Home Secretary: scrap the Human Rights Act

Originally Posted by martyh

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

Not reworking just re-interpretation perhaps.

[Ignitionnet]

I doubt the issue is with the convention as enshrined within the HRA itself, so much as the judicial activism from the ECHR and the ridiculous nature of the cases which are arriving there - enabled by the HRA's problems, and ably assisted by the UK Supreme Court having to defer to its jurisprudence.

At the moment it makes a mockery of the various levels of the UK court system and the convention itself when legislation quite rightly set up in response to the most horrific human rights abuses is being used so relatively trivially.

The existing framework has nothing to prevent this. In addition the ECHR seems extremely reluctant to apply its own doctrine of margin of appreciation - what's considered appropriate for a strongly socialist and statist state recently removed from the USSR isn't necessarily appropriate for a modern, centre-right nation which has enshrined human rights in its own right via law for centuries like the UK.

In short one size fits all doesn't work, the ECHR isn't supposed to apply this but is. We can't change the makeup of the ECHR significantly however we can avoid its quite frankly often unwanted and unnecessary interference in a nation that managed to get by without having a court with a large selection of statist former-communists sitting in judgement on us for quite some time.

Sadly much of the EU, from its commission's president downwards, is 'former' communists so a one size fits all approach is rather within the DNA.

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

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



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

The opposition isn't to the convention, it's to the HRA.

The ECHR is a basic framework for a civilised society, rendering the country subservient to the jurisprudence of from the European Court of Human Rights and their interpretations of the convention, some of which are incredibly debatable, not so much.

The HRA has become a monster and has gone way beyond its original intention - see its use in civil cases as an example when the convention was put in place to prevent states from abusing their citizens, not protect a footballer's privacy when he's shagging around.

It's all too simplistic to point to the obviously good and correct convention but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about the HRA which isn't so good or correct, is prone to misuse and judicial activism at home and abroad, and that it's another way our elected parliament loses its legislative supremacy.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The opposition isn't to the convention, it's to the HRA.

The ECHR is a basic framework for a civilised society, rendering the country subservient to the jurisprudence of from the European Court of Human Rights and their interpretations of the convention, some of which are incredibly debatable, not so much.

The HRA has become a monster and has gone way beyond its original intention - see its use in civil cases as an example when the convention was put in place to prevent states from abusing their citizens, not protect a footballer's privacy when he's shagging around.

It's all too simplistic to point to the obviously good and correct convention but we aren't talking about that, we're talking about the HRA which isn't so good or correct, is prone to misuse and judicial activism at home and abroad, and that it's another way our elected parliament loses its legislative supremacy.

Isn't the HRA just the ECHR enshrined in British law? Looking over them there doesn't appear to be anything other than cosmetic differences. (Incidentally the bill I linked to was the HRA, I was just pointing out that the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are not the same thing).

Which makes me think that this is nothing but a PR exercise by the government. They will not leave the ECHR so any new bill will have to abide by it in the same way the current HRA does. They can't change or remove acts, only add to them. I suspect it will be largely the same, only with more populist language.

Originally Posted by Damien

Isn't the HRA just the ECHR enshrined in British law? Looking over them there doesn't appear to be anything other than cosmetic differences. (Incidentally the bill I linked to was the HRA, I was just pointing out that the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are not the same thing).

Which makes me think that this is nothing but a PR exercise by the government. They will not leave the ECHR so any new bill will have to abide by it in the same way the current HRA does. They can't change or remove acts, only add to them. I suspect it will be largely the same, only with more populist language.

You mean a re-interpretation surely.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by 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

So do i.

[XxAmazingStarxX]

Originally Posted by Sirius

So do i.

Yup maybe go back to the old days of hanging actually for dangerous criminals? or at the very least jailed for life...

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by XxAmazingStarxX

Yup maybe go back to the old days of hanging actually for dangerous criminals? or at the very least jailed for life...

Nope i am thinking more along the lines that the criminals seem to be the most prolific users of the HRA and mainly to get them of being punished.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

Isn't the HRA just the ECHR enshrined in British law? Looking over them there doesn't appear to be anything other than cosmetic differences. (Incidentally the bill I linked to was the HRA, I was just pointing out that the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are not the same thing).

Which makes me think that this is nothing but a PR exercise by the government. They will not leave the ECHR so any new bill will have to abide by it in the same way the current HRA does. They can't change or remove acts, only add to them. I suspect it will be largely the same, only with more populist language.

It will naturally be largely the same, however it can restrict the ECHR to application only between state and people, rather than it being used in civil cases, and remove various curiosities that have arisen during its implementation.

That the HRA is being used by footballers to try and hide that they've been scoring in goals they shouldn't be is surely an indication that things are broken?

[XxAmazingStarxX]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Nope i am thinking more along the lines that the criminals seem to be the most prolific users of the HRA and mainly to get them of being punished.

Oh okay but don't u think it would just be better if they were hanged as being.punished may not even work as they may just build up thirty crime skills by being with other criminals. But by deporting that wouldn't teach them...

[Hom3r]

What we need to stop is cases along the lines of his.

A guy kills a load of people in cold blood inc. kids.

He is found guilty and set to prison with a whole life tariff.

He then appeals that it's against his HR, for a whole life in prison.

that should STOP.

Has that actually happened in the UK?

[nashville]

To many do- gooders in this country. Send criminals back to their own country.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Has that actually happened in the UK?

Found this on wiki and relates to the European court investigating via the HRA

In February 2007, the European Court of Human Rights announced that it was considering whether it is a contravention of human rights for someone to be sentenced to lifelong imprisonment.[citation needed] This news was made public just after David Bieber was due to lodge an appeal against the trial judge's recommendation that he should never be released from prison. His appeal was due to have been heard at this time, but was delayed due to this uncertainty as to whether lifelong imprisonment will remain lawful. If the European judges rule that lifelong imprisonment is a violation of human rights, all prisoners serving whole life orders will have their cases recalled to the courts for a new minimum term to be set. Such a ruling would be highly controversial in many other European countries where the option for whole-life sentences exists, as some European states have whole-life sentences, whereas others do not. For instance in the Netherlands, when a life sentence is passed, it is always intended to mean "life" and as such there is no possibility for parole. So far, just two Dutch life sentence prisoners have been freed, and it was due to terminal illness in both cases. In Spain, on the other hand, the maximum time anyone can serve in prison is 40 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_im...land_and_Wales

The HRA at the moment is in the press because its used predominantly by canny defence lawyers to allow criminals to evade the law or reduce there sentences. It was used i believe to allow a burglar out of prison because he is the main parent of a child.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by nashville

To many do- gooders in this country. Send criminals back to their own country.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Found this on wiki and relates to the European court investigating via the HRA



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_im...land_and_Wales

The HRA at the moment is in the press because its used predominantly by canny defence lawyers to allow criminals to evade the law or reduce there sentences. It was used i believe to allow a burglar out of prison because he is the main parent of a child.

Thanks for this.

I was referring to the statement above "A guy kills a load of people in cold blood inc. kids.

He is found guilty and set to prison with a whole life tariff.

He then appeals that it's against his HR, for a whole life in prison."

Has this actually happened in the UK?