UK getting out of human rights - the world celebrates

Watch this thread
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
It is now government policy to abandon the postwar consensus on human rights in Europe, which Britain was largely responsible for creating. If the Tories are re-elected, this will be a key policy.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...rights-rulings

There are many negative aspects to this (Chris Grayling's proposals were just rubbished by Dominic Grieve, former Tory Attorney General, who says the document contains many outright lies about how European Human Rights operates), but I thought it was worth a pause to consider who will be offering the Tories congratulations from around the world when this gets done and the news goes global.

China
North Korea
Islamic State
Burma
Venezuela
Cuba
Zimbabwe

EDIT I removed Russia - they are in the convention, however sloppily implemented in reality. I'm sure Putin will be sending personal congratulations to Cameron though for this bold move. After all, human rights are nasty foreign things and not very British. We prefer simple rules like 'get orf my land' and 'shoot first, ask questions later'.
7
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
It's ridiculous really to think our country is apparently so against improvements to human rights.
0
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
I'd love to comment but fear any criticism of this proposal may get me branded a non violent extremist.
6
reply
uberteknik
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
So the papers are turning this into outrage and sensationalism, by implying that Britain will spiral into human rights abuses comparable to the worst in North Korea, Burma etc. Judging by some of the responses, people are falling for this ploy.

I see this as quite sensible in bringing in some checks and balances and sovereign control over the types of laws passed by Strasbourg. The principles of Human Rights are sound and just, however the blanket implementation without regard to the negative problems they cause at a local level is the issue.

This is aimed at bringing clarity and protecting human rights for the majority, but also allowing our judiciary to curb the ability to evade justice and harm caused to others and society by people like Abu Qatada, Anjem Choudhary, etc.or the dissonance caused by allowing paedophiles, murderers and rapists the right to suffrage in prison - the very people who disregard human rights and sometimes succeed in making a mockery of our legal system.

Taking account of Strasbourg rulings, the system needs to balance the rights of a few individuals against the rights of the great majority. I am sure that Strasbourg pass laws in the interests of the great majority at the global and pan-European level. However, some of the laws have a great negative impact at a far more localised level and are exploited by a few at the expense of the rights and safety of the majority.

The Grayling paper sets out the framework for our judiciary to review the Strasbourg rulings and then treat them as adopted or as advisory when deciding how the laws should be interpreted within UK law. Nothing more.

This is entirely different to the sensationalist headlines that we will somehow bring back slavery, kangaroo courts, torture and crushing dissenters mercilessly.
6
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by n00)
I'd love to comment but fear any criticism of this proposal may get me branded a non violent extremist.
You are an extremely dangerous tolerationist of the EU and to make matters worse, you aren't horribly confused and deluded by the Daily Mail. Therefore you should be branded as a 'moderate' and 'sensible intelligent person', two of the worst possible insults in Tory circles.
1
reply
n00
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by uberteknik)
crushing dissenters
The plans are already in place aren't they?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29414574
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by uberteknik)
So the papers are turning this into outrage and sensationalism, by implying that Britain will spiral into human rights abuses comparable to the worst in North Korea, Burma etc. Judging by some of the responses, people are falling for this ploy.

I see this as quite sensible in bringing in some checks and balances and sovereign control over the types of laws passed by Strasbourg. The principles of Human Rights are sound and just, however the blanket implementation without regard to the negative problems they cause at a local level is the issue.

This is aimed at bringing clarity and protecting human rights for the majority, but also allowing our judiciary to curb the ability to evade justice and harm caused to others and society by people like Abu Qatada, Anjem Choudhary, etc.or the dissonance caused by allowing paedophiles, murderers and rapists the right to suffrage in prison - the very people who exploit human rights and sometimes succeed in making a mockery of our legal system.

Taking account of Strasbourg rulings, the system needs to balance the rights of a few individuals against the rights of the great majority. I am sure that Strasbourg pass laws in the interests of the great majority at the global and pan-European level. However, some of the laws have a great negative impact at a far more localised level and are exploited by a few at the expense of the rights and safety of the majority.

The Grayling paper sets out the framework for our judiciary to review the Strasbourg rulings and then treat them as adopted or as advisory when deciding how the laws should be interpreted within UK law. Nothing more.

This is entirely different to the sensationalist headlines that we will somehow bring back slavery, kangaroo courts, torture and crushing dissenters mercilessly.
It's to do with the message it sends. People around the world won't generally catch the nuances about specific prisoner rights, they will just hear that the UK is withdrawing from the most important human rights agenda in the world. Depressing stuff.

Anyway, that point about prisoner voting rights is just a piece of issue capturing justification by the right wing media. What this is really about is that Teresa May and several previous Home Secretaries got frustrated about the legal blockages to expelling Abu Qatada (and one or two similar cases), yet nearly all of that was upheld by the UK Supreme Court and had little to do except peripherally with the European Court.

This is a total example of dishonest and pathetically disinterested Ministers/politicians cringing to the Daily Mail rag and its cynical, secretive agendas.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by uberteknik)
So the papers are turning this into outrage and sensationalism, by implying that Britain will spiral into human rights abuses comparable to the worst in North Korea, Burma etc. Judging by some of the responses, people are falling for this ploy.
No surprises there, since the ECHR supports press freedom, whereas the Tory government does not.

(Original post by uberteknik)
I see this as quite sensible in bringing in some checks and balances and sovereign control over the types of laws passed by Strasbourg. The principles of Human Rights are sound and just, however the blanket implementation without regard to the negative problems they cause at a local level is the issue.

This is aimed at bringing clarity and protecting human rights for the majority, but also allowing our judiciary to curb the ability to evade justice and harm caused to others and society by people like Abu Qatada, Anjem Choudhary, etc.or the dissonance caused by allowing paedophiles, murderers and rapists the right to suffrage in prison - the very people who exploit human rights and sometimes succeed in making a mockery of our legal system.
Human rights need to apply to everyone or to no-one. It's better for the law to be abused by people than the other way around, I think.

(Original post by uberteknik)
Taking account of Strasbourg rulings, the system needs to balance the rights of a few individuals against the rights of the great majority. I am sure that Strasbourg pass laws in the interests of the great majority at the global and pan-European level. However, some of the laws have a great negative impact at a far more localised level and are exploited by a few at the expense of the rights and safety of the majority.
And what's to stop a British human rights law doing exactly the same thing? Every system will have its faults.

(Original post by uberteknik)
The Grayling paper sets out the framework for our judiciary to review the Strasbourg rulings and then treat them as adopted or as advisory when deciding how the laws should be interpreted within UK law. Nothing more.
Or rather, it means the UK government can cherry-pick which individuals or groups can be protected by human rights based on their current agenda. And it will inevitably lead to more rights of British citizens being eroded under "anti-terrorism" laws and other such smoke-and-mirror legislation.
1
reply
datpiff
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
I bet £100 this thread will turn into a Moosalem bashing thread.


I'm also more conscious of being sarcastic now. I'm gonna include this disclaimer on each post for idiots:
1
reply
uberteknik
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It's to do with the message it sends. People around the world won't generally catch the nuances about specific prisoner rights, they will just hear that the UK is withdrawing from the most important human rights agenda in the world. Depressing stuff.

Anyway, that point about prisoner voting rights is just a piece of issue capturing justification by the right wing media. What this is really about is that Teresa May and several previous Home Secretaries got frustrated about the legal blockages to expelling Abu Qatada (and one or two similar cases), yet nearly all of that was upheld by the UK Supreme Court and had little to do except peripherally with the European Court.

This is a total example of dishonest and pathetically disinterested Ministers/politicians cringing to the Daily Mail rag and its cynical, secretive agendas.
I'm not disagreeing with you - it is most definitely aimed at the right-wing/UKIP voter.

Lets not forget, this is not a white paper setting out law reforms, it is just a proposal. But announced at the Tory Party Conference, it's also a starting position for negotiating/modifying the terms for UK membership of the EU.

The devil will be in the detail which probably means the Home Secretary and the PM will attempt to gain the power of final ruling on contentious cases. If a successor version is actually implemented, I hope in reality, it will be the Supreme Court that decides without needing further escalation to the European Courts - in exceptional circumstances only.
0
reply
Chlorophile
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
It's utterly depressing. I just can't understand the "We're too good for human rights" attitude of people in this country. Do they not care about their civil liberties? It never ceases to amaze me how careless people are about their rights when they're well off...
4
reply
Studentus-anonymous
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It is now government policy to abandon the postwar consensus on human rights in Europe. . .
Quite a feat, that the EU and it's judicial organs managed to convince the world it was one and the same as the universal concept of human rights.

I'm not a Tory I don't vote Tory so take this seriously: The Tories aren't suggesting the UK abandon human rights whatsoever, the UK is still party to the UN Human Rights charter like every other member, and the UK being of of the most progressive and liberal societies on Earth doesn't stop because we decide to have our own constitutional protections, rather than take our cue from outside.

It's understandable why continental Europe takes so readily to uncompromising dictation from on high, they're used to paternalistic totalitarian interpretations of 'liberty' but Britain is not. Independence of will extends from the individual right up to sovereign state rights.

The Tories aren't proposing this because they hate freedom or whatever, they're proposing it because the UK national psyche baulks at outside foreign authority dictating terms over domestic matters, no matter how well intentioned.
7
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
Quite a feat, that the EU and it's judicial organs managed to convince the world it was one and the same as the universal concept of human rights.
I don't really trust the neo-liberal European countries, under whatever name, to defend human rights too hard against the interests of rapacious corporations and authoritarian governments.

But I sure as hell don't trust the Tories running our country either. They certainly don't stand for the rights of the people against corporations like they will go into after their term and authoritarian governments like themselves.

I'm not a Tory I don't vote Tory so take this seriously: The Tories aren't suggesting the UK abandon human rights whatsoever, the UK is still party to the UN Human Rights charter like every other member, and the UK being of of the most progressive and liberal societies on Earth doesn't stop because we decide to have our own constitutional protections, rather than take our cue from outside.
We are one of six with a Security Council seat so we can get away with breaching human rights without censure. The USA, China and Russia do it all the time so we are looking at that level of abuse.

In the ECHR we are balanced by the collective opinions of 26 states in a broadly similar economic and geopolitical position whose records on human rights are much cleaner than anything the UN Security Council can offer up.

And of course it's not even binding. If you think Strasbourg has any statutory power to enforce its decisions then you are quite simply not qualified to comment on the matter.

It's understandable why continental Europe takes so readily to uncompromising dictation from on high, they're used to paternalistic totalitarian interpretations of 'liberty' but Britain is not. Independence of will extends from the individual right up to sovereign state rights.
Haha, such irony. The only servile, credulous people here are the British public, manipulated as they are by the right-wing media.

The Tories aren't proposing this because they hate freedom or whatever, they're proposing it because the UK national psyche baulks at outside foreign authority dictating terms over domestic matters, no matter how well intentioned.
No, the Daily Mail and the rest of the right-wing press baulk at it. This is entirely down to the influence of the right-wing corporate media. There is nothing specially isolationist about the British people. Even if there were, we drafted the bloody thing in the first place! Churchill, that folk hero of the reactionary right, did it.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
People are morons.
1
reply
Arkasia
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I assumed the Tories were promising to revise and, if necessary, remove the Human Rights Act of 1998 (of which we have already repealed numerous sections over the past 16 years, this isn't anything new), replacing it with an updated Act that contains virtually every aspect, just not the parts that require submission to the ECHR. This is to remove the restrictions and the necessity to submit to the authority of the European Court of Human Rights, who can currently over-rule any sentences in the UK, ignoring UK laws and requirements.

It is a sad indictment of the state of our country if society is so reactionary and anti-government that they believe everything they see in the newspapers, and think that the government is trying to plunge our country into an anarchic state with no human rights whatsoever just because they are going to do something they have done multiple times in the past: revise and update the current Act, and decide on whether we allow Strasbourg ultimate control to over-rule our judgments.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
While this subject is being overdone (the UK will be part of the UN declaration of human rights still so no less against human rights than Australia) i also disagree with this policy. While i would like the right to family life removed, the ECHR is in 90% of cases a good thing.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
One problem here is that this is an example of what might be described as the Salmond fallacy; that the UK (in this case) can do what it wishes but can also compel other independent actors, the ECtHR, the Council of Europe and other sovereign states and their judiciaries to behave to us as we direct them to do.

Very shortly the UK will be seeking the extradition of a Latvian suspect in a very nasty murder case. If I was that suspect's Latvian lawyer, I know what my first argument to oppose extradition would be. That man should not be extradited to the UK because the largest political party in the country is threatening to withdraw from the ECHR; my client's human rights are no longer safe because they will depend on the whim of British politicians and he ought not to be sent back to the UK. I think that argument might stand a good chance of success and if it doesn't win in Riga, I would give it a try in Strasbourg.

And if that argument wins, that win will mean that a murder suspect never stands trial.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by nulli tertius)
One problem here is that this is an example of what might be described as the Salmond fallacy; that the UK (in this case) can do what it wishes but can also compel other independent actors, the ECtHR, the Council of Europe and other sovereign states and their judiciaries to behave to us as we direct them to do.

Very shortly the UK will be seeking the extradition of a Latvian suspect in a very nasty murder case. If I was that suspect's Latvian lawyer, I know what my first argument to oppose extradition would be. That man should not be extradited to the UK because the largest political party in the country is threatening to withdraw from the ECHR; my client's human rights are no longer safe because they will depend on the whim of British politicians and he ought not to be sent back to the UK. I think that argument might stand a good chance of success and if it doesn't win in Vilnius, I would give it a try in Strasbourg.

And if that argument wins, that win will mean that a murder suspect never stands trial.
Good argument. :five:

Similarly, the UK was speedily able to extradite a suspect in the London Bombings from Rome - another example of the way EU law, protected by European Human Rights, works in favour of prompt justice.

The Tories are selective to say the least in their moans about the EHCR. I suspect they don't in reality even care that much about the detail - it's simply another convenient vehicle for loathing Europe and disliking foreigners and therefore useful in the only battle the Tories care about - the one with UKIP.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
Of course most UKIPers support this as anything at all associated with the EU is literally cancer, even human rights.
0
reply
capitalismstinks
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 7 years ago
#20
What has the concept of human rights got to do with this crusty and outdated convention which was drafted just after WW2.

The human rights legalisation needs to be dragged into the 21st century. At the moment, it's just a gravy train for lawyers and get out of jail card for criminals and terrorists.

The human rights act is not holy scripture. It needs to be refreshed from time to time.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (54)
44.63%
The paper was reasonable (50)
41.32%
Not feeling great about that exam... (10)
8.26%
It was TERRIBLE (7)
5.79%

Watched Threads

View All