Home Secretary: scrap the Human Rights Act

[denphone]

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, risks an explosive rift inside the Coalition with an explicit call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act and l for one agree with with her.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ights-Act.html

It doesn't need scrapping it needs implementing correctly .We need to stop lawers using it to benefit criminals in ways it wasn't ever intended .Reworking yes ,scrapping no

Agreed.

[Ignitionnet]

This is one of those things that can't be done. You can't 'rework' the HRA as it implements something else, the European Convention on Human Rights, into British law.

As soon as you mention defying his lovers in Europe Nick Clegg gets all angsty and the policy brings the coalition down if the Tories push it hard enough.

Could be interesting, rather hope it happens followed by a Tory move towards EU-scepticism.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

This is one of those things that can't be done. You can't 'rework' the HRA as it implements something else, the European Convention on Human Rights, into British law.

As soon as you mention defying his lovers in Europe Nick Clegg gets all angsty and the policy brings the coalition down if the Tories push it hard enough.

Could be interesting, rather hope it happens followed by a Tory move towards EU-scepticism.

What's going to be interesting is how far the Tories distance themselves from the LibDems during the conference next week It's seems very telling to me that she chooses the eve of the conference to directly opose Nick Clegg

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by martyh

What's going to be interesting is how far the Tories distance themselves from the LibDems during the conference next week It's seems very telling to me that she chooses the eve of the conference to directly opose Nick Clegg

It is. I'm beyond seeing this coalition as good government and seeing it as showing much of the worst of both. I rather hope it gets messily splintered now.

I can genuinely see a lot of Tory crimes forgiven if they follow a populist EU-sceptic mandate and them being able to blame an awful lot on the Liberal Democrats and it sticking.

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It is. I'm beyond seeing this coalition as good government and seeing it as showing much of the worst of both.

Yup I think now we (the living public) can now see first hand what fun coalitions are, hopefully this will put paid to any changes in the voting system now we see what a botch up they really are. I wouldn't expect any particular mix of political parties to fare any better either in a coalition scenario.

The European Convention On Human Rights is not a direction from the EU. It's predates the European Union and was set up in the aftermath of WW2. In fact we were instrumental it in.

Here is the Act: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_070456.pdf

• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture
• Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
• Right to liberty and security
• Right to a fair trial
• No punishment without law
• Right to respect for private and family life
• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Freedom of expression
• Freedom of assembly and association
• Right to marry
• Prohibition of discrimination
• Restrictions on political activity of aliens
• Prohibition of abuse of rights
• Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

I want to know which of the above May thinks needs to be abolished.

[Russ]

I don't think they need to be abolished, just some amendments to stop people using them to get around the law.

Originally Posted by Russ

I don't think they need to be abolished, just some amendments to stop people using them to get around the law.

Is it possible or morally correct to introduce exceptions, such as criminals.If you are convicted of a jailable offence you forfeit the right to benefit from the HRA after all if you are in jail then 9 times out of 10 you have deprived someone else of their human rights.

Originally Posted by martyh

Is it possible or morally correct to introduce exceptions, such as criminals.If you are convicted of a jailable offence you forfeit the right to benefit from the HRA after all if you are in jail then 9 times out of 10 you have deprived someone else of their human rights.

Which protections should be revoked?

Originally Posted by Damien

Which protections should be revoked?

I take it that's a no then

I take your point though ,if we stopped criminals having the rights so they couldn't use the "right to family life" for example ,as a means to get out of jail then we would have to allow torture and they wouldn't get a fair trial in the first place

[Kymmy]

The HRA should have one amendment in that it should never be allowed to take precedent over a country's structure of law and associated punishment/actions in relation to those laws.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The HRA should have one amendment in that it should never be allowed to take precedent over a country's structure of law and associated punishment/actions in relation to those laws.

Well it does because your right to a fair trial, prohibition of torture and the death penalty, and something not being made retrospectively illegal are all enshrined in the act. In fact such an amendment would make a large portion of the document worthless because a key part of the act focuses on the relationship between the state and her citizens.

[Chrysalis]

The problem is I thought would it be abused if scrapped?

Then read further into the article and go to this bit.

we have in being unable to deport people who perhaps are terrorist suspects

No problem deporting convicted terrorists, but suspects I have a problem with. Basically the act is stopping them treating innocent people as guilty and they dont like it. Also I think the affect on welfare claimants would be horrific without such an act.