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

Do you support abolishing human rights? Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The human rights act has been abused for far too long
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    A strange position, that British judges can somehow be more easily nobbled than European ones. I don't think there's any evidence for that at all.

    The European Court of Human Rights applies a wider margin of appreciation to the interpretation of national human rights laws. In essence, what the UK wants is the ability to curb some of the excesses of interpretation here.
    Well of course judges and courts will be more easily "nobbled" by the governments of their own country. I'd disagree with the french courts having final say over the European Courts as well because the french government would be able to exert more influence over cases in their country. The whole point of an international court is that individual state governments have less influence over it.

    The "excesses" are really isolated cases like Anjem Choudry, and the only reason that lasted so long was because Jordan took decades to say "we won't use evidence gained through torture against him", which was exactly what the ECHR was made to stop. The fact that governments occassionally have to treat irredeemable shits like human beings is the price everyone has to bare, so the governments have to treat human beings like actual human beings.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Theresa May and a large chunk of the Tory right have long wanted to reduce the restrictions that the ECHR have imposed upon us.
    To dress this up and put a positive spin on it, they claim how they want a 'British Bill of Rights'. What they really mean is they want a watered down ECHR.

    I don't doubt that they may add a few token rights which are already enshrined (almost by convention) such as right to trial by jury and the right to a solicitor, but they are so enshrined anyway that incorporating them into a bill of rights will change nothing in reality.
    Any additional areas will be dependent on both the Government's initial position in the consultation, once it's released, and the outcome of that same consultation.

    It's a bit odd to criticise a Bill of Rights for enshrining pre-existing rights, when that's largely what the Human Rights Act did. It's not like we didn't have the right to a fair trial before 1998.

    I don't believe in natural law. Human rights are created and defined by people. That said, I do bevel there should be international, perhaps even global legally enshrined rights, such as the ECHR and ICCPR/ICESCR which decalres 'rights' that national governments cannot touch or alter.
    I'm not sure if I see the Council of Europe as some great protector of our rights. We're talking about an organisation that would never accept a right of equal marriage, that will never accept a right to even early-stage abortion, where outlawing the death penalty (even with exceptions for war) is an optional add-on.

    It is domestic law and the unilateral actions of domestic governments that build on these rights.

    After the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the idea that there should be rights guaranteed to all humans against the state was and still is a very attractive proposal. It goes against the point of human rights if we allow national governments to determine the scope of them for their own people.
    I'm not sure if we, for example, dismiss the US Bill of Rights as going "against the point of human rights" because it is a national instrument. The same for, say, the Canadian Charter. There are of course international human rights commitments that bind these sovereign states, including our own. How they reflect them in domestic law, however, is a matter for each state.

    There are several countries with far better protection of rights than the UK. As I mentioned above, there are many areas which go beyond the scope of the ECHR - and that the Council of Europe will never agree. It is wrong to dismiss these domestic guarantees as problematic, on the basis that the UK courts may wish to interpret differently a right to prisoners voting or the like.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Well of course judges and courts will be more easily "nobbled" by the governments of their own country. I'd disagree with the french courts having final say over the European Courts as well because the french government would be able to exert more influence over cases in their country. The whole point of an international court is that individual state governments have less influence over it.
    Meanwhile with the European Court we have them being influenced by considerations around countries like Russia and Turkey. That is the political environment they operate in and while they have been robust in some areas, if we're suggesting judges are influenced by politics (they probably are), there is good reason to examine the influences that are present internationally.

    Let's not forget as well that the HRA, which the British Bill of Rights seeks to replace, was itself a mechanism to resolve more human rights cases domestically rather than in the European Court. The justification behind this is quite reasonable.

    The "excesses" are really isolated cases like Anjem Choudry, and the only reason that lasted so long was because Jordan took decades to say "we won't use evidence gained through torture against him", which was exactly what the ECHR was made to stop. The fact that governments occassionally have to treat irredeemable shits like human beings is the price everyone has to bare, so the governments have to treat human beings like actual human beings.
    I have no problem with that at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    I don't agree that we are all human. Scientifically perhaps, but I don't think this is a good model for our political system. Exceptional cases exist where the death penalty is probably a very good idea and where degrading a person is necessary to get information from them.

    Furthermore, the compassion with which we show people, being a Christian nation, is being exploited by foreigners to whom our compassion is alien and perverse. We must abolish Human Rights to cease exploitation by foreigners and particularly malign criminals in our own country.
    ok...i'll make you my slave, i will cut off your foot if you don't clean my house to my liking.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    and christian nation? not really. it's not as if Muslims or Arabs or whoever from Libya aren't acquainted with Abrahamic principles.

    or that humanity and charity are not universal in every cultrue.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimkarsd)
    ok...i'll make you my slave, i will cut off your foot if you don't clean my house to my liking.
    yeah but you won't do that because i'm faster, stronger and smarter than you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    I don't agree that we are all human. Scientifically perhaps, but I don't think this is a good model for our political system. Exceptional cases exist where the death penalty is probably a very good idea and where degrading a person is necessary to get information from them.

    Furthermore, the compassion with which we show people, being a Christian nation, is being exploited by foreigners to whom our compassion is alien and perverse. We must abolish Human Rights to cease exploitation by foreigners and particularly malign criminals in our own country.
    YES CALL ME DONALD TRUMP! Human rights are there to protect us
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by L i b)
    I've often thought this sentiment is far more widely held than people appreciate.

    You only have to trawl through the below-the-line comments on a newspaper article about some kiddy-fiddler, mass murderer or vaguely unpleasant rapey deviant to see people come out with stuff like "human rights shouldn't apply to x, x has given up their humanity". Human rights, as a concept, cannot exist unless they are universal - applicable to the lowest shits on earth as much as everyone else.

    Ask the ordinary bloke if the worst person he can imagine should have a right not to suffer degrading treatment, or should have a right to a family life. The answer will most commonly be "****ing hell, of course not". Voting rights are one of the most obvious conflicts we've seen. Perhaps if we ask if there should be a universal prohibition against torture, we'd get rather more progressive answers. I'm not sure.

    If you ask me personally, the answer is yes: all human beings, in a civilised society, should have a range of fundamental basic rights.
    I agree with bits of your post, but I think some should be waived in certain circumstances (serial rape, murder, and similar level offences should waive their rights to family life and to life itself, for example). The vast majority of human rights are fine, its just that some are so easily abused by criminals that thye need looking at and changing in some way. Your average person on the street shold have no issues regarding his human rights, but a criminal should lose some based on what they've done in my opinion
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    yeah but you won't do that because i'm faster, stronger and smarter than you
    not really, since you don't get really get the concept of human rights, or its implications. oh and many people were made slaves before, despite baseless prostestations of being smarter..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mistletoe)
    I don't agree that we are all human.
    Stopped listening.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I've often thought this sentiment is far more widely held than people appreciate.
    Well duh. That's why fascism can/could happen and all the murdering of undesirables.

    I'm sure a very sizeable chunk of people would vote for the death penalty or to strip human rights away from certain groups. Or get rid of them all together if it meant they could castrate pedos or throw a Muslim off a bridge.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.