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

Tories to repeal Human Rights Act Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's wonderful seeing the Guiardian showing it's impartiality yet again
    So Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke are "the Guiardian"?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nice.Guy)
    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.
    I have read what the Tories are planning to do, and like Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke, I think it's a travesty.

    Perhaps before reflexively and unthinkingly defending it, you should give such esteemed Conservative barristers like Grieve the time of day and listen to his arguments?

    By the way, on what basis do you say it's a fantastic thing? What are you studying? Law?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    So Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke are "the Guiardian"?
    Remind me, on that first link (and second while you're at it) what is between the http://www. And the next full stop?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    I have read what the Tories are planning to do, and like Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke, I think it's a travesty.

    Perhaps before reflexively and unthinkingly defending it, you should give such esteemed Conservative barristers like Grieve the time of day and listen to his arguments?

    By the way, on what basis do you say it's a fantastic thing? What are you studying? Law?
    Why is it a travesty? What changes don't you agree with?

    I don't need to be studying law to know about all the times the country has been prevented from deporting criminals, because of trivial interpretations of EU law. All the changes being made will make Britain a safer place.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Remind me
    Remind me, whose views were being reported? The Guardian's or Grieve/Clarke?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Certain legistation about the ECHR is devolved to the regional parliaments of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. So inorder for the Human Rights bill to be scrapped intirelly, the Conservatives would need the agreement of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Which probably won't happen.

    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/10...ill-of-rights/

    (Further discussion from Professor Aileen McHarg of the University of Strathclyde.)

    So, big questions for Mr Gove: will your government attempt to eliminate the ECHR rights enshrined in the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Acts? What if Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast reject the idea? Will you crack on anyway? What if the majorities in the devolved legislatures do not approve of your British Bill of Rights? Will you respect and recognise their democratic mandates, or employ Westminster sovereignty to ram the replacement through? As human rights are not a reserved matter, will you seek the legislative consent of Holyrood to repeal devolved aspects of the Human Rights Act, and if this is not forthcoming, how will you respond?Thus far, the Tories have had bugger all to say about the detailed devolved implications of their abolition plan -- but they are politically explosive. Thus far, by focussing on the court politics of tactics and slogans, the media have singularly failed to take Conservative ministers to task on their woolly human rights thinking. Like Cameron's pledge to "renegotiate" the European Union treaties without any real or realisable demands, abolition of the Human Rights Act is a slogan -- not a worked out policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    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
    Foreigners can have the right to family life elsewhere.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoorBastward)
    Foreigners can have the right to family life elsewhere.
    I agree. And the courts are much more circumspect these days about allowing an Article 8 claim on some of the dubious grounds they were allowed previously. The previous President of the Immigration Upper Tribunal was a bit biased, now he has been replaced and the judgments are much more moderate

    Perhaps you can point to a particular case where you disagree with the outcome?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SausageMan)
    Certain legistation about the ECHR is devolved to the regional parliaments of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. So inorder for the Human Rights bill to be scrapped intirelly, the Conservatives would need the agreement of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Which probably won't happen.
    Well said. Another consideration is that our commitment to the ECHR is a treaty obligation under the 1998 Good Friday Accord. And the idea that we will have different rights depending on where we live in this United Kingdom is an absurd position for the Conservative and Unionist Party

    There is a very tight thicket of interlocking treaty obligations that makes it highly improper for us to repeal the HRA and withdraw from the Convention

    Excellent link, btw
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    I agree. And the courts are much more circumspect these days about allowing an Article 8 claim on some of the dubious grounds they were allowed previously. The previous President of the Immigration Upper Tribunal was a bit biased, now he has been replaced and the judgments are much more moderate

    Perhaps you can point to a particular case where you disagree with the outcome?
    There's been a few in the papers where killers, islamists, thugs and paedos have been allowed to stay indefinitely under secret identities. You'll have to find the articles for yourself though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoorBastward)
    There's been a few in the papers where killers, islamists, thugs and paedos have been allowed to stay indefinitely under secret identities. You'll have to find the articles for yourself though.
    Under secret identities? No, I don't think that's the case. If this actually has happened, surely you won't have any trouble providing a couple of links?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I support the principle of it, even just to stop things like the ECHR forcing us to give prisoners the vote (probably more to do with the ECHR than our own Human Rights Act, unless I'm missing something).

    I'm just not sure if I trust the Conservatives on other things to do with human rights though, given their desire for internet censorship and their dislike of trade unions. I get the impression they want to weaken other things like workers rights as well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    About time this criminal's charter be abolished.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatthewParis)
    Remind me, whose views were being reported? The Guardian's or Grieve/Clarke?
    And who says what opinions are allowed? I'm sure if they got a load of other people wanting to tell them how great the proposal is they would publish them(!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And who says what opinions are allowed? I'm sure if they got a load of other people wanting to tell them how great the proposal is they would publish them(!)
    I have to confess I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

    You said something along the lines of "Typical Guardian lefty crap", when in fact all it was doing was reporting the (widely known) views of Dominic Grieve QC (former Attorney-General, and widely respected in parliament and in the legal profession) and Ken Clarke QC (former Chancellor of the Exchequer, former Lord Chancellor, widely respected in parliament and in the legal profession).

    I'm disappointed that you are so keen to turn this into a partisan issue, when serious, thoughtful Conservatives like Messrs Grieve and Clarke are making serious, thoughtful arguments as to why it is not a good idea to repeal the Human Rights Act or withdraw from the convention.

    Do you not feel that their long service to the Conservative Party and substantial legal experience entitle them to at least a fair hearing from you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    About time this criminal's charter be abolished.
    Which particular articles do you disagree with? The right not to be tortured? The right to peaceful enjoyment of one's property? The right to free expression?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And who says what opinions are allowed? I'm sure if they got a load of other people wanting to tell them how great the proposal is they would publish them(!)
    Oh, and frankly, you will not find "a load" of senior barristers and respected former judges who will speak up in favour of this proposal. Almost no-one favours this.

    It is primarily favoured by right-wing non-lawyers, by people who are unlearned in the law but who do not consider this to be a bar to having strong opinions about it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I support the principle of it, even just to stop things like the ECHR forcing us to give prisoners the vote (probably more to do with the ECHR than our own Human Rights Act, unless I'm missing something).
    I personally do not favour giving prisoners the vote, and that is an issue of longstanding dispute between the government and the Strasbourg court. But Strasbourg has been slowly moving towards the UK position on this. And as you say, that is not an issue of the domestic application of convention rights through the HRA as it is Strasbourg judgments which the government has understandably declined to implement into domestic law via primary legislation (which is what usually has to occur where a provision of primary legislation, which cannot be automatically overridden by Strasbourg judgments, is found to be incompatible with convention rights)

    I'm just not sure if I trust the Conservatives on other things to do with human rights though, given their desire for internet censorship and their dislike of trade unions. I get the impression they want to weaken other things like workers rights as well.
    I completely agree. Also, our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights is a fundamental treaty obligation under the 1998 Good Friday Accord. Repealing the act and withdrawing from the convention is a bad idea in so many ways.

    I am comforted that there are probably enough sane Conservative backbenchers like Grieve and Clarke, who have sufficient respect in the house to bring 15 or 20 backbenchers with them if they cross the floor, to block this proposal. And then, thankfully, we have the Lords who can also obstruct this as the Conservatives do not have a majority in the Lords
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    And look who's in charge of 'justice'...Michael Gove.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    We're reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallly screeeeeewed. Really, really screwed.


    The thing is, Human rights are for everybody, and not just prisoners. Repealing the Human Rights Act would be the most grievous mistake
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nice.Guy)
    Why is it a travesty? What changes don't you agree with?

    I don't need to be studying law to know about all the times the country has been prevented from deporting criminals, because of trivial interpretations of EU law. All the changes being made will make Britain a safer place.
    You've really drunk the Kool-Aid, I'm afraid. Apart from anything else, repealing the HRA won't prevent the ECHR from applying (as the UK will still be a signatory). All it will mean is that criminals facing deportation will need to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights directly, rather than their rights being enforced by our domestic courts.

    Even if we did withdraw from the ECHR (which would be an even more drastic measure than repealing the HRA) then deporting convicts would still need to adhere to other international laws, such as Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    Furthermore, the HRA, ECHR and above International Covenant all contain qualifications on the rights of criminals to stay where there is a threat to national security.

    Also, the ECHR is not EU law.

    This is a complex area, and you should try to read some commentary by people who understand the area (I am far from convinced that Gove does).

    (Original post by RFowler)
    I support the principle of it, even just to stop things like the ECHR forcing us to give prisoners the vote (probably more to do with the ECHR than our own Human Rights Act, unless I'm missing something).

    I'm just not sure if I trust the Conservatives on other things to do with human rights though, given their desire for internet censorship and their dislike of trade unions. I get the impression they want to weaken other things like workers rights as well.
    See above. Repealing the HRA won't stop the ECHR having influence, it will just mean appellants will have to take the appeal to Strasbourg rather than have it here.

    What the Government is saying to justify abolishing the HRA makes me very suspicious about their motives. Because the proposals are not going to achieve some of their stated aims, and the existing system already achieves other of their stated aims. A lot of it just doesn't make much sense as it stands.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?
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.