Which human right would you like to see ended?

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
David Cameron and the new Tory government are proud of their plan to withdraw from the EU Human Rights Court. which Britain was originally instrumental in founding and which acts as an international beacon, hope and example to oppressed peoples of the world.

Apparently the reason (we are told) is that some of these rights are beastly foreign inventions and un-British. (Another lie - British jurists composed them originally.)

Here are the rights. Please say if you would like to see them withdrawn and if so, which one(s).

http://rightsinfo.org/the-rights-in-...an-convention/
1
reply
InnerTemple
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
This is all a big con trick by the Tories.

If we do away with the Human Rights Act, the UK will still be bound by the European Convention of Human Rights. This convention, as FOS says, is a document largely put together by the British after the second world war.

What will change, should the Tories get their own way, is that the convention rights will no longer be applied by British judges in British courts. Instead, the only way to enforce these rights would be to travel to Strasbourg to the European Court of Human Rights.

The result... well - you actually increase the scope for nasty foreign judges to meddle in our affairs.

You also close of justice to anyone who can't afford to take a case to Strasbourg. Fortunately, this bit doesn't affect Dave's mates so that's all good.
4
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.
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by InnerTemple)
This is all a big con trick by the Tories.

If we do away with the Human Rights Act, the UK will still be bound by the European Convention of Human Rights. This convention, as FOS says, is a document largely put together by the British after the second world war.

What will change, should the Tories get their own way, is that the convention rights will no longer be applied by British judges in British courts. Instead, the only way to enforce these rights would be to travel to Strasbourg to the European Court of Human Rights.

The result... well - you actually increase the scope for nasty foreign judges to meddle in our affairs.

You also close of justice to anyone who can't afford to take a case to Strasbourg. Fortunately, this bit doesn't affect Dave's mates so that's all good.
It really is the most pathetic example of shabby politicking by recourse to the idiot dialogues of moronity in the Daily Mail, as if the ridiculous journalists who squat in that paper are somehow the right people to dictate national policy.

Even worse is that Cameron, who is an educated and knowledgeable man, knows this perfectly well, yet is willing to continue to pursue the policy for the purely cynical aim of blindsiding UKIP.

It was good to see David Davies speaking against it - at least he has the courage of his convictions. Most Tories in the new government appear to be spivvy little tools of Lord Dacre.
0
reply
Skyy9432
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.
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
I'll abolish "No punishment without law." Why? So I can scalp the pricks who came up with this withdrawal.

Guess I should also revoke their right to a fair trial. Don't want them begging for mercy now.

*sharpens tomahawk* Fetch my war paint.
5
reply
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
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 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by InnerTemple)
This is all a big con trick by the Tories.

If we do away with the Human Rights Act, the UK will still be bound by the European Convention of Human Rights. This convention, as FOS says, is a document largely put together by the British after the second world war.

What will change, should the Tories get their own way, is that the convention rights will no longer be applied by British judges in British courts. Instead, the only way to enforce these rights would be to travel to Strasbourg to the European Court of Human Rights.

The result... well - you actually increase the scope for nasty foreign judges to meddle in our affairs.

You also close off justice to anyone who can't afford to take a case to Strasbourg. Fortunately, this bit doesn't affect Dave's mates so that's all good.
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
1
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.
#6
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by Skyy9432)
I'll abolish "No punishment without law." Why? So I can scalp the pricks who came up with this withdrawal.

Guess I should also revoke their right to a fair trial. Don't want them begging for mercy now.

*sharpens tomahawk* Fetch my war paint.
** nods wearily **
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
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 7 years ago
#7
the odd thing about Britain is its constitution (including Bill of Rights 1689, Abolition of Slavery Act, Magna Carta etc) already has may of these things, they are just not applied.
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.
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
I'm rather neutral on what they are doing (would not do so myself but neither were we barbarians before) but i would withdraw from..

Article 3
Article 8
Article 11

Articles 12 and 14 could probably be completely devolved as well.

*Note that there are some good things about 3, 8 and 11 but by no longer applying them, we could tailor our own solution.
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 18
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
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
which acts as an international beacon, hope and example to oppressed peoples of the world.
Does it? Don't see why non-signatories to the ECHR would care about it. It has little impact on the lives of the people there.

I don't think it should be repealed and I don't think it will be. Leaving would cause too many problems with devolution and doesn't send a great message to countries such as Russia to uphold human rights.

I don't personally like the absolute nature of certain rights as desperate times may call for desperate measures but that's not for me to decide.
1
reply
kbw
Badges: 0
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
This is a bit of a strawman. The argument isn't against the literal rights, but against how they are interpreted. We've gone from a literal intepretation meant to safeguard against the excesses of Nazism & Stalinism, to a 'living instrument' which is making inroads into things like environmental rights (Fadeyeva v. Russia on Art. 8 is a particular favourite). What you see listed in the treaties isn't what you actually get in practice.
1
reply
Alfissti
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
After thinking this true I do not believe it is a good idea to abolish.

What might be a better idea however is to strip criminals and terrorists of their access to such rights. Perhaps for good measure we should abolish such rights for Labour supporters too
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
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 tengentoppa)
Does it? Don't see why non-signatories to the ECHR would care about it. It has little impact on the lives of the people there.

I don't think it should be repealed and I don't think it will be. Leaving would cause too many problems with devolution and doesn't send a great message to countries such as Russia to uphold human rights.

I don't personally like the absolute nature of certain rights as desperate times may call for desperate measures but that's not for me to decide.
The idea that dictators in Africa / Asia (or anywhere) are going to change their mind after seeing the ECHR is the most laughable toss I have ever read.
0
reply
InnerTemple
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.
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Rakas21)
I'm rather neutral on what they are doing (would not do so myself but neither were we barbarians before) but i would withdraw from..

Article 3
Article 8
Article 11

Articles 12 and 14 could probably be completely devolved as well.

*Note that there are some good things about 3, 8 and 11 but by no longer applying them, we could tailor our own solution.
No we can't. We are still bound by the ECHR regardless of whether or not we have the Human Rights Act.

The only difference is that it would be harder for normal people to enforce those rights.

Repealing the Human Rights Act is a ridiculous move. It sends out all the wrong signals.
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
If there is anything wrong with the EU it is not because it makes countries within to adhere to human rights. :sigh:

It's like treating skin cancer on your arm by cutting your leg off...
1
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 4
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
freedom of religion
0
reply
ThatPerson
Badges: 18
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
(Original post by InnerTemple)
This is all a big con trick by the Tories.

If we do away with the Human Rights Act, the UK will still be bound by the European Convention of Human Rights. This convention, as FOS says, is a document largely put together by the British after the second world war.

What will change, should the Tories get their own way, is that the convention rights will no longer be applied by British judges in British courts. Instead, the only way to enforce these rights would be to travel to Strasbourg to the European Court of Human Rights.

The result... well - you actually increase the scope for nasty foreign judges to meddle in our affairs.

You also close of justice to anyone who can't afford to take a case to Strasbourg. Fortunately, this bit doesn't affect Dave's mates so that's all good.
Luckily if Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke, David Davis, et al revolt, then it might be possible to block Michael Gove and David Cameron completely.
0
reply
democracyforum
Badges: 4
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
freedom of speech
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
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 7 years ago
#18
the right to a family life - e.g., foreign criminals coming here, but they marry, so that means they can't be deported. **** that.
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.
#19
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#19
(Original post by Alfissti)
After thinking this true I do not believe it is a good idea to abolish.

What might be a better idea however is to strip criminals and terrorists of their access to such rights. Perhaps for good measure we should abolish such rights for Labour supporters too
I kind of feel that second paragraph is why we need the protection of international human rights. :rolleyes:
2
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.
#20
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
the right to a family life - e.g., foreign criminals coming here, but they marry, so that means they can't be deported. **** that.
Partly what seems to have happened in this one is that the European Court judges have gone too far in interpreting, although isn't it also the case that British Supreme Court judges have upheld similar cases?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

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

How are you feeling about your results?

They're better than I expected (114)
41.01%
They're exactly what I expected (66)
23.74%
They're lower than I expected (98)
35.25%

Watched Threads

View All