Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B686 – British Bill of Rights 2014 Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sanctimonious)
    I can only presume […]
    Hey, I just want to say that I appreciate your post and welcome your presence in the House. The emphasis on bilateral tolerance and freedom is rarely seen here as many of the current MPs fancy positive discrimination. Cheers.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    that bill of rights in the OP is extremely meddling and interventionist e.g. "freedom" from discrimination; how far does that logic extend, for example?

    in my opinion, it should cover (not in any intentional or particular order):
    1) life, health and safety from other individual actions (e.g. so *not* free health care, and suggests the right to defence)
    2) freedom of speech, artistic/political/bodily expression, opinion, religion, protest (e.g. whether offensive or not)
    3) freedom of association/assembly and private communications
    4) freedom to keep and bear arms (in a manner that allows for permits/other such regulations)
    5) freedom to work and move within one's country/state
    6) freedom of property (e.g. so the freedom of contract, private ownership etc and against theft except for minimum taxation)
    7) the freedom of judicial/police fairness, e.g. habeus corpus, the right to know the case against you, the right to know what charges are against you, the right to remain silent, the right to charge the state/state actors for crimes, the right to bring forth legal proceedings against other individuals, the right to judicial transparency, etc)
    8) the freedom of state information (unless the supreme court unanimously believes that certain information should be withheld temporarily for a very limited and controlled time limit for national security purposes)
    9) the freedom from slavery, torture and harsh taxation
    10) the right to legal equality (e.g. including the rights to vote, political participation and other public rights)

    and that's it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    that bill of rights in the OP is extremely meddling and interventionist e.g. "freedom" from discrimination; how far does that logic extend, for example?

    in my opinion, it should cover (not in any intentional or particular order):
    1) life, health and safety from other individual actions (e.g. so *not* free health care, and suggests the right to self defence)
    2) freedom of speech, artistic/political/bodily expression, opinion, religion, protest
    3) freedom of association/assembly
    4) freedom to keep and bear arms (in a manner that allows for permits/other such regulations)
    5) freedom to work and move within one's country/state
    6) freedom of property (e.g. so the freedom of contract, private ownership etc and against theft except for minimum taxation)
    7) the freedom of judicial/police fairness, e.g. habeus corpus, the right to know the case against you, the right to know what charges are against you, the right to remain silent, the right to charge the state/state actors for crimes, the right to bring forth legal proceedings against other individuals, the right to judicial transparency, etc)
    8) the freedom of state information (under the supreme court unanimously believes that certain information should be withheld temporarily for a very limited and controlled time limit for national security purposes)
    9) the freedom from slavery, torture and harsh taxation
    10) the right to legal equality (e.g. including the rights to vote, political participation and other public rights)

    and that's it.
    You've put freedom from harsh taxation in alongside slavery and torture?!
    • Offline

      15
      (Original post by O133)
      Is this a debate about a more British-centred HRA or reforming the abortion laws? Any Bill of Rights should contain the rights currently guaranteed by MHoC law.
      It's a debate on a British centred HRA, I was however responding to Rakas who said that section one should include an exemption clause for abortion which I personally feel shouldn't be added after going through an abortion myself (well not physically but emotionally), once you've been through one, you're no longer the same in your views towards it.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by tehFrance)
      It's a debate on a British centred HRA, I was however responding to Rakas who said that section one should include an exemption clause for abortion which I personally feel shouldn't be added after going through an abortion myself (well not physically but emotionally), once you've been through one, you're no longer the same in your views towards it.
      Perhaps not everybody does, I certainly couldn't see that happening for myself. The right to abortion is as fundamental as the rest.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by O133)
      You've put freedom from harsh taxation in alongside slavery and torture?!
      of course - if we own ourselves as citizens, then that includes our money as well, seeing as money is an extension of our bodily works and the results of which, and obviously we own our bodies if we're not slaves.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Will95206)
      Hum, I can see what you mean but I think you are forgetting that marriage is not Christian but yes it has been historically religious. However I still uphold the view point that religions should be tolerant and allow for same sex marriage.
      Each to their own. Of course you're entitled to your view and I respect that.

      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Life_peer)
      Hey, I just want to say that I appreciate your post and welcome your presence in the House. The emphasis on bilateral tolerance and freedom is rarely seen here as many of the current MPs fancy positive discrimination. Cheers.
      Thank you
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by zippity.doodah)
      of course - if we own ourselves as citizens, then that includes our money as well, seeing as money is an extension of our bodily works and the results of which, and obviously we own our bodies if we're not slaves.
      Money is an extension of the body? I don't really buy that (pun not intended). There's a big difference between the state taking 20% of your income at the end of the year and taking your right leg.
      Offline

      8
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Sanctimonious)
      Each to their own. Of course you're entitled to your view and I respect that.

      Hear hear, and of course you too!
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by O133)
      Money is an extension of the body? I don't really buy that (pun not intended). There's a big difference between the state taking 20% of your income at the end of the year and taking your right leg.
      the principle of slavery is a lack of individual/self ownership and allowing another person to forcibly control you. therefore, taxation is a very minor form of that kind of relationship undoubtedly, seeing as if everybody was forced to work for free then that would be slavery and taxations of 20% are simply 20% economic slavery...
      *but* what is the point of a bill of rights without a government? it is really just the limitations of what the slave master is able to do with its slaves, self-imposed~, and, seeing as I'm only a minimal statist for purely practical reasons (e.g. to prevent slavery itself from other sources not under "democratic"~ and limited order) it is a necessary evil, but harsh taxation defeats the purpose of the "necessary evil" of taxation; to protect the individual, and to give all individuals the right from coercion, so taxation therefore must exist, or should exist (in my opinion) only for that reason, not to redistribute wealth in a socialist way, for example.
      • Wiki Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by zippity.doodah)
      the principle of slavery is a lack of individual/self ownership and allowing another person to forcibly control you. therefore, taxation is a very minor form of that kind of relationship undoubtedly, seeing as if everybody was forced to work for free then that would be slavery and taxations of 20% are simply 20% economic slavery...
      *but* what is the point of a bill of rights without a government? it is really just the limitations of what the slave master is able to do with its slaves, self-imposed~, and, seeing as I'm only a minimal statist for purely practical reasons (e.g. to prevent slavery itself from other sources not under "democratic"~ and limited order) it is a necessary evil, but harsh taxation defeats the purpose of the "necessary evil" of taxation; to protect the individual, and to give all individuals the right from coercion, so taxation therefore must exist, or should exist (in my opinion) only for that reason, not to redistribute wealth in a socialist way, for example.
      That is where we completely disagree then, I am all for big government and high taxes, with excellent, well-funded public services. It can't be a coincidence that the Scandinavian countries have some of the highest taxes in the world, but also one of the highest standards of living.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by O133)
      That is where we completely disagree then, I am all for big government and high taxes, with excellent, well-funded public services. It can't be a coincidence that the Scandinavian countries have some of the highest taxes in the world, but also one of the highest standards of living.
      just because they have high living standards that doesn't mean that the method for extracting that result was fair or necessary at all; having higher living standards for white people from slavery in america before 1864 due to free workers was probably a popular ideal as well
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by O133)
        Perhaps not everybody does, I certainly couldn't see that happening for myself. The right to abortion is as fundamental as the rest.
        You may not see it happening to yourself but then again nor did I. It shouldn't be not in it's current form if it must be, men need more of a say.
        • Wiki Support Team
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by tehFrance)
        You may not see it happening to yourself but then again nor did I. It shouldn't be not in it's current form if it must be, men need more of a say.
        I would possibly support giving the man the right to force an abortion, but certainly not to block one. They don't have to carry the baby.
        • Offline

          15
          (Original post by O133)
          I would possibly support giving the man the right to force an abortion, but certainly not to block one. They don't have to carry the baby.
          Allowing a man to force an abortion? Are you crazy? :lolwut:

          A man should be allowed an equal say should he want to be part of the child's life, a man also shouldn't be able to force an abortion just as much as a woman shouldn't force her decision for an abortion on a man. While I hope you don't go through what I went through, maybe you should just so you understand the terribleness of it all.
          • Wiki Support Team
          Offline

          19
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by tehFrance)
          Allowing a man to force an abortion? Are you crazy? :lolwut:

          A man should be allowed an equal say should he want to be part of the child's life, a man also shouldn't be able to force an abortion just as much as a woman shouldn't force her decision for an abortion on a man. While I hope you don't go through what I went through, maybe you should just so you understand the terribleness of it all.
          I did think that that wasn't your idea of getting the man involved. I do think then that if the father wants the foetus to be aborted and the mother doesn't then the father should be able to detach himself from parental responsibilities.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          I'm surprised at some people claiming to support the HRA and criticising the length and vagueness of this Bill. It seems to be a contradiction seeing as 99% of the Bill is taken word for word from the actual Act you claim to support.

          It appears some people support an act they haven't read thoroughly. Which is good as it demonstrates there's room for manoeuvre and an appetite for radical change from the ECHR and the HRA 1998 come a second reading
          Offline

          22
          ReputationRep:
          I assume the court of ECHR can still intervene? Thus making this pointless?
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by That Bearded Man)
          I assume the court of ECHR can still intervene? Thus making this pointless?
          This would replace the HRA 1998 and repeal the convention we signed so only British courts would being able to rule.
         
         
         
        TSR Support Team

        We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

        Updated: July 15, 2014
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.