Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Scrap the Human Rights Acts Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Pleased to hear Theresa May speaking at the Tory Strategy Conference today talking about plans for the next Conservative Government to scrap the Human Rights Acts! It's an ill-thought Socialist agenda that gives more weight to criminals and terrorists, embarrasses our judges, and ridicule our country! I believe in the inalienable rights of man but that does not include the right of a criminal over law and order or that of God-fearing citizens!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj_macky)
    Pleased to hear Theresa May speaking at the Tory Strategy Conference today talking about plans for the next Conservative Government to scrap the Human Rights Acts! It's an ill-thought Socialist agenda that gives more weight to criminals and terrorists, embarrasses our judges, and ridicule our country! I believe in the inalienable rights of man but that does not include the right of a criminal over law and order or that of God-fearing citizens!
    About time -UK needs to claim back sovereignty from the EU

    I agree totally with the last sentence- the victim's human rights trumps the criminals human rights-simple.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    NO NO NO to both
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    NO NO NO to both
    Is there any chance of you being coherent? what does 'NO NO NO to both' supposed to mean?

    This thread did not ask questions but made a statement! And the statement is not advocating the abolition of human rights but disassociation with the ECHR due to perverse decisions that give more protection to alleged criminals and terrorists over the safety and security of law-abiding citizens and the country!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Human Rights Act hasn't prevented citizens from being locked up for Twitter crimes, or for speaking their mind on public transport, nor did it prevent New Labour detaining suspects for upto 28 days without charge: a fundamental breach of one of our core civil liberties.

    It's a useless bit of legislation that mainly benefits foreign criminals and human rights lawyers, time to get shot of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Have a look at the rights the HRA protects:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

    Are you sure it's the best option to just scrap everything? Just because our government doesn't regularly torture its citizens doesn't mean that the Act is 'useless' in requiring the prohibition of torture, and so on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manslaw)
    Have a look at the rights the HRA protects:
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

    Are you sure it's the best option to just scrap everything? Just because our government doesn't regularly torture its citizens doesn't mean that the Act is 'useless' in requiring the prohibition of torture, and so on.
    These 'rights' aren't worth the paper they're written on, take the right to free thought, conscience and religion for example, the second paragraph of article 9 states that:

    "Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law"

    So in other words we're allowed these 'rights' unless the government of the day decides otherwise, in which case we're not.

    It's a useless bit of political posturing designed to make liberals feel good about themselves, the average citizen wouldn't notice any difference if it was scrapped tomorrow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    About time -UK needs to claim back sovereignty from the EU

    I agree totally with the last sentence- the victim's human rights trumps the criminals human rights-simple.
    You wouldn't be claiming back any sovereignty from the European Union if we scrapped the HRA. First of all the EU is a separate entity than the body which deals with the protection of human rights under the ECHR - the Council of Europe. Secondly, scrapping the HRA wouldn't stop people from bringing their complaints of infringements of the ECHR to the European Court of Human Rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    These 'rights' aren't worth the paper they're written on, take the right to free thought, conscience and religion for example, the second paragraph of article 9 states that:

    "Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law"

    So in other words we're allowed these 'rights' unless the government of the day decides otherwise, in which case we're not.

    It's a useless bit of political posturing designed to make liberals feel good about themselves, the average citizen wouldn't notice any difference if it was scrapped tomorrow.
    You've omitted the last half of the sentence.

    'Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'

    Not only do restrictions have to be 'prescribed by law', but they must also be necessary... etc.

    The 'prescribed by law' part does suggest that that right may be comparatively 'weaker' than other rights which don't include that phrase - eg the prohibition on torture.

    The average citizen would not notice any difference if it was scrapped tomorrow because the average citizen isn't having their human rights breached!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    These 'rights' aren't worth the paper they're written on, take the right to free thought, conscience and religion for example, the second paragraph of article 9 states that:

    "Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law"

    So in other words we're allowed these 'rights' unless the government of the day decides otherwise, in which case we're not.

    It's a useless bit of political posturing designed to make liberals feel good about themselves, the average citizen wouldn't notice any difference if it was scrapped tomorrow.
    Couldn't agree more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manslaw)
    You've omitted the last half of the sentence.

    'Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'

    Not only do restrictions have to be 'prescribed by law', but they must also be necessary... etc.

    The 'prescribed by law' part does suggest that that right may be comparatively 'weaker' than other rights which don't include that phrase - eg the prohibition on torture.

    The average citizen would not notice any difference if it was scrapped tomorrow because the average citizen isn't having their human rights breached!

    The part of the sentence I ommited gives the government of the day even more scope to limit the 'rights' set out in the convention, I don't see how drawing attention to it helps your case.

    I strongly agree with the concept of human rights but the ECHR isn't the vehicle to do it. There are too many 'buts' and too much power is handed over to the state which effectively turns these 'rights' into privileges that can be whipped away by an overly zealous administration at any time. Furthermore there are about 4-5 of these documents now: the EU has one, the UN has one, we have our own and we have the ECHR too all of which creates an incoherent mess that the average citizen finds incredibly difficult to access. Imo there are better ways to go about these things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dj_macky)
    Pleased to hear Theresa May speaking at the Tory Strategy Conference today talking about plans for the next Conservative Government to scrap the Human Rights Acts! It's an ill-thought Socialist agenda that gives more weight to criminals and terrorists, embarrasses our judges, and ridicule our country! I believe in the inalienable rights of man but that does not include the right of a criminal over law and order or that of God-fearing citizens!
    How commonplace exactly are these problems you believe to arise from the ECHR that are strong enough for you to want to give up your own rights to prevent?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manslaw)
    You wouldn't be claiming back any sovereignty from the European Union if we scrapped the HRA. First of all the EU is a separate entity than the body which deals with the protection of human rights under the ECHR - the Council of Europe. Secondly, scrapping the HRA wouldn't stop people from bringing their complaints of infringements of the ECHR to the European Court of Human Rights.
    I mean leave the EU and EHRC and reverse all treaties in the entirety and allow UK law to be supreme again
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    That's the first time I've seen that video and it is hilarious.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Couldn't agree more.
    It's a qualified right.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...43287494,d.ZGU

    For a short overview.

    http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/u..._article_9.pdf

    For the full story - updated 2012

    Even bigger update re: the woman who couldn't wear her crucifix

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The part of the sentence I ommited gives the government of the day even more scope to limit the 'rights' set out in the convention, I don't see how drawing attention to it helps your case.

    I strongly agree with the concept of human rights but the ECHR isn't the vehicle to do it. There are too many 'buts' and too much power is handed over to the state which effectively turns these 'rights' into privileges that can be whipped away by an overly zealous administration at any time. Furthermore there are about 4-5 of these documents now: the EU has one, the UN has one, we have our own and we have the ECHR too all of which creates an incoherent mess that the average citizen finds incredibly difficult to access. Imo there are better ways to go about these things.
    Instead of having one requirement for a valid limitation - 'prescribed by law' - we have two (that must both be satisfied). Admittedly the 'prescribed by law' part won't be difficult to satisfy for a government that wants to create a limitation, so it is the 'necessary...' part that will be decisive of whether a limitation to that particular right is valid or not.

    What seems strange to me is that you are advocating the abolition of the HRA because (some of) the rights it provides for aren't strong enough. If we did withdraw from all human rights treaties and abolished the HRA then I doubt any government of this country would introduce legislation which provided for more extensive and stronger rights than we currently enjoy.

    I do agree with you that this can be a very confusing part of life for the ordinary person to understand. As you say, there are other human rights treaties that the UK is a signatory to other than the ECHR. I think we need better education on these matters which we are unlikely to get from the press.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Certainly not.

    As one of these "liberals" Chefdave refers to i actually like the fact that we have a continental set of human rights and further, unlike the EU and Eurozone the ECHR has actually being thought through and done well. If there are issues regarding it being potentially changed then this is an issue to tackle in Europe.

    Further, having had this debate recently in the Mhoc i shall copy here a great point...

    Leaving the ECHR would diminish Britain's positive record when it comes to human rights, as well as our legal reputation abroad. It's a shame most people don't know the facts about the ECHR, such as the lack of British cases it actually gets involved in (2047 out of the 2082 of the cases concerned the UK were dismissed by the Court in 2012 [sic]). The ECHR is a force for good, and we should remain part of it; hence my dismissal of this petition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manslaw)
    Instead of having one requirement for a valid limitation - 'prescribed by law' - we have two (that must both be satisfied). Admittedly the 'prescribed by law' part won't be difficult to satisfy for a government that wants to create a limitation, so it is the 'necessary...' part that will be decisive of whether a limitation to that particular right is valid or not.

    What seems strange to me is that you are advocating the abolition of the HRA because (some of) the rights it provides for aren't strong enough. If we did withdraw from all human rights treaties and abolished the HRA then I doubt any government of this country would introduce legislation which provided for more extensive and stronger rights than we currently enjoy.

    I do agree with you that this can be a very confusing part of life for the ordinary person to understand. As you say, there are other human rights treaties that the UK is a signatory to other than the ECHR. I think we need better education on these matters which we are unlikely to get from the press.

    Human rights are too important to be left to an elite group of liberals who hastily drew up a charter as a knee-jerk reaction to the horrors of WW2. I see the ECHR as a way for the left to close down the debate on the idea of human rights because as long as it's in place they take the view that the issue has been dealt with. Frankly, I find this a bit strange because it suggests that they believe that the rules we abide by are almost perfect. I'd like to tear it up and start afresh, there's nothing wrong with a democratic country changing the rules every couple of generations or so to re-engage the electorate keep things relevent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    How commonplace exactly are these problems you believe to arise from the ECHR that are strong enough for you to want to give up your own rights to prevent?
    The idea behind the ECHR is ideal. Putting aside some very questionable judgements, can I politely ask that you review membership of the ECHR, and then count how many countries you find on that list that are widely known to violate its citizens human rights!

    My point? The UK does not need the ECHR to guide it to the path of righteousness or hold it to account. That's what we elect parliamentarians for! Neither should the ECHR law and jurisprudence prevail over that of a sovereign nation, especially when those rules does not take into account new and emerging threats, specific national issues, etc, and treat all countries as though they were part of a homogeneous entity.

    That's simply my view - collaboration and not subjugation!!!

    I make the point again: I am a strong believer of human rights, and draw a great deal of inspiration from the likes of John stuart Mills and John Locke. But I disagree with protecting the rights of criminals at the expense of others, including their rights and safety!
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.