Human Rights Act to be retained

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Yep. The thought behind it is admirable but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Other countries don't seem to have the same problems the UK has with it.

And yet it is the same piece of legislation Europe wide, so in theory other countries should be having the same problems. The only new part for the UK was that people were not meant to have to go to the ECHR for decisions.

Originally Posted by nomadking

And yet it is the same piece of legislation Europe wide, so in theory other countries should be having the same problems. The only new part for the UK was that people were not meant to have to go to the ECHR for decisions.

maybe other euro countries are showing some common sense with the legislation and not allowing criminals to use it

[nomadking]

How can they, when it's the same Law.

Originally Posted by martyh

yes you can have human rights for everyone ,but as forever said this particular piece of legislation gets abused and we end up with criminals using it to get shorter sentences or compensation or illegal immigrants being allowed to stay the list goes on ,and a lot of the time human rights have not been broken .
There has to be some leaway within the legislation to stop criminals abusing it

I was addressing those who seem to think that Human Rights can only be for SOME people and not for others.My point is this.If you make exceptions just where does it end?Who is deemed more worthy than others and by whom?

I'm saying you can't have pick and choose rules/laws.They either cover everyone or no one.

Of course you can amend and rewrite and make clearer certain aspects BUT human rights have to be applied to all.After all even the most innocent have been known to have been arrested,charged,found guilty,sentenced to death/prison and then years later been exonerated of any crime..If some had their way this would happen far more often than it does at present.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I was addressing those who seem to think that Human Rights can only be for SOME people and not for others.My point is this.If you make exceptions just where does it end?Who is deemed more worthy than others and by whom?

I'm saying you can't have pick and choose rules/laws.They either cover everyone or no one.

Of course you can amend and rewrite and make clearer certain aspects BUT human rights have to be applied to all.After all even the most innocent have been known to have been arrested,charged,found guilty,sentenced to death/prison and then years later been exonerated of any crime..If some had their way this would happen far more often than it does at present.

not sure that's not a human rights issue though ,that is down to evidence .
yes every one should have the same basic human rights ,but some people should lose some aswell not hide behind them

Originally Posted by Derek S

Article 3.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...icle715558.ece

It's not ideal, in fact personally I think it's a complete pain in the rear, but I can't ever see it being repealed.

That's a judge interpretation but surely we can agree that it is right people are not subjected to 'inhuman treatment'?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

maybe other euro countries are showing some common sense with the legislation and not allowing criminals to use it

Maybe other Euro countries don't have the rabid over the top tabloid press that will exaggerate, blatantly make things up and generally print everything they see fit if they think it'll sell a few more papers.

Originally Posted by danielf

Maybe other Euro countries don't have the rabid over the top tabloid press that will exaggerate, blatantly make things up and generally print everything they see fit if they think it'll sell a few more papers.

whats wrong with the press printing articles about criminals using the HRA to their benifit or illegal immigrants claiming that being deported is a breach of the same ,don't you think we have a right to know ?

Originally Posted by martyh

not sure that's not a human rights issue though ,that is down to evidence .
yes every one should have the same basic human rights ,but some people should lose some aswell not hide behind them

How can some people lose some human rights without all of us losing those same rights?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by danielf

Maybe other Euro countries don't have the rabid over the top tabloid press that will exaggerate, blatantly make things up and generally print everything they see fit if they think it'll sell a few more papers.

Seeing as the stories refer to real court cases, I assume you mean that other countries don't report(ie censor) them, when they happen in their own country.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

whats wrong with the press printing articles about criminals using the HRA to their benifit or illegal immigrants claiming that being deported is a breach of the same ,don't you think we have a right to know ?

There's nothing wrong with thruthful reporting, even if slightly biased. What is wrong is jumping on any perceived newsworthy item and twisting and changing or even making things up to sell a few newspapers, something which the Taboids are quite happy to do.

Originally Posted by danielf

There's nothing wrong with thruthful reporting, even if slightly biased. What is wrong is jumping on any perceived newsworthy item and twisting and changing or even making things up to sell a few newspapers, something which the Taboids are quite happy to do.

not just in this country ,that happens all over the world it's the nature of the press

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

How can some people lose some human rights without all of us losing those same rights?

because they don't deserve them of course the right to freedom is taken away from people all the time by judges

[Cobbydaler]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Yep. The thought behind it is admirable but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Other countries don't seem to have the same problems the UK has with it.

That's because UK judges apply the letter of the law, whilst others....

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

and how exactly is this good news ? i thought it was possibly the most hated piece of euro legislation there was

It is very good news IMO.

As for it being hated... Well, yes it is very hated by certain sections of the right-wing press. Some seem to think it's an example of those pesky foreigners in Europe "forcing their rights on the UK"... although it's actually more a case of the UK exporting its traditional rights to Europe, given the history of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law.

The HRA enables people to go to court in the UK to seek redress regarding breaches of the Convention. Before the HRA, the only choice people had was to take a case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (very costly in both time & money). The HRA also means that public bodies in the UK must not act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, and means that Judges must take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, plus must try and interpret legislation in a way which is compatible with the Convention (although Parliament remains sovereign).

The European Court of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights that the Court enforces, and the Council of Europe that they are both a part of, are not part of the European Union.

They were created in the aftermath of WWII, as a bulwark against tyranny, & one of their early champions was that well known tree-hugging pinko-commie liberal do-gooder Sir Winston Churchill.

The Convention was primarily drafted by British legal experts, incorporating many traditionally British fundamental rights and freedoms such as the Right to a Fair Trial, the Right to Liberty and Security of Person, the Right to Freedom of Expression, the Right to Freedom of Religion, etc. etc. Its inspirations included the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights 1689.

The man who oversaw the drafting of the Convention was Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, a lawyer, judge, and Tory MP, who as well as serving in various roles in Government (as Solicitor General, Attorney General and later Lord Chancellor) was also Britain's day to day chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials.


Yes, some people do try to abuse the HRA as they do other laws, but I wouldn't be without it. I believe that the HRA & ECHR are British creations we should be proud of.

Originally Posted by martyh

whats wrong with the press printing articles about criminals using the HRA to their benifit or illegal immigrants claiming that being deported is a breach of the same ,don't you think we have a right to know ?

Yes, we have a right to know... But it helps if the articles are actually accurate (many are not).

Certain sections of the press like to print stories which are, at best, "inaccurate"...

e.g. The Sun had a story claiming that Serial killer Dennis Nilsen allegedly used the Human Rights Act to enable him to obtain "hardcore gay porn" while in prison. Turned out to be utter rubbish.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ticle48194.ece

Originally Posted by The Sun

DENNIS NILSEN

SERIAL killer Dennis Nilsen, 60, received hardcore gay porn in jail thanks to human rights laws.

He argued it was his 'right to information and freedom of expression' in 2002. The Prison Service agreed to allow that right to Nilsen, convicted of killing six young men in 1983.

And the actual facts...

http://www.dca.gov.uk/peoples-rights...ull_review.pdf

Section 4 "Myths & Misperceptions" (pages 29-34)

Originally Posted by Full review of the Human Rights Act by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA - previously the Lord Chancellor's Dept., & now the Ministry of Justice)

(snip)
There are three different types of myth in play. First, there are those which derive from the reporting (and often partial reporting) of the launch of cases but not their ultimate outcomes. These leave the impression in the public mind that a wide range of claims are successful when in fact they are not – and have often effectively been laughed out of court. Secondly, there are the pure urban myths: instances of situations in which someone (often it may not even be clear who) has said that human rights require some bizarre outcome or other, and this is subsequently trotted out as established fact. Finally, there are rumours and impressions which take root through a particular case or decision, and which then provide the backdrop against which all subsequent issues of the type in question are played out.


Cases never brought

Dennis Nilsen was sentenced to life in prison in 1983 for multiple murders. In an application for judicial review in 2001, he sought inter alia to challenge a decision of the Prisoner Governor, under the Prison Rules, to deny him access to a book containing gay artwork and depictions of male nudity, and uncensored access to a mainstream top-shelf gay magazine. He alleged that the decision constituted “inhuman or degrading treatment� contrary to Article 3 of the Convention rights, or in the alternative was discrimination against gay men under Article 14 of the Convention rights when read with Article 3.

Dennis Nilsen’s application was refused by the single judge at the permission stage. He did not establish that there was any arguable case that a breach of his human rights had occurred, nor that the prison’s rules were discriminatory. He also failed to receive any greater access to such materials as a result. The failure of his application at the first hurdle was not widely reported, nor his further failure on renewal. On the contrary, the case is now often cited as the leading example of a bad decision made as a result of the Human Rights Act, with the Shadow Home Secretary himself asserting that Dennis Nilsen had been able to obtain hard-core pornography in prison by citing his “right to information and freedom of expression� under the Act.(7)

(7) Daily Telegraph, 17 August 2004, “Tories target human rights�

(snip)

So, even though Nilsen failed at "the first hurdle" (*and* every subsequent hurdle) to use the HRA to obtain "access to a book containing gay artwork and depictions of male nudity, and uncensored access to a mainstream top-shelf gay magazine" (rather than "OMG! Hardcore gay porn!!!"), certain sections of the Press somehow twisted it into a successful victory, which conveniently supported their ongoing anti-HRA BS.


It's actually definitely worth having a read of the PDF linked above, if you want to know about the HRA & how it has been used & how it has regularly & repeatedly been misreported:

http://www.dca.gov.uk/peoples-rights...ull_review.pdf

[BBKing]

and how exactly is this good news ? i thought it was possibly the most hated piece of euro legislation there was

What's 'euro' about it?

*popcorn*

[and what Matt D says, obviously]

The effect of repeal would be to increase the cost of justice, since we'd still be signatories to the ECHR and UK citizens and indeed anyone else would have the right to take their cases to Strasbourg*, and withdrawing from that would be a) extremely costly and b) send an absolutely cast-iron message to dictators and badasses everywhere that 'don't worry, chaps, we're on your side now with all the torturing and extra-judicial murder'.

because they don't deserve them of course the right to freedom is taken away from people all the time by judges

Er, yes. If you read the ECHR you'll easily spot the bits that say 'unless such-and-such happens'. The Convention therefore explicitly allows deprivation of liberty *after due process in a court of law*. Actually, quite a lot of the ECHR is intended not to enable criminals to do things but to stop Governments doing things like locking people up without due process. This is generally considered a good thing and why being British means something unique and worthwhile.

* Where, deliciously, there's only one British judge, while under HRA all the judges are British. HRA opponents are therefore advocating having foreigners decide more British court cases.