Why are people wanting the Human Rights Act abolished (UK)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by billydisco
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.
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.
Hahaha that is not analogous at all. But anyway, if we use your ridiculous metaphor, then instead of not kicking that guest out of your house, you detain that person for as long as your justice system seems fit. The person does not do any further damage. You don't kick him out of your house because if you did then he would be reduced to below the standard of human being. Simply by being human, being treating as inhuman is wrong. By definition. End of story.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by sevchenko
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.
Who gives a ****? He's a brutal brutal man who deserves the same fate as bin laden. I couldn't give a ****.
Original post by uktotalgamer
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.
Left wing wimps are in strong force tonight.
"Let's cuddle these people. They'll be good eventually"..
Yeah right, ok.
Don't you see the higher humanity in treating someone who has wronged in a way that they wouldn't treat you if the roles were reversed? It's a huge credit to our society when we can say, you have done wrong, and you will be punished, but you still will be able to call yourself human at the end of that punishment. We stand above the terrorist and prove that we're better than them.
Besides, I don't know of the specific Bin Laden case or whatever, but that (like most of the **** people are spouting here) is merely anecdotal; the vast majority of human rights cases since 1997 have been hugely successful.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by 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.
Absolute joke.
How do you know whether he has killed etc hundreds or thousands of people? How do you know he is bin Laden's right hand man?
That what a trial does. It establishes whether someone is guilty of what they are accused of.
What you are saying is because our government says he is guilty of these things, he shouldn't get a fair trial.
If tonight there is a knock at your door and the police accuse you of fire-bombing a synagogue, and you know you haven't and what is more you don't even believe the synagogue was fire-bombed, should you be entitled to a fair trial. And if you should and he shouldn't, what is the difference between you?
Original post by FinnianC
Don't you see the higher humanity in treating someone who has wronged in a way that they wouldn't treat you if the roles were reversed? It's a huge credit to our society when we can say, you have done wrong, and you will be punished, but you still will be able to call yourself human at the end of that punishment. We stand above the terrorist and prove that we're better than them.
Besides, I don't know of the specific Bin Laden case or whatever, but that (like most of the **** people are spouting here) is merely anecdotal; the vast majority of human rights cases since 1997 have been hugely successful.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Besides, I don't know of the specific Bin Laden case or whatever, but that (like most of the **** people are spouting here) is merely anecdotal; the vast majority of human rights cases since 1997 have been hugely successful.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hold on. "Yeah, you've brutally murdered hundreds of people yet you know what, your still a human being. Unlike your victims who are rotting under the ground while you live."
Seems legit.
Original post by nulli tertius
How do you know whether he has killed etc hundreds or thousands of people? How do you know he is bin Laden's right hand man?
That what a trial does. It establishes whether someone is guilty of what they are accused of.
What you are saying is because our government says he is guilty of these things, he shouldn't get a fair trial.
If tonight there is a knock at your door and the police accuse you of fire-bombing a synagogue, and you know you haven't and what is more you don't even believe the synagogue was fire-bombed, should you be entitled to a fair trial. And if you should and he shouldn't, what is the difference between you?
That what a trial does. It establishes whether someone is guilty of what they are accused of.
What you are saying is because our government says he is guilty of these things, he shouldn't get a fair trial.
If tonight there is a knock at your door and the police accuse you of fire-bombing a synagogue, and you know you haven't and what is more you don't even believe the synagogue was fire-bombed, should you be entitled to a fair trial. And if you should and he shouldn't, what is the difference between you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17769990
Have a read of this. Advocated killing of Jews. Said killing women and children was ok.
Yeah, real nice guy.
Original post by uktotalgamer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17769990
Have a read of this. Advocated killing of Jews. Said killing women and children was ok.
Yeah, real nice guy.
Have a read of this. Advocated killing of Jews. Said killing women and children was ok.
Yeah, real nice guy.
You mean like this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018nyf7
What the BBC says isn't true just because the BBC says it.
Original post by A Mysterious Lord
Basic human rights as defined by the UN:
Anything else is merely a civil liberty and should not be taken into account during legal proceedings.
•
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.
Source: 20% of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, disregarding the other 80%
Original post by nulli tertius
You mean like this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018nyf7
What the BBC says isn't true just because the BBC says it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018nyf7
What the BBC says isn't true just because the BBC says it.
What a terrible response. How is that even relevant.
Oh yeah, he's a real cuddly teddy underneath like.
You and your left wing pals can do one. He's getting our tax money, he's got a good standard of living, hell, he's even had money from the courts for a breach of human rights! Give yourselves over.
You wanna get a perspective of life. This is an absolute joke.
Original post by nmuers
Bit confused as to why people are wanting this abolished?
Ahhh because they read the Daily Mail.
In all seriousness though I think the reason is not that they don't like human rights per se, but they want the freedom and independence to decide what laws dictate what we do in our own country, rather than have them decided by other countries. I think it comes down to the whole issue that many people have, with feeling like we're not so much part of a european community, but more under some kind of rule from europe. This point can be debated but that is the reason I think anyway.
I study UK Human Rights Law as one of my modules for my LLB Law course and have just had a tutorial/seminar on this a couple of days ago. 
There's quite a few criticisms that have been thrown out at the HRA 1998 particularly from politicians who've found the HRA to be an obstacle in relation to (in particular): extradition and deportation of suspected terrorists/ threats to national security.
Previously the HRA wasn't seen as much of a problem and was generally much embraced by the UK government as a step towards protecting and securing human rights in the UK. However, since 9/11 and the number of contentious anti-terrorism measures the government has taken, the government has often found their plans or actions against individuals to be frustrated by judgements from the UK courts and the ECtHR (The Abu Qatada case is a popular example). It seems that the very tool that the government had introduced in protecting human rights, is being used against them in a way that they don't like.
Instead, the government is thinking of abolishing the HRA (which protects the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights) with their own standard of rights. The UK government has pretty much had enough of being the b*tch to the European Court and the UK courts (who are bound by Strasbourg jurisprudence) and wants to become independent from Europe because they feel they're insensitive to the UK's circumstances. That's where the idea of introducing the UK's own Bill of Rights becomes an attractive option which the UK have been toying around with over the last few years in particular.
It's also important to mention that there are many other criticisms of the HRA, but it's probably too detailed to write out here. The above is perhaps the most popular reason/problem that the UK government in particular has with the HRA.
If you've got time, you can have a read of a report by the Commission on a Bill of Rights on the JUSTICE's website which explains quite well some of the arguments for and against a Bill of Rights (which often compliments the question as to why the Human Rights Act should or should not be abolished) - p.131.
I've got a load of good academic articles as well which are mostly concerned with the legal criticisms, praise and analysis of the effectiveness of the HRA but can't post for copyright reasons.
Edit: Personally, I don't think a Bill of Rights will solve the UK government's problem as ultimately it's the judiciary that will still have the ultimate power to decide on cases where human rights infringements are alleged, albeit from the UK courts only. But that is arguable and a Bill of Rights can be beneficial for the UK government and the UK public in many areas.
There's quite a few criticisms that have been thrown out at the HRA 1998 particularly from politicians who've found the HRA to be an obstacle in relation to (in particular): extradition and deportation of suspected terrorists/ threats to national security. Previously the HRA wasn't seen as much of a problem and was generally much embraced by the UK government as a step towards protecting and securing human rights in the UK. However, since 9/11 and the number of contentious anti-terrorism measures the government has taken, the government has often found their plans or actions against individuals to be frustrated by judgements from the UK courts and the ECtHR (The Abu Qatada case is a popular example). It seems that the very tool that the government had introduced in protecting human rights, is being used against them in a way that they don't like.
Instead, the government is thinking of abolishing the HRA (which protects the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights) with their own standard of rights. The UK government has pretty much had enough of being the b*tch to the European Court and the UK courts (who are bound by Strasbourg jurisprudence) and wants to become independent from Europe because they feel they're insensitive to the UK's circumstances. That's where the idea of introducing the UK's own Bill of Rights becomes an attractive option which the UK have been toying around with over the last few years in particular.
It's also important to mention that there are many other criticisms of the HRA, but it's probably too detailed to write out here. The above is perhaps the most popular reason/problem that the UK government in particular has with the HRA.
If you've got time, you can have a read of a report by the Commission on a Bill of Rights on the JUSTICE's website which explains quite well some of the arguments for and against a Bill of Rights (which often compliments the question as to why the Human Rights Act should or should not be abolished) - p.131.
I've got a load of good academic articles as well which are mostly concerned with the legal criticisms, praise and analysis of the effectiveness of the HRA but can't post for copyright reasons.
Edit: Personally, I don't think a Bill of Rights will solve the UK government's problem as ultimately it's the judiciary that will still have the ultimate power to decide on cases where human rights infringements are alleged, albeit from the UK courts only. But that is arguable and a Bill of Rights can be beneficial for the UK government and the UK public in many areas.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by uktotalgamer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17769990
Have a read of this. Advocated killing of Jews. Said killing women and children was ok.
Yeah, real nice guy.
Have a read of this. Advocated killing of Jews. Said killing women and children was ok.
Yeah, real nice guy.
And he doesn't deserve a trial because you don't think he's a nice guy?
Original post by uktotalgamer
What a terrible response. How is that even relevant.
Oh yeah, he's a real cuddly teddy underneath like.
You and your left wing pals can do one. He's getting our tax money, he's got a good standard of living, hell, he's even had money from the courts for a breach of human rights! Give yourselves over.
You wanna get a perspective of life. This is an absolute joke.
Oh yeah, he's a real cuddly teddy underneath like.
You and your left wing pals can do one. He's getting our tax money, he's got a good standard of living, hell, he's even had money from the courts for a breach of human rights! Give yourselves over.
You wanna get a perspective of life. This is an absolute joke.
You're speaking complete sense, but you might as well talk to a brick wall with these clueless gob****es around.
Original post by Milkplus-Mesto
And he doesn't deserve a trial because you don't think he's a nice guy?
Gotta laugh at your view on life.
Original post by Harry Callahan
You're speaking complete sense, but you might as well talk to a brick wall with these clueless gob****es around.
Left wingers gonna left winger bro.
Bunch of morons who won't learn from their "reforming" ways until it bites them in the arse personally. Need to learn the world isn't a bed of roses.
Original post by Hustler-1337
I study UK Human Rights Law as one of my modules for my LLB Law course and have just had a tutorial/seminar on this a couple of days ago. There's quite a few criticisms that have been thrown out at the HRA 1998 particularly from politicians who've found the HRA to be an obstacle in relation to (in particular): extradition and deportation of suspected terrorists/ threats to national security.
Previously the HRA wasn't seen as much of a problem and was generally much embraced by the UK government as a step towards protecting and securing human rights in the UK. However, since 9/11 and the number of contentious anti-terrorism measures the government has taken, the government has often found their plans or actions against individuals to be frustrated by judgements from the UK courts and the ECtHR (The Abu Qatada case is a popular example). It seems that the very tool that the government had introduced in protecting human rights, is being used against them in a way that they don't like.
Instead, the government is thinking of abolishing the HRA (which protects the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights) with their own standard of rights. The UK government has pretty much had enough of being the b*tch to the European Court and the UK courts (who are bound by Strasbourg jurisprudence) and wants to become independent from Europe because they feel they're insensitive to the UK's circumstances. That's where the idea of introducing the UK's own Bill of Rights becomes an attractive option which the UK have been toying around with over the last few years in particular.
It's also important to mention that there are many other criticisms of the HRA, but it's probably too detailed to write out here. The above is perhaps the most popular reason/problem that the UK government in particular has with the HRA.
If you've got time, you can have a read of a report by the Commission on a Bill of Rights on the JUSTICE's website which explains quite well some of the arguments for and against a Bill of Rights (which often compliments the question as to why the Human Rights Act should or should not be abolished) - p.131.
I've got a load of good academic articles as well which are mostly concerned with the legal criticisms, praise and analysis of the effectiveness of the HRA but can't post for copyright reasons.
There's quite a few criticisms that have been thrown out at the HRA 1998 particularly from politicians who've found the HRA to be an obstacle in relation to (in particular): extradition and deportation of suspected terrorists/ threats to national security. Previously the HRA wasn't seen as much of a problem and was generally much embraced by the UK government as a step towards protecting and securing human rights in the UK. However, since 9/11 and the number of contentious anti-terrorism measures the government has taken, the government has often found their plans or actions against individuals to be frustrated by judgements from the UK courts and the ECtHR (The Abu Qatada case is a popular example). It seems that the very tool that the government had introduced in protecting human rights, is being used against them in a way that they don't like.
Instead, the government is thinking of abolishing the HRA (which protects the rights in the European Convention of Human Rights) with their own standard of rights. The UK government has pretty much had enough of being the b*tch to the European Court and the UK courts (who are bound by Strasbourg jurisprudence) and wants to become independent from Europe because they feel they're insensitive to the UK's circumstances. That's where the idea of introducing the UK's own Bill of Rights becomes an attractive option which the UK have been toying around with over the last few years in particular.
It's also important to mention that there are many other criticisms of the HRA, but it's probably too detailed to write out here. The above is perhaps the most popular reason/problem that the UK government in particular has with the HRA.
If you've got time, you can have a read of a report by the Commission on a Bill of Rights on the JUSTICE's website which explains quite well some of the arguments for and against a Bill of Rights (which often compliments the question as to why the Human Rights Act should or should not be abolished) - p.131.
I've got a load of good academic articles as well which are mostly concerned with the legal criticisms, praise and analysis of the effectiveness of the HRA but can't post for copyright reasons.
Protip for the exam - the UK courts aren't bound by Strasbourg decisions, they merely have to take them into account. WHich is fair enough, because otherwise there'd just be even more appeals to the ECtHR.
Original post by Morgsie
So Right-wing
I'm left wing, very much so, but this comment annoys me because it is not an argument in any shape or form, it's simply an observation, and even then not one which you back up with any reasoning. I agree with all the other stuff you've said on this thread but dismissing something as right wing doesn't invalidate it.
Original post by OU Student
And your evidence that it's a tiny amount of people is where, exactly?
I think the burden of proof is on you.
Original post by abc:)
I'm left wing, very much so, but this comment annoys me because it is not an argument in any shape or form, it's simply an observation, and even then not one which you back up with any reasoning. I agree with all the other stuff you've said on this thread but dismissing something as right wing doesn't invalidate it.
These arguments come from the right wing of the political spectrum inluding the Daily Mail
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is it time for change - is the status quo about to end challenged?
- What can I do once I am 16?
- Freedom of Speech (Rights & Responsibilities)
- Equality Act 2010 does not protect disabled students enough
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Should the royal family exist?
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- American '2024 student with some questions~
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Nobody cares about 'changing' the world
- Will you feel British without the monarchy?
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- how to reference European Convention On Human rights
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- Pls give feedback on this essay!
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 3 - 7152/3 16 June 2023 [Exam chat]
- A level politics help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
