Jump to content

Is this what the human rights bill was actually for?


Styles
 Share

Should the Human Rights Bill be scrapped?  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Human Rights Bill be scrapped?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      9


Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6294973.stm

 

Im getting fed up of the human rights bill being used for things which I think it was never intended for, seems to be anyone can try and use it for anything. I think the idea was good but the application is totally rubbish.

 

I think the Uk was a fair enough place without the bill and wish the UK had never signed up for it or would now scrap it.

 

In this case surley a prisioner gives up some of their human rights when they commit an offense?

 

What about the victims human rights? Some may no longer be able to vote do to being killed or incapacitated.

 

I heard last night on Newsnight that they may need to pay compensation to all the prisoners that cant vote! This is crazy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Crazy doesn'a even come close.

 

Allowin prisoners tae vote is just plain and simple corruption.

 

Some fok wid see it as extreme, but i think a standard poilicy in da event o bein fun guilty o any crime, da perpetrator should face a suspension o voting rights.

 

If no, we very literally hae a case o da "lunatics running the asylum".

 

As i have said mair dan wance when da human rights bill is mentioned - whit aboot da human rights o da rest o da population?

 

Surely we shouldna be governed by fok dat wis pertly voted in by convicted criminals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've asked previously on this board should it not be the case that anyone convicted of a crime lose part or all of their "human rights"? Current liberal wishy washy legislation allows in many cases those that commit crimes more rights than the victims of said crimes.

 

The law is a great grey area, not least when you take into consideration those convicted and incarcerated wrongly. However, the prison reform system surely, you would imagine, gets it right 99.99% of the time!

 

Those that commit heinous acts such as rape and murder. What right do they have to inflict that damage on a fellow human being? What rights do they then have to a dignified existence?

 

I may be thought of as a worrying and potentially sick individual for stating such a thing, but really, cummon! What rights should they then have, hmmm?

 

We have removed them from "society" by locking them up in our "reform" system. They have forfeited their rights to freedom and choice within society by perpetrating acts of crime against the laws of our land. Yet here we have people willing to consider their "human rights" to affect our society at the governing levels.

 

Bollox I say!

 

(or perhaps the bunch of criminals that Labour are think it's the only sure fire way they'll get seats at the next election!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the Human Rights Act should be scrapped and rewritten. It's getting way beyond a joke now, it's always been that you have your voting right revoked as soon as you step into prison I don't think that should change. Mind you unless Labour thinks that this will help them win the Scottish elections .... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for a start we should expect that all prisoners held on remand should keep the right to a (postal) vote. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

 

I suspect that people serving short sentences.....say up to a year......should keep the right to vote. In fact I believe there is some system governing MPs who get imprisoned and how long a sentence has to be given before they can be booted out of Parliament. Same idea should apply for prisoners who are jailed for the same time.

 

Remember Sakchai was denied a vote and think of the fuss we kicked up about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, it is the misuse/abuse of this legislation and not the legislation itself which causes problems.

 

Right enough, considering the UK is hardly renowned for sytematic abuses of its citizens' human rights, I just can't see how we need this kind of legal protection.

 

I'd love to say now 'look at some of the good things that have come about because of this legislation' and offer some examples but, y'know, none spring to mind. Might be (a) 'cos my brain's on a go-slow or (B) 'cos there aren't any examples of good use of the human rights legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the UK actually falls foul of human rights legislation more often than many other governments I would say. I think that having an external check on human rights is an excellent thing. The problem with it perhaps is that it is too easy for governments to opt out of particular parts that they don't like. The UK has opted out of the section banning detention without trial. This is something that they have previously got in trouble for - locking up Irish 'terror suspects' - and they have now returned to it for foreign suspects.

In the case that is being referred to here, there is of course no guarantee that it will be successful in giving the vote to prisoners. I think that justifying their position, both to the public and to the judges, is a useful test for the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Prime Minster's own wife is a major founding and active partner in the largest Human Rights defence law firm in the country, founded on the same day we signed up to the bill (they're the ones who have won prisoners slopping out compensation and the Afghan hijackers asylum and benefits, amongst others), are you really surprised that our government stick to it like glue? Remember, Mr B is a lawyer, and needs his retirement fund (having knackered everyone else's pensions!!! :evil: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that Tony Blair sticks with the Human Rights convention and creates laws that contravene the rules set down in the bill in order that his wife can sue the government, humiliate them, and get money for those people whose rights have been abused? That seems a bit over-the-top.

 

If the government really did "stick to it like glue" the lawyers wouldn't be making money because nobody's rights would be getting infringed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found this. A very good summary I think.

 

SIMON GALLANT, CONSULTANT SOLICITOR WITH LAW FIRM MISHCON DE REYA

 

Before we get carried away with the clamour to do away the Human Rights Act, let's remember the history behind the legislation.

 

It was introduced in 2000. Its purpose was to give effect under UK law to the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

This International Treaty - which the UK had signed up to 50 years before - created certain basic human rights and freedoms that needed to be stated after six long years of world war.

 

These included the rights to life, to liberty and security, a fair trial, respect for private life, and to freedom of expression.

 

 

What the Human Rights Act has done is to allow litigants to hold their government to account in the UK courts

 

There were also prohibitions on torture, slavery, discrimination and the death penalty.

 

In the country that gave Magna Carta to the world, none of this was particularly shocking. It was the most natural thing in the world to do.

 

What the Human Rights Act did for the first time was to state explicitly that the courts should take the Convention rights into account when reaching their decisions.

 

Legislation that was not consistent with the Convention rights should be struck down.

 

And individual claimants could launch proceedings in the UK under the Act if a public authority had acted in a way that was inconsistent with those rights, instead of resorting to a European court, which was the case until 2000.

 

But contrary to the impression given by some politicians, the volume of cases where Human Rights Act issues have been argued has been relatively small.

 

Whilst there was a level of experimentation soon after the Act came into force, according to Sweet and Maxwell (one legal publisher) the number of reported cases which make use of Human Rights Act arguments peaked at 557 in 2002-2003 then declined to 398 cases in 2005.

 

So in the fortnight after the prime minister has lost his Home Office minister for not looking tough on crime and immigration, great caution must be exercised in listening to politicians seeking to take away our powers to hold them to account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think common sense should reign and not the human right legislation, which in my option should be sent to hell. The UK is not some tin pot made up country, we have allways been fair and just, but this legislation has given the unfair and unjust a power to make a mockery of it all. It vexes me so much as this is not what it was for. But this is what it has turned to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you actually read the Human Rights Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights you will find that it is an excellent document, and one that it would be hard to find serious fault with. It was started just after the war to try and help put an end to the kind of atrocities that had taken place in Europe in the previous decades. And that, which people tend to forget, is the enduring success of the EU. War within the EU is now all but unthinkable.

 

Appealing to "common sense" is nonsensical because everybody's idea of common sense is different. Mine happens to be that protecting human rights should be at the heart of all legislation. Other people think it is common sense that the death penalty should be reintroduced, or that torture works, or that black people should be sent "home". Common sense is not some objective truth that can be appealed to, otherwise the law would be a much simpler thing. It is just your opinion.

 

As to your suggestion that the UK has "always been just and fair", well that just made me laugh out loud (although I would like to point out that the UK is actually a "made up country"). When did "always" begin then? Was it after we stopped burning witches? After we invented concentration camps in South Africa during the Boar War? After we stopped assisting loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and locking up random Catholics without trial? After we helped to train the Taliban? After we stopped allowing people to be "rendered" to other countries to be tortured? (Oh we're still doing that aren't we?) The UK has "always" involved itself in some seriously dodgy business, both abroad and at home. I see little sign that it will stop doing that, but at least the human rights law keeps some check on it and brings it to light where our government might prefer to hide it.

 

In my experience, people who choose to criticise human rights are like those who shout about political correctness and scrapping the EU. You don't have to dig very deep before you find some seriously unpleasant "common sense" views.[/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malachy wrote

If you actually read the Human Rights Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights you will find that it is an excellent document, and one that it would be hard to find serious fault with. It was started just after the war to try and help put an end to the kind of atrocities that had taken place in Europe in the previous decades. And that, which people tend to forget, is the enduring success of the EU. War within the EU is now all but unthinkable.

 

I agree with everything in your posting except for the concept of war being all but unthinkable within the EU. I wish it were so but I fear that two leaders opposed to each others views could still come to war. More likely in the Balkans but not impossible between say France and the UK. Anyone saying pigging b******s to that should consider the Greece/Turkey?Cyprus stand off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...