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

Tories to repeal Human Rights Act Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Tories have now confirmed they intend to proceed with their plan to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, and possibly even withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...man-rights-act

    This plan has been criticised in the most withering terms by Ken Clarke QC. Dominic Grieve QC, former Attorney-General who was dismissed by Cameron for advising against the repeal, called it "almost puerile".

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...hts-convention

    Mr Grieve has expressed far more eloquently than I could the dangers of such a move, how it would send the wrong message and be a recipe for disaster in the courts, as well as being highly prejudicial to the human rights of UK citizens. Why, for example, is the government seeking to limit the application of Article 3 (prohibition on torture)?

    http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/po...ives-are-wrong

    It's also interesting that now, for the second time, Cameron has appointed to the post of Lord Chancellor a non-lawyer; Chris Grayling was the first Lord Chancellor since 1673 to be a non-lawyer. And now we have another in the form of Michael Gove. I don't deny Gove is an intelligent man, but this government has a pattern of dismissing Conservatives with fine legal minds like Ken Clarke QC and appointing in their place non-lawyers who will do as they're told. Ditto Oliver Heald QC, an accomplished barrister was replaced as Solicitor-General by Robert Buckland MP, an almost unknown solicitor who had previously been found guilty of professional misconduct by the SRA. Ditto again Sir Edward Garnier QC, a man of high intelligence and principle, who was himself replaced by Mr Heald. This government has basically burned through all of its legal talent.

    Last year, Dominic Grieve was replaced as Attorney-General by Jeremy Wright, a provincial lawyer from the Birmingham criminal bar, a graduate of Exeter University who was only admitted in 1997. To add insult to injury, he was elevated to the rank of Queen's Counsel, despite having nothing like the requisite experience and professional esteem. It's highly improper as the practice of giving MP barristers silk whether or not they had earned it ended in the 1990s.

    All in all, it adds up to a government that has nothing but contempt for the rule of law and for the legal traditions and conventions of this country. Dominic Grieve is highly respected in legal profession and in the House of Commons (he convinced 90 Labour MPs to rebel on 90-day detention), as is Ken Clarke. Given the very marginal character of the government's majority, I expect they will be quite worried about how many MPs Messrs Grieve, Clarke and Garnier will bring with them when they cross the floor on the HRA repeal. I look forward to the battle, but I fear for what this country is becoming under this government
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    good, about time
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    good, about time
    Which specific rights do you object to? The right not to be tortured? The right to a fair trial? The right to freedom of conscience and religion?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Which specific rights do you object to? The right not to be tortured? The right to a fair trial? The right to freedom of conscience and religion?
    the part that allows foreign crooks to stay because of "muh human rights"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's not a big deal. They'll replace it with a Bill of Rights and for as long as we stay in the EU, we have the ECHR to comply with.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    the part that allows foreign crooks to stay because of "muh human rights"
    So you disagree with Article 8, the right to a private and family life?

    I personally do not particularly like some of the decisions that have been rendered with reference to Article 8, but firstly that tendency has been very much reversed in the courts and they have received the hints parliament was sending, and secondly I'd say that laws are often blunt instruments, but that is the price we pay for having broad protections.

    Secondly, it would be a mistake to take a few isolated cases (many of which are overturned, in the government's favour, on appeal) as justification for abolishing our right not to be tortured, our right to a fair trial and so on.

    Serious, intelligent lawyers (who happen to also be Conservative MPs) like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve have laid out very clearly why such a move would be dangerous to our human rights
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gulbenkian02)
    It's not a big deal. They'll replace it with a Bill of Rights
    It is a big deal, and I strongly encourage you to read the Dominic Grieve QC (who is not known as some radical leftist) on why it is such a danger to our rights, and why it will not act as any serious kind of break on the power of the executive

    The Conservative paper confirms all those fears. It proposes repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights that incorporates the text of the Convention because “the UK stands by its commitments when we signed the Convention.” But in the same breath it announces that the rights will be qualified and reduced where government and Parliament think fit. It identifies restrictions on deportation under Article 8 (the right to a private and family life) and under article 3 (protection from the risk of torture and degrading treatment), as its targets. It also says that Human Rights laws will only be invoked for “the most serious cases.”
    This approach overlooks that most decisions on interpreting these key articles have been done by our national courts. The effect will not be to free our courts from following Strasbourg decisions—something they are already doing where they think it right, but of reducing their ability to apply Convention principles to individual cases.


    and for as long as we stay in the EU, we have the ECHR to comply with.
    The European Union and the Council of Europe / ECHR are two separate things. Although it's highly likely that withdrawing from the Convention would be a technical breach of a number of treaties (including the 1998 Good Friday Accord), we would not have directly accessible remedies in the courts for breaches of the convention.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can't disagree with this. While i'm not bothered if we have these laws (i think article 8 must be the one i oppose - i see no reason to have to legally allow immigrants to bring family members or stay in the country for similar reasons) i do think the appointments in this department have been absurd.

    I adore Gove (my pick for PM with Hague gone) but this is not the department for him. Given May's ambitions it also seems strange to have May and Gove in roles where they may disagree with overlaps. It should i agree go back to Clarke or another QC.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's wonderful seeing the Guiardian showing it's impartiality yet again(!) I guess they completely forgot about the whole British Bill of Rights thing that's to replace it, and I imagine they go on about how this was such a Godless land where the only rights came from having money before the HRA and how we we inevitably go back to such a position?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's wonderful seeing the Guiardian showing it's impartiality yet again(!) I guess they completely forgot about the whole British Bill of Rights thing that's to replace it, and I imagine they go on about how this was such a Godless land where the only rights came from having money before the HRA and how we we inevitably go back to such a position?
    If they're going to make their own new Bill of Rights whenever they dislike something in the last one, there's not much point in having a Bill of Rights at all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    If they're going to make their own new Bill of Rights whenever they dislike something in the last one, there's not much point in having a Bill of Rights at all.
    By that logic there is no point in laws either. The point is to return power to our courts rather than have to bend to the namby pamby views of Europe.
    As I said, we all remember those times before the HRA when nobody had any rights, don't we?
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's wonderful seeing the Guiardian showing it's impartiality yet again(!) I guess they completely forgot about the whole British Bill of Rights thing that's to replace it, and I imagine they go on about how this was such a Godless land where the only rights came from having money before the HRA and how we we inevitably go back to such a position?
    Just a point - no major newspaper is impartial, and most promote some kind of political agenda. Their main purpose is to sell newspapers, not to provide a totally unbiased (and bland) coverage.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Actaeon)
    Just a point - no major newspaper is impartial, and most promote some kind of political agenda. Their main purpose is to sell newspapers, not to provide a totally unbiased (and bland) coverage.
    I'm well aware of that, but leaving out half the story is a whole sdifferent matter, like most publications when the cost of immigration was studied. Most publications headlined the £5bn gain from Europe and either completely ignored the £100bn+ from outside the EU or put it in as an afterthought, also took a similar approach to the time scale involved for this study.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    post your face when Michael Gove makes voting Labour treasonous and punishable by hanging till death
    Name:  1430960304318.jpg
Views: 135
Size:  41.0 KB
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm well aware of that, but leaving out half the story is a whole sdifferent matter, like most publications when the cost of immigration was studied. Most publications headlined the £5bn gain from Europe and either completely ignored the £100bn+ from outside the EU or put it in as an afterthought, also took a similar approach to the time scale involved for this study.
    I completely agree with you - both sides should be presented on an equal footing for debate and discussion and not just shouted down. However, I don't think the Guardian is too guilty on this one, especially compared to the antics of some of the other papers with regard to the SNP and immigration and so on. On the scrapping of the HRA I'm reserving judgement until I see what's actually proposed as a replacement.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Actaeon)
    I completely agree with you - both sides should be presented on an equal footing for debate and discussion and not just shouted down. However, I don't think the Guardian is too guilty on this one, especially compared to the antics of some of the other papers with regard to the SNP and immigration and so on. On the scrapping of the HRA I'm reserving judgement until I see what's actually proposed as a replacement.
    I'm pretty sure an outline of the BBoR has already been either leaked out released

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Article 9 - conscience and religion
    Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society"

    One of those restrictions should be, in my opinion, an absolute separation between religion and the state. This means no faith schools or state-funded religious establishments.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    About time. The implementation of the Act has been subject to constant abuse and mis-appropriation for things not in the intentions of its authors. The sooner we can have our own enshrined bill of rights which can't be used by the unscrupulous to thwart the basic operation of legitimate government and justice systems when no violation of human rights have been committed, the better.

    As for the scaremongers: British people didn't lack rights before the HRA came along. You talk about it like it's the only thing that guarantees freedom and personal integrity in this country, when in reality it's something that arrived long after the fact; it didn't bring us our rights nor is it something infallible handed down from heaven; it's a law written by people in the end. Repealing it will not cause any loss of freedom or safety and its replacement will work far more effectively.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Exon)

    One of those restrictions should be, in my opinion, an absolute separation between religion and the state. This means no faith schools or state-funded religious establishments.
    Yes. I agree totally.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    x

    (Original post by JordanL_)
    If they're going to make their own new Bill of Rights whenever they dislike something in the last one, there's not much point in having a Bill of Rights at all.
    Perhaps you'd like to read what the Tories are planning to do, before attacking them? It's a fantastic thing, and they can't do it soon enough.

    https://www.conservatives.com/~/medi...man_rights.pdf
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about your A-level results?
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.