United Kingdom; a subsequent court decision ruled that the government had abused its power in restricting the hijackers' right to work.

Venables and Thompson v. News Group Newspapers [2001] 1 All ER 908, the James Bulger murder case tested whether the Article 8 (privacy) rights of Venables and Thomson, the convicted murderers of Bulger, applied when four newspapers sought to publish their new identities and whereabouts, using their Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. Dame Butler-Sloss granted permanent global injunctions not to publish the material because of the disastrous consequences such disclosure might have for the former convicts, not least the possibility of physical harm or death (hence claims for Article 2 rights were entertained, and sympathised with).

Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited (2008), Max Mosley challenged an invasion of his private life after the News of the World exposed his involvement in a Sado-masochistic sex act. The case resulted in Mr Mosley being awarded £60,000 in damages.

I'm... Not sure what side you're arguing for there.

Boo, yay, yay is what I get...

Heh.
I get "not actually guilty of hijacking, and only the initial "don't send them back to Afghanistan as they're likely to be killed" in 2004 was under the HRA, the leave to remain was under the Immigration Act after the HomSec fucked up", yay, yay.

I get "HRA defeats the Sun, the NoTW, and the Leaders of the Labour and Conservative Parties". Can't think of a better reason to leave it well alone, frankly.