Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Why are people wanting the Human Rights Act abolished (UK)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

nulli tertius

Original post by Harry Callahan

You have to apply common sense. Stop being pedantic for the sake of it. You know full well what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. My original question was:-

Which rights do you not wish them to have?

I have responded to your answer. If you want a second attempt, be my guest.

Reply 21

Tiger Rag

Original post by Genocidal

Only in principle. The current act goes too far. We couldn't deport dangerous criminals back to their homelands just because they have a wife and child here. Yet if they were single they'd be on the first plane home. That definitely isn't right. If you are a guest in our country we have the right to kick your ass out.

Agreed. They always argue that they have a right to a family life etc. Don't we have a right to not live in fear, etc.?

Reply 22

Alex_Jones

Original post by Harry Callahan

You have to apply common sense. Stop being pedantic for the sake of it. You know full well what I mean.

You mean a perfect solution that will make all naughty criminals go away and we will all live in a magic perfect land with traditional right wing values

Reply 23

Harry Callahan

Original post by Alex_Jones

You mean a perfect solution that will make all naughty criminals go away and we will all live in a magic perfect land with traditional right wing values

No, I mean a solution that uses common sense, rather than idealistic left-wing nonsense and horrendous Communist views.

Reply 24

nulli tertius

Original post by Harry Callahan

No, I mean a solution that uses common sense, rather than idealistic left-wing nonsense and horrendous Communist views.

The point about a right is that it isn't dependent on the opinion of the government.

Magna Carta doesn't say:

No man whom King John likes shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of some of King John's pals, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man if King John likes him, we will not deny or defer to friend of King John either Justice or Right.

Reply 25

qwerty457

Original post by nulli tertius

So a car thief (car theft is a serious crime) should not have any rights at all.

Let us look at the various articles of the ECHR

Article 2-Right to life. The state-let us say an Income Tax Inspector-should be entitled to kill any car thief

Article 3-Prohibition of Torture-we will find out where those hubcaps went when we waterboard him.

Article 4-Prohibition of slavery and forced labour-It will help the balance of payments if we sell him to a East Anglian potato farmer

Article 5-Right to liberty and security-We are not going to tell him what he is accused of

Article 6-Right to a fair trial-Lets have the car owner and his mates on the jury, or better still lets not have a jury at all.

Article 7-No punishment without law-The police can give him a once-over in the cells to make him not do it again

Article 8-Right to respect for private and family life-Lets publish some photos of his kids and the love letters to his wife

When you say he has no rights, that is what you mean.

Classic reductio ad absurdum.
[h="1"]

Reply 26

marcusfox

If it is a piece of legislation that prevents the law (as administered by the courts of this country through common law and the parliament through statute law) from being administered, then it should be scrapped.

Most people objecting to this have missed the point in its entirety. The suggestion is not, and never has been to abandon human rights. The issue is the nature of those rights and the people to whom they are applied and when.

Some will obviously argue that rights are universal, and that this is a conclusion that may not be challenged. Yet there are many legitimate and entirely cogent opposing positions.

Many people believe in a communitarian perspective, such rights are contingent on collaboration with society, and may be forfeit.

Many of you have no problem presumably with the removal of peoples rights to freedom, movement, speech if they commit crimes. It is but a small step to suggest that some crimes entail withdrawal of additional rights - such as the absurdly written and much abused 'right to family life'.

The HRA was no doubt well intended, but has shown itself to be not fit for purpose in its current incarnation as it has been widely open to abuse, since it turns on its head the values of fairness and common sense.

Reply 27

billydisco

Original post by Morgsie

So Right-wing

I'd rather be right-wing than a left winger (with my head stuck in the clouds)....

Nature is right-wing

Reply 28

billydisco

Original post by Alex_Jones

You mean a perfect solution that will make all naughty criminals go away and we will all live in a magic perfect land with traditional right wing values

Or that a foreigner in our country behaves, or we send them packing?

If you invited me into your house, would you say it'd be fine if I pissed on your sofa and you couldnt remove me from your house? Then I kept pissing on your sofa and you still couldnt move me- because of my right to piss on your sofa.

That's analogous to what we are discussing. Foreigners shouldnt come here and piss in our country and then expect to stay here under human rights.

Reply 29

n00

Original post by OU Student

They always argue that they have a right to a family life etc. Don't we have a right to not live in fear, etc.?

Who? How many? You really want to lose your rights because of a tiny number of criminals that use their right to a family life to avoid deportation?

Original post by OU Student

Don't we have a right to not live in fear, etc.?

Stop buying into the scaremongering and you'll be fine. :wink:

Reply 30

cl_steele

Original post by Morgsie

Everyone has human rights

No they dont...

Reply 31

nulli tertius

Original post by qwerty457

Classic reductio ad absurdum.
[h="1"]

I gave him the chance to choose the ground on which he wished to fight. He, not I, said "no rights".

The invitation still stands. Set out in a coherent fashion the terms in which you wish to grant rights or the terms of any exception you wish to make to any general grant of rights. However, if you say rights in everything but "situation X" then you are taken as supporting the existence of rights in any ethically dubious situation that has not yet arisen that I can come up with.

Reply 32

xboxaddict

My main concern is that we can be forced by the EU to keep terrorists in our country because of their human rights.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

Tiger Rag

Original post by n00

Who? How many? You really want to lose your rights because of a tiny number of criminals that use their right to a family life to avoid deportation?

And your evidence that it's a tiny amount of people is where, exactly?

Reply 34

ed-

Because it gives the ECHR far too much power over UK law?

What's wrong with negative rights; you can do what you like as long as it's not illegal?
It's not like the HRA limits Parliamentary power anyway.

Reply 35

uktotalgamer

Human rights has gone to far. One only needs to apply a bit of common sense. Take the case about bin laden's right hand man. He can't go to Jordan because he apparently won't get a fair trial. Here's a question. The hundreds, if not thousands of people he's killed, or had something to do with their killing did not get a fair trial? Why should he?

Absolute joke.

Reply 36

FinnianC

Original post by Genocidal

Not a real answer at all.

Tell me why we should cater to a dangerous criminal which wasn't even born here? Why should everyone else be put at risk just to let him live where he wants?

BECAUSE HE'S A HUMAN BEING

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 37

A Mysterious Lord

Basic human rights as defined by the UN:

•

Right to life

•

Freedom from torture

•

Freedom from slavery

•

Right to a fair trial

•

Freedom of speech

•

Freedom of thought, Conscience, and Freedom of religion

Anything else is merely a civil liberty and should not be taken into account during legal proceedings.

Reply 38

uktotalgamer

Original post by FinnianC

BECAUSE HE'S A HUMAN BEING

Posted from TSR Mobile

Who should have forfeited his human rights when he chose to be bin laden's right hand man and played his part in hundreds if not thousands of deaths.

Left wing wimps are in strong force tonight.

"Let's cuddle these people. They'll be good eventually"..

Yeah right, ok.

Reply 39

sevchenko

Original post by uktotalgamer

It wont be a fair trial because the evidence used against him would have been obtained through torcher, Does that sound right to you. Some people who live this Great country don't know how good they have it.