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

Scroll to see replies

I don't care one jot, the chap's not going to be blowing anyone up anytime soon is he? If we wanted to ignore the law we would, as we and other Europeans do all the time otherwise, he was kept around for propaganda purposes I imagine.

People talk about France gaily breaking EU law and us being too reticent to do it, but that's stupid, why on earth would Britain's and France's politicians be any different, since they have a similar share of power? In politics you drive the bargains you can for the ends you want and then create a story to cover it up.

Sorry but at the end of the day abu qatada's intentions shouldn't allow him to have any human rights at all. The guy is scum and his intentions are clear and he doesn't hide it.

Reply 141

Libtardian

Original post by stevenvalilly

Sorry but at the end of the day abu qatada's intentions shouldn't allow him to have any human rights at all. The guy is scum and his intentions are clear and he doesn't hide it.

I've seen some interviews of him and apart from supporting attacks in the west he makes a lot of sense.

To get people like him out, just remove the benefits system.

Reply 142

scrotgrot

Original post by stevenvalilly

Sorry but at the end of the day abu qatada's intentions shouldn't allow him to have any human rights at all. The guy is scum and his intentions are clear and he doesn't hide it.

I don't know much about him but frankly as long as there is no imminent danger to the public or systemically detrimental cost to the public purse I couldn't care less what happens to him or to any other criminal. Justice should not be about exacting retribution.

Don't try to suggest Islamist terrorism is a genuine threat to national security, it's not, he's just a criminal not a belligerent enemy.

Reply 143

stevenvalilly

Original post by scrotgrot

If even one... just one person is killed by a terrorist (islam or not), and this group/organisation of terrorists continue to plan, strategise, manipulate and commit to carrying out these acts of terror (which they clearly are), then yes - I am suggesting it is a SERIOUS threat to national security and I'm extremely curious as to what your reasons are for you to not to think so too.

I'm not one to get into conflict on message boards and forums so can someone else please enlighten as to what it is I am missing or if this guys is talking for real or not.

I do hope I've missed something here.

Reply 144

TimmonaPortella

Original post by LewisIsAmazen

Ignorant because you have absolutely no reason to say they "hate" the minimum wage and it shows a lack of knowledge so suggest the echr has a baring over minimum wage. Centre right and conservatism is all about allowing companies to have extended freedom

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think you're confused. I was the guy pointing out how stupid the first guy's comment was.

Reply 145

Scots King

Taking a more dispassionate view, rather than asserting that the government are monsters for wanting to do away with the Human Rights Act 1998....

There is a view amongst some in of the judiciary that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights are incompetent and don't understand our common law system - Lord Hoffmann for example was absolutely scathing about them, he thought they were morons.

Furthermore, there are some in government who feel that the ECtHR fails to strike the correct balance when deciding cases concerning Article 8 for example - according insufficient regard to the 'public interest.'

These criticisms are interesting as in law our courts are only required to have regard to the jurisprudence of Strasbourg. They are not bound by it, but will in practice follow it. The point I am trying to make is, it is really up to our own judiciary when delivering their judgments to take into account the ECtHR's jurisprudence. If they really are of the opinion that a decision of the court was moronic then the answer is clear - don't follow it.

Reply 146

HumanSupremacist

Original post by Harry Callahan

All of them. I think criminals - serious criminals - should sacrifice their rights upon committing a crime.

The British government should show a bit of backbone for once, rather than pandering to the ECHR.

Do you know what some countries do? If you steal, they cut off the hand you used to steal. If you are a woman and commit a "crime", you're killed. Some countries do not even have proper trials. Many of those countries are barbarian and backward and are not as advanced.

Would you like Britain to become like one of those countries?

Original post by Harry Callahan

Then so be it. It's time we got control of our own country back.

Britain is one of the leading countries in the world for a reason. If it started behaving like some barbarian countries, there's only one direction it'll be going: down.

Reply 147

anarchism101

Original post by Alex_Jones

anarchism is the closest to natural living and is extremely right wing

Er, no, it's not. The vast majority of anarchists would identify as on the far left.

Reply 148

LewisIsAmazen

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I think you're confused. I was the guy pointing out how stupid the first guy's comment was.

If that's the case then sorry

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 149

Alex_Jones

Original post by anarchism101

Er, no, it's not. The vast majority of anarchists would identify as on the far left.

Yes it is, true anarchism is a complete lack of state (extreme right wing) with complete liberalism, far left is a complete dominant 'people controlled' state

Reply 150

Redolent

Original post by Alex_Jones

Yes it is, true anarchism is a complete lack of state (extreme right wing) with complete liberalism, far left is a complete dominant 'people controlled' state

So anarcho-communists are right wing then?

Left and right generally don't refer to size of state.

Reply 151

Alex_Jones

Original post by Redolent

So anarcho-communists are right wing then?

Left and right generally don't refer to size of state.

No they are fake anarchists as actual anarchism would be no state at all so there is absoulutly no control over the people so complete freedom and one of the key differences between the left and right is the size/power of the state...

Reply 152

n00

Original post by Alex_Jones

Doing away with private property rights is right wing now? :s-smilie:

Reply 153

Alex_Jones

Original post by n00

Doing away with private property rights is right wing now? :s-smilie:

I'm not being nitpicky with stuff just saying the macro if anarcho-communists believe there should be a state then they are not anarchists if not then i have no idea why they have the communism in their name

Reply 154

Libtardian

[video="youtube;jRQ76FYvw7M"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRQ76FYvw7M[/video]

Reply 155

Redolent

Original post by Alex_Jones

They are not "fake anarchists". Anarcho-communism means no state, that's why it's "anarcho". Anarcho-capitalism, the "right-wing anarchism", is a far newer ideology (and also even more unworkable), where the markets somehow survive the abolition of the state and are given full control over resources.

Reply 156

Alex_Jones

Original post by Redolent

Then the communism aspect of their name makes no sense at all.
I was saying about pure anarchism not all of these knock offs of it i'm aware theres a few different types of anarchism (in name at least) while tbh its actually quite a simple ideology

Reply 157

Hilly1

The problem is, is that a human rights bill isn't actually enshrined in the British consitution, thus we must abide by the ECHR bills and acts.. hm.

Reply 158

sevchenko

Original post by Hilly1

The problem is, is that a human rights bill isn't actually enshrined in the British consitution, thus we must abide by the ECHR bills and acts.. hm.

The Human rights act is apart of our constitution, the Act is more than a law it limits the power of government which makes it a constitutional change