Why don't Tories like the Human Rights Act?

Watch
tomm0
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Is it because they're in power (inside and outside of Westminster) and so lack of some human rights won't affect them?

I don't buy their explanations that human rights aren't the same as the Act. The Act is there for a reason and I don't think that Tories can be trusted considering how many promises they broke since the election alone.
0
reply
CrazyPantha27
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by tomm0)
Is it because they're in power (inside and outside of Westminster) and so lack of some human rights won't affect them?

I don't buy their explanations that human rights aren't the same as the Act. The Act is there for a reason and I don't think that Tories can be trusted considering how many promises they broke since the election alone.
Do you have any specific incidences you can elaborate on? Making a big sweeping generalisation like that is a bit of a waste of time.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Presumably because it is thought that they give greater protections and rights to criminals or deviants rather than serving the interests of wider society.

Also HRs have a tendency to overreach to the point that criminals being denied the vote is a breach of their HRs. Also that all of these incidents cost a huge amount of money and benefit a bloated, unaccountable and elitist class of lawyers and busybodies. We can also see this effecting people’s daily lives in the equality and diversity leviathan where professing a belief that there are only a two genders may get you done for hate speech.

HOWEVER

Some on the right, notably our incompetent PM as Home Secretary have a tendency to blame all of our problems on say the ECHR, when other countries such as France have had no such problems despite also being members.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
generally, except from the very very extreme fringes, objections tend to be about implementation rather the existence.

I've never met a conservative in person who wishes for a world with no human rights, or with very minimal ones (although online I have read/and hear some people express these views) - normally critique comes from the point of 'I would implement/enforce it differently' rather then 'I would not have it'

--

On a more general note, there is no point in trusting any political party. They all break their promises.. all the time. And its naive and foolish to think that any party won't do this. Instead just expect that some promises will be broken by any party, and then vote accordingly anyway. Politicians are only human and will lie, break promises, steal, and do all the stuff that we all do.. because they are us. If in your mind one party breaks more promises then another, its most likely just an expression of your inner bias towards that party, rather then fact.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
They are reactionaries.

Case in point below. They want to be able to discrimnate against trans poeple. The extention of human rights to trans poeple means this marginalised group of poeple will be protected by law. Which they don't like and want to role back. This doesn't only come from the right either. The Labour left is currently in a civil war over the t in lgbt. Some Labour terf is currently trying to sue the party over trans women being included in all women shortlists even though it comes into conflixt with equlaity laws.
https://www.gofundme.com/fighting-fo...epresentatives

The other side are the poeple whio just use it in order to chase votes. Human rights get tied up in the populism of anti immigration and xenophobia sicne they often make it harder to treat none nationals like dirt. Concepts like human rights for example can make it harder to have border checks in hospitals. This is a really easy issue to stir up and if you are a conservative that is waging class war but needs a way to get votes from the class you are waging war on.

(Original post by Davij038)

We can also see this effecting people’s daily lives in the equality and diversity leviathan where professing a belief that there are only a two genders may get you done for hate speech.
0
reply
username1799249
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by tomm0)
Is it because they're in power (inside and outside of Westminster) and so lack of some human rights won't affect them?

I don't buy their explanations that human rights aren't the same as the Act. The Act is there for a reason and I don't think that Tories can be trusted considering how many promises they broke since the election alone.
Amongst other things, the Human Rights legislation prevents the deportation of people from the UK to countries with questionable human rights records. The radical cleric Abu Qatada successfully managed to appeal against multiple attempts by then Home Secretary, Theresa May to be deported from the country. It was only after a lot of high level diplomatic negotiation with Jordan that saw him eventually removed.

What the Tories fail to see is that if you have a law of Human Rights, it applied to all human beings. You can't pick and choose which is what they seem to want to do. In other words, everyone has human rights until we decide that some people don't. Its all rather pathetic. Abu Qatada's failed deportation was more down to blunders in May's department than the underlying legislation.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
I'm a Conservative and I support the Human Rights Act: indeed, a great many Conservatives do and suggestions it may be repealed caused a huge deal of debate internally for the party.

What people tend not to realise, however, is that human rights are not some cuddily concept: the public doesn't like them. Largely, I think, this is because people do not like being consistent. Ask the British public about the death penalty and they'll probably reject it: ask them about it for child rapists and things like that, and watch the numbers surge.

Broadly, people struggle with the concept that - no matter how badly you've behaved or how greatly you have rejected the society that supports you - an individual's core rights should be unaffected. This only really affects the Conservatives at the moment because they are in government; a radical Labour Party in government would face its own challenges from the HRA and be restricted in what they can do.

I understand the argument against the HRA and the ECHR, insofar as it has been interpreted by judges far beyond the ordinary meaning of the words within it. When the Convention was written in the 1950s and approved by European governments, there was no conception at all that it could be used in the way it is used today. I can't say I'm overly surprised some have a problem with that - but, on the whole, I think its influence has been positive.
1
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by Davij038)
Presumably because it is thought that they give greater protections and rights to criminals or deviants rather than serving the interests of wider society.
The entire point of human rights is that they are inalienable, they apply equally to all humans, no matter what.

(Original post by Davij038)
Also HRs have a tendency to overreach to the point that criminals being denied the vote is a breach of their HRs.
I'm guessing you meant prisoners here. Obviously, criminals are not denied the vote simply due to being criminals, that would be bordering on totalitarianism.

This ruling was hugely overblown by the press. What the court said was that prisoners could not be blanket-banned from voting, for example if someone is convicted with a misdemeanour and sentenced to 30 days' porridge, and their sentence happens to overlap with a general election, they should not be excluded from voting. The ECHR never suggested that all prisoners must have the vote.

(Original post by Davij038)
Also that all of these incidents cost a huge amount of money and benefit a bloated, unaccountable and elitist class of lawyers and busybodies.
Repealing the ECHR and replacing it with another similar-yet-different act would increase the amount of red tape for lawyers not decrease it, so the net result would be spending more money on those "busybodies".
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Dez)
The entire point of human rights is that they are inalienable, they apply equally to all humans, no matter what.
Human Rights are ultimately nonsense on stilts and are dependent upon the whims of those in power.

I have just recently paid a deposit for a property and speaking to the manager of my estate agent, they explained to me that because of the governments desire to create the ‘right’ to affordability and that everything now is dependent on finance it is harder and costlier to find somewhere to live. Previously you were allowed to be assessed on character and merit which allowed more people to get their own properties. And more importantly, the ‘right people’ who would look after their properties.

And that’s modern liberalism in a nutshell- the tyranny of the minorities


I'm guessing you meant prisoners here. Obviously, criminals are not denied the vote simply due to being criminals, that would be bordering on totalitarianism.

This ruling was hugely overblown by the press. What the court said was that prisoners could not be blanket-banned from voting, for example if someone is convicted with a misdemeanour and sentenced to 30 days' porridge, and their sentence happens to overlap with a general election, they should not be excluded from voting. The ECHR never suggested that all prisoners must have the vote.
Whatever- it makes little difference to me. Anyone serving time in prison forfeits their right to vote..


Repealing the ECHR and replacing it with another similar-yet-different act would increase the amount of red tape for lawyers not decrease it, so the net result would be spending more money on those "busybodies".
I agree- I can see why the Tories are doing it though- as this way would probably be cheaper and more efficient than ripping the whole thing up and starting from scratch.
0
reply
Freedommm
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Human rights legislation is used time and time again to protect terrorists and criminals. We need to sweep away human rights and give the government the power it needs. How else are we going to liquidate Islamsits?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
Because they don't like people and they most certainly don't like them having any rights.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Davij038)
Human Rights are ultimately nonsense on stilts and are dependent upon the whims of those in power.
Aren't all laws?

(Original post by Davij038)
I have just recently paid a deposit for a property and speaking to the manager of my estate agent, they explained to me that because of the governments desire to create the ‘right’ to affordability and that everything now is dependent on finance it is harder and costlier to find somewhere to live. Previously you were allowed to be assessed on character and merit which allowed more people to get their own properties. And more importantly, the ‘right people’ who would look after their properties.

And that’s modern liberalism in a nutshell- the tyranny of the minorities
I'm not sure what, if anything this has to do with human rights law.

(Original post by Davij038)
Whatever- it makes little difference to me. Anyone serving time in prison forfeits their right to vote..
What if they appeal and overturn their conviction?

(Original post by Davij038)
I agree- I can see why the Tories are doing it though- as this way would probably be cheaper and more efficient than ripping the whole thing up and starting from scratch.
TBH I think they're mostly doing this for the press attention, plus May's own personal vendetta against the ECHR for making her look (justifiably) incompetent.
2
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Dez)
Aren't all laws?
No I don’t believe so, the ‘the Law of the land’ is explicitly tied to local customs and power structures which enable its enforcement.

Human Rights is basically a *******ised materialist Christianity that is because if the above imperfect and flawed and therefore unlike actual Christianity dogma is an invalid moral arbiter.

I'm not sure what, if anything this has to do with human rights law.
The government pledging a ‘right’ to affordability.


What if they appeal and overturn their conviction?
Tough. Such a number is going to be insignificant anyway.


TBH I think they're mostly doing this for the press attention, plus May's own personal vendetta against the ECHR for making her look (justifiably) incompetent.
Oh I agree, to an extent. Ken Clarke rinsed her at the HoC regarding comments she made about deportations being refused due to owning pets.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Davij038)


Whatever- it makes little difference to me. Anyone serving time in prison forfeits their right to vote..

.
Why's that? Last time I checked they were citizens and still humans and thus should be afforded basic human rights - such as being able to choose your representation.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
Of course the same old nonsense about the evil Tories hating everyone and actively wanting to murder the poor are going to come out now.

The objection I have is that the HRA, very much like the Equality Act does not function as a shield against the abuses of the government against helpless and oppressed people. How it operates for the vast majority of cases is in a very boring, functional and mundane way as a simple hierarchy of legal options.

If a person has a grievance with their employer - their union / solicitor will look for the best way to get the outcome the person desires - which usually boils down to money. They will start with a hierarchy of legal options and work their way through them. Are they female? Are they from a minority? Are the disabled? Pretty much any employment claim will come down to some kind of dismissal claim and a some kind of discrimination claim - simply because that's the only practical way for a person to bring their claim before the tribunal. I worked with a solicitor who did extensive work suing the MoD. She said that 100% of claims by female soldiers will include a sexual discrimination or harassment claim because the MoD would usually just settle it rather than litigate, or even bother to investigate it.

The same is true of the HRA. If you have some kind of grievance - you've commited a crime and are about to be deported - it makes no sense to try and do anything other than litigate it through the HRA. The solicitor will go through the normal immigration appeals and then plop your Art 3 and Art 8 rights on there because they're pretty much universal for immigration and Bobs your uncle. Some IAT judge will look at the case and say "this guy has come here as an asylum seeker, but has stolen a car and robbed a shop. However, he has a family - maybe we should let him stay because Art 8"

If a kid gets detention at school, why not make an Art 6 claim? Seriously. Why not? No teacher or school is equipped to carry out investigations and tribunals, so if you get given detention, say that the Education Act 2011 notwithstanding, you cannot be subjected to sanction without a fair tribunal, which the school cannot provide. What are they going to do? Call the police?

This is the problem with the HRA and EqA - they are begging to be abused by everyone and they are, every single day. Every single day, the tribunals and appeal tribunals will hear case after case of the same claims, when it's clear that there cannot be this level of human rights or equality abuse.
2
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Trinculo)
The same is true of the HRA. If you have some kind of grievance - you've commited a crime and are about to be deported - it makes no sense to try and do anything other than litigate it through the HRA. The solicitor will go through the normal immigration appeals and then plop your Art 3 and Art 8 rights on there because they're pretty much universal for immigration and Bobs your uncle. Some IAT judge will look at the case and say "this guy has come here as an asylum seeker, but has stolen a car and robbed a shop. However, he has a family - maybe we should let him stay because Art 8"
Good. This is the main reason I don't support leaving the ECHR. The main block of poeple who want to leave it are like yourself and want to go on a trigger happy deportation spree. They are the worsed, most spiteful, petty and vindictive poeple. Theresa May is thier incompetant figure head.

(Original post by Trinculo)
If a kid gets detention at school, why not make an Art 6 claim? Seriously. Why not? No teacher or school is equipped to carry out investigations and tribunals, so if you get given detention, say that the Education Act 2011 notwithstanding, you cannot be subjected to sanction without a fair tribunal, which the school cannot provide. What are they going to do? Call the police?
I wish this was actually a thing :rofl:

I have a lot of contempt for all the little fuhrers I ran up against in education. Seriously.

There is no way I would let my kid get a detention for **** like this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dersfield.html

If that resulted in the school trying to expel my child or fine me, it would be quite useful to have ECHR on my side. I think we should teach children about the human right that outlaws collective punishment as a bawalk against class detentions :rofl:

(Original post by Trinculo)
If a person has a grievance with their employer - their union / solicitor will look for the best way to get the outcome the person desires - which usually boils down to money. They will start with a hierarchy of legal options and work their way through them. Are they female? Are they from a minority? Are the disabled? Pretty much any employment claim will come down to some kind of dismissal claim and a some kind of discrimination claim - simply because that's the only practical way for a person to bring their claim before the tribunal. I worked with a solicitor who did extensive work suing the MoD. She said that 100% of claims by female soldiers will include a sexual discrimination or harassment claim because the MoD would usually just settle it rather than litigate, or even bother to investigate it.
Workers need all the help they can get.


Even though I don't really see any of these things as anywhere near as problmatic as you do, they are all worth putting up with and are nowhere near the problem you think they are, unless you are a lickspittle and want to side with those who have power. Whether they be an acutual State, an Employer or a Teacher. Considering what the absolute worse consequences are when you have no gaurateed protections, these "problems" are nothing.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Trinculo)
Of course the same old nonsense about the evil Tories hating everyone and actively wanting to murder the poor are going to come out now.

The objection I have is that the HRA, very much like the Equality Act does not function as a shield against the abuses of the government against helpless and oppressed people. How it operates for the vast majority of cases is in a very boring, functional and mundane way as a simple hierarchy of legal options.

If a person has a grievance with their employer - their union / solicitor will look for the best way to get the outcome the person desires - which usually boils down to money. They will start with a hierarchy of legal options and work their way through them. Are they female? Are they from a minority? Are the disabled? Pretty much any employment claim will come down to some kind of dismissal claim and a some kind of discrimination claim - simply because that's the only practical way for a person to bring their claim before the tribunal. I worked with a solicitor who did extensive work suing the MoD. She said that 100% of claims by female soldiers will include a sexual discrimination or harassment claim because the MoD would usually just settle it rather than litigate, or even bother to investigate it.

The same is true of the HRA. If you have some kind of grievance - you've commited a crime and are about to be deported - it makes no sense to try and do anything other than litigate it through the HRA. The solicitor will go through the normal immigration appeals and then plop your Art 3 and Art 8 rights on there because they're pretty much universal for immigration and Bobs your uncle. Some IAT judge will look at the case and say "this guy has come here as an asylum seeker, but has stolen a car and robbed a shop. However, he has a family - maybe we should let him stay because Art 8"

If a kid gets detention at school, why not make an Art 6 claim? Seriously. Why not? No teacher or school is equipped to carry out investigations and tribunals, so if you get given detention, say that the Education Act 2011 notwithstanding, you cannot be subjected to sanction without a fair tribunal, which the school cannot provide. What are they going to do? Call the police?

This is the problem with the HRA and EqA - they are begging to be abused by everyone and they are, every single day. Every single day, the tribunals and appeal tribunals will hear case after case of the same claims, when it's clear that there cannot be this level of human rights or equality abuse.
Repped

Pretty much this.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Good. This is the main reason I don't support leaving the ECHR. The main block of poeple who want to leave it are like yourself and want to go on a trigger happy deportation spree. They are the worsed, most spiteful, petty and vindictive poeple. Theresa May is thier incompetant figure head.



I wish this was actually a thing :rofl:

I have a lot of contempt for all the little fuhrers I ran up against in education. Seriously.

There is no way I would let my kid get a detention for **** like this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...dersfield.html

If that resulted in the school trying to expel my child or fine me, it would be quite useful to have ECHR on my side. I think we should teach children about the human right that outlaws collective punishment as a bawalk against class detentions :rofl:



Workers need all the help they can get.


Even though I don't really see any of these things as anywhere near as problmatic as you do, they are all worth putting up with and are nowhere near the problem you think they are, unless you are a lickspittle and want to side with those who have power. Whether they be an acutual State, an Employer or a Teacher. Considering what the absolute worse consequences are when you have no gaurateed protections, these "problems" are nothing.
The part about schools... that does seem pretty unreasonable. That said I hardly think having a detention for not having a rubber is a HR violation.

On the other hand the school I went to had a complete breakdown of discipline where when teachers were asked to put phones away were told to **** off etc, people were smoking in class and one hapless maths teacher even got urinated on. That obviously cost me and a lot of others good grades and employment opportunities.

As for employees- no, my experience is it’s fine too far the other way so that bad employees are almost invulnerable. And it’s good employees who have to pick up the slack. If there is no cost to being a bad employee why be a good employee??

As for the point about being a lickspittle and siding with those in power. You do realise this HR stuff is all promoted by those in power: in government, corporations and academics throughout the western world.

Eg:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/1....google.co.uk/
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

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (63)
12.28%
Virtual campus tours/open days (120)
23.39%
Live streaming events (46)
8.97%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (50)
9.75%
A uni comparison tool (119)
23.2%
An in-person event when available (115)
22.42%

Watched Threads

View All