Why scrap the human rights act?

[justinbarrow]

I have noticed that one of David Cameron's priorities is to scrap the human rights act, Why would he want to do this as people may need to rely on this in future years.

[domhnall]

because it was a dreadful British invention which we persuaded the rest of Europe to accept, designed to prevent any future recurrence of things like the persecution of the jews. Yeah, I don't really get it either

[vindaloo]

AIUI.... The act is a throw back to when it was thought European countries all played by the same rules. It binds us to accepting certain European laws and makes the European (central?!?) court superior to any British court, able to deliver binding judgements on British cases.

 

This has been a PITA for the gov't for years. Remember the soap operas regarding the deportation or extradition of certain undesirable elements. (Hint: Who is the baddy in Peter Pan)

 

The danger is that in repealing the legislation insufficient thought and energy is put in to delivering a replacement. Let alone that any replacement legislation may find itself bereft of case histories providing well understood precedents. I.e. The cases get longer and more expensive until the fuss dies down.

 

Worst case.... We'll have a war with the Irish, Scots and all of the Europeans at the same time. In which case we'd be knackered because even the Spanish have at least one operational aircraft carrier, as do the French!

 

edit: had to put a smiley in there

 

J.

Edited 10 May, 2015 by vindaloo

[Guadette]

Ummmm the human rights act was only passed in 1998. The European convention of human rights came into being in 1950. I think you'll find the Human Rights Act was born from the European Convention of Human Rights. However, it could be argued that the whole thing started with the Magna Carta.

[lol-lol]

I have noticed that one of David Cameron's priorities is to scrap the human rights act, Why would he want to do this as people may need to rely on this in future years.

 

Because he thinks most people in the UK are not worthy (Gammas, Deltas, Epsilons)??

 

https://youtu.be/ib9MQbR0GLU

[jlwah]

Because he thinks most people in the UK are not worthy (Gammas, Deltas, Epsilons)??

 

https://youtu.be/ib9MQbR0GLU

Or it's because he thinks they are worthy of the UK's judicial system without the need for outside interference?

[Brimma]

Or it's because he thinks they are worthy of the UK's judicial system without the need for outside interference?

Unfortunately the UK's judicial system went to **** when Cameron made Chris Grayling Lord Chancellor and Minister of Justice, and it's not going to improve with Michael Gove

[Dr Zoidberg]

Or it's because he thinks they are worthy of the UK's judicial system without the need for outside interference?

 

A UK Judicial system with Michael Gove in charge!

That's a scary thought....

[domhnall]

A UK Judicial system with Michael Gove in charge!

That's a scary thought....

 

phew just as well we don't have a UK-wide judicial system then     http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30144800

[domhnall]

The European convention on human rights was drafted by the newly formed Council of Europe in Rome on 4 November 1950. The convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms aimed to achieve greater international unity in recognising the equal rights of men and women, and to incorporate the traditions of civil liberty. It came into force on 3 September 1953. The adoption of the convention by the Council of Europe was the first step in implementing the Declaration of Human Rights in writing.

Here are 11 facts about the convention and the court that implements it:

1. Rights and freedoms: There are 17 key articles relating to rights and freedoms in the convention outlined in section 1 Article 2-18, which include: 2) the right to life; 3) prohibition of torture; 4) the prohibition of slavery and forced labour; 5) the right to liberty and security; 6) the right to a fair trial; 7) no punishment without law; 8) the right to respect for private and family life; 9) freedom of thought, conscience and religion and 10) freedom of expression.
   
2. Opponents of the court in Strasbourg often point to article 8 – the right to respect for private life and family – and article 10 – freedom of expression – which are incorporated in the British human rights act, as the main contentious aspects. This was the case when the home secretary, Theresa May, incorrectly claimed at her party conference speech in 2011 that an illegal immigrant could not be deported from the UK because of his pet cat.
   
3. European court of human rights (ECtHR): It is the international court based in Strasbourg, which was set up in 1959 and implements the convention. This is the place where rules on individual or state applications, alleging violations of civil and political rights set out in the convention, are made. It is also the physical place where rulings are made. 
   
4. The court is responsible for monitoring respect for the human rights of 800 million Europeans within the 47 Council of Europe member states that have ratified the convention.
   
5. At present, 47 judges – who are elected for a non-renewable term every nine years by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe – sit at the court. They are totally independent and can not engage in any activity that would hinder their impartiality. Since the court was established, most cases have been lodged by individuals.
   
6. Statistics: There have been a total of 916 judgments which concerned the 47 Council of Europe member states, and only 1.42% of the total concerned the UK. Almost half of the judgments concerned five of the 47 member states: Russia (129), Turkey (124), Romania (88), Ukraine (69) and Hungary (41).
   
7. A total 797 judgements (or 87.01%) found at least one violation of the convention – including 119 judgments concerning Russia, 118 concerning Turkey, 83 concerning Romania, 65 concerning Ukraine and 50 concerning Hungary.
   
8. In 2013, the court had decided on 1,652 cases concerning the UK. Of these, 1,633 were declared inadmissible or struck out. That’s 98.85% of cases.
   
9. Last year, there were 13 judgments concerning the UK, with eight judgements finding at least one violation of the convention.
   
10. There were 2,519 cases pending against the UK as of 1 January 2014, which includes 2,006 cases related to prisoners’ right to vote. In contrast there are 16,813 pending cases concerning Russia, 14,379 concerning Italy, 13,284 concerning Ukraine, 11,230 concerning Serbia and 10,931 concerning Turkey.
    
11. The overall backlog of pending cases has fallen from 151,600 in 2011 to 99,900 in 2013 – a 34% decrease. This is the result of the reform process which has been under way for several years. There had been consecutive year-on-year increases of cases between 1999 and 2011.
    

[domhnall]

the other complicating factor is that since it is devolved (in varying ways) the tories plan will mean 

 

1) Scotland will keep the human rights act in place (unless the SNP follow suit) so English people's convention rights will no longer be enshrined in law but Scots' rights will be

2) Under the Good Friday peace deal revokign the Human Rights Act triggers a referendum on whether Northern Ireland's people wish to remain in the UK and surrender their rights, or transfer to the Republic. 

 

I'm not 100% convinced this has all been properly thought through. Great news for my profession though. 

[Richf]

I thought a large reason for it was to free the path to reducing benefit payouts to migrants (until 5 years of taxpaying)and benefits paid to non residents eg child benefit for children living outside the UK. I'm assuming the HRA would allow those affected to take the UK to court

[Dr Zoidberg]

I thought a large reason for it was to free the path to reducing benefit payouts to migrants (until 5 years of taxpaying)and benefits paid to non residents eg child benefit for children living outside the UK. I'm assuming the HRA would allow those affected to take the UK to court

 

That does make a lot of sense - remove all the legal challenges to benefit cuts.

[KenONeill]

"Baddie" in "Peter Pan" - Doctor Hook?

[Aspman]

The law of unintended consequences will some into operation here.

 

There are bit of the Human Rights act that seem to defy sense i.e. inability to deport foreign criminals because of their right to a family life, threat of persecution etc

However there are lots of other bits which protect workers and the population from the government and big business.

 

You can be sure that as they loudly edit the Act to deal with the former they will quietly edit the Act to take out the latter.

[vindaloo]

"Baddie" in "Peter Pan" - Doctor Hook?

 

By the same logic .... Swiss Tony!

[Loz]

I think it at least needs amending. The only people I've ever heard rely on it are criminals who have basically breached someone else's rights, then expect to have their upheld! Most law abiding citizens never need to rely on it, and it doesn't stop them being murdered and losing their 'right to life'.

[lol-lol]

Or it's because he thinks they are worthy of the UK's judicial system without the need for outside interference?

 

I do not trust the UK Judicial system any more than the EU with recent history of Bloody Sunday,Giuldford Four,  Hillsborough and many dozens of others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom

 

Sometimes good to be able to take things to a court, EU, Hague, where opinion is not warped by political bias.   

[gadgetman]

The removal wouldn't just affect benefits, immigration etc but also most of the laws in the workplace protecting employees.....

[jlwah]

I do not trust the UK Judicial system any more than the EU with recent history of Bloody Sunday,Giuldford Four,  Hillsborough and many dozens of others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom

 

Sometimes good to be able to take things to a court, EU, Hague, where opinion is not warped by political bias.   

I don't disagree that the UK system is often found wanting and more over it often appears to operate for the benefit of the practitioners rather than the victims, however the EU court is not without political bias. The rulings on deportation of illegal immigrants could be viewed as pandering to an ultra liberal socialist agenda. A number of these have seemingly gone against the will of the UK public and when these outcomes don't chime with public opinion then justice is in danger of being marginalised to the detriment of everyone. 

 

It is also very frustrating that the appeals process seems never ending and is often pursued whilst being funded out of the public purse. Some sense of proportion is needed to end this daft situation.

[KenONeill]

I think it at least needs amending. The only people I've ever heard rely on it are criminals who have basically breached someone else's rights, then expect to have their upheld! Most law abiding citizens never need to rely on it, and it doesn't stop them being murdered and losing their 'right to life'.

Really? You don't think that's because of having it rather than because the UK's criminal justice, law enforcement and counter-terrorism forces are too moral to do anything that's against it? You don't know (either directly or through a relative) anyone who's brought a successful action at a benefits or employment rights tribunal?

[whitep]

Its not being scrapped and not being replaced. Currently if a foreign person who is a murderer lets say managed to get into this country (though the border checks should stop him) he comes over here and has a kid and murders someone here, we cannot deport him because of human rights. Furthermore if he says he is ill because he hears voices, we cannot even inprison him, because of human rights. If we say sod his human rights and imprison him the european court can step in tell us to let him out and make us pay him compensation because we breached his human rights, but oh no he cant be moved to another country in europe because he is a criminal. We are stuck with him.

 

If we scrap the human rights (which America doesnt have) and put new laws in place, we can send him back to his own country for them to deal with.

 

To be honest, human rights probaby goes further to protect foreigners inthis country than our own nationals.

 

I think the biggest example case is Hook Handed Muslim Hate Preacher Abu Hamza, he made it into this country and was practically standing out in the streets saying lets kill the queen and we couldnt do anything about it. In other countries he would have been marched to a white wall and blindfolded!

 

Scrap the Human Rights Act NOW!!!!!!!!!

[Aspman]

I think it at least needs amending. The only people I've ever heard rely on it are criminals who have basically breached someone else's rights, then expect to have their upheld! Most law abiding citizens never need to rely on it, and it doesn't stop them being murdered and losing their 'right to life'.

 

The HRA ties into lots and lots of bit of legislation you'd probably never think about and it happens without mention. Little things like FOI(and the EIRS) all have references to the HRA. It would be very difficult to unpick this to deal with the headline grabbing stories you see in the press and not effect the law abiding majority.

 

Which isn't to say I think it is perfect. I think we should be able to deport convicted criminals even if they face hardship on their repatriation.

 

I've long advocated for a large trebuchet on the Dover cliffs to cheaply repatriate the unappreciative.

[gadgetman]

Exactly. As I posted earlier, employment law is one area heavily intertwined with the HRA. There are so many other parts of legislation before you even get to our legal system.

Remember the Conservatives are known as the party for business and it all becomes clear on the back of previous employment & benefit law changes, and those in the pipeline and being discussed, that removal of the HRA would greatly aid in passing these

[gadgetman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32702585