Actfortheact - Save the human rights act now

[denislawsbackheel]

It was a pointless piece of legislation as we are bound by the ECHR anyway. It is flawed and has been abused by some who pose a threat to the UK. It should never have been enacted but the current government can't just scrap it so they want to replace it with a similar act which is less open to abuse. Again this is meaningless unless we withdraw from the ECHR but to do that would mean leaving the EU too.

In all the following chaff I hope this isn't forgotten because it is the absolute truth.

 

[Forzacitizens]

tree hugging crap. Scrap it

 

[Rascal]

tree hugging crap. Scrap it

Excellent well thought out and well researched reply.

Certainly added to the debate

 

[nahnahrickyholden]

tree hugging crap. Scrap it

Excellent well thought out and well researched reply.

Certainly added to the debate

Yes, just brilliant...

 

[Zuriblue]

It was a pointless piece of legislation as we are bound by the ECHR anyway. It is flawed and has been abused by some who pose a threat to the UK. It should never have been enacted but the current government can't just scrap it so they want to replace it with a similar act which is less open to abuse. Again this is meaningless unless we withdraw from the ECHR but to do that would mean leaving the EU too.

Well not really. The thing about the HRA was it meant that ECHR cases could be heard in British courts rather than having to schlep over to Strasbourg. It's a bit more complex than that but it can't overturn an Act of Parliament, just issue a remedial order which Parliament needs to validate.

The thing about the ECHR (which is nothing to do with the EU) is that it is basically a British invention. It was proposed by Churchill, piloted through by David Maxwell-Fyfe (later Tory Home Secretary and not a particularly liberal one) and is based mainly on English Common Law.

 

[Rascal]

It was a pointless piece of legislation as we are bound by the ECHR anyway. It is flawed and has been abused by some who pose a threat to the UK. It should never have been enacted but the current government can't just scrap it so they want to replace it with a similar act which is less open to abuse. Again this is meaningless unless we withdraw from the ECHR but to do that would mean leaving the EU too.

Well not really. The thing about the HRA was it meant that ECHR cases could be heard in British courts rather than having to schlep over to Strasbourg. It's a bit more complex than that but it can't overturn an Act of Parliament, just issue a remedial order which Parliament needs to validate.

The thing about the ECHR (which is nothing to do with the EU) is that it is basically a British invention. It was proposed by Churchill, piloted through by David Maxwell-Fyfe (later Tory Home Secretary and not a particularly liberal one) and is based mainly on English Common Law.

Forzacitizens will be along shortly to call Churchill a tree hugging leftie

So be careful when posting insightful contributions to the debate

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

[PDF]PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UK - The Conservative Party
<a class="postlink" href="https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/files/.../human_rights.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://www.conservatives.com/~/media/f ... rights.pdf</a>


Not sure if this is the right way to post a link but this is the governments proposal. Seems reasonable to me. Read it before you decide either way

 

[Gelsons Dad]

It was a pointless piece of legislation as we are bound by the ECHR anyway. It is flawed and has been abused by some who pose a threat to the UK. It should never have been enacted but the current government can't just scrap it so they want to replace it with a similar act which is less open to abuse. Again this is meaningless unless we withdraw from the ECHR but to do that would mean leaving the EU too.

Well not really. The thing about the HRA was it meant that ECHR cases could be heard in British courts rather than having to schlep over to Strasbourg. It's a bit more complex than that but it can't overturn an Act of Parliament, just issue a remedial order which Parliament needs to validate.

The thing about the ECHR (which is nothing to do with the EU) is that it is basically a British invention. It was proposed by Churchill, piloted through by David Maxwell-Fyfe (later Tory Home Secretary and not a particularly liberal one) and is based mainly on English Common Law.

Whilst it's not wrong to separate the ECHR from the EU you must be a signatory to be a member of the EU. Also the British courts cannot overrule the ECHR so the last point of appeal will always be the Strasbourg rulings. This is the whole problem. The UK is bound not to extradite known terrorist even though they are deemed to pose a threat to the UK because the ECHR says so.
We have had the Magna Carta for longer than many European states have existed but we now have to kowtow to a court which does not put our national security first. They use their interpretation of many of our laws against us. They overturn our high court rulings which are based on the same legislation because their interpretation lacks the balance of national security and puts the individual above everything. It is a court against the nation not against the Monarch as the Magna Carta was. It is not the rule of law but the rule of layers as William Hague rightly said.
It's a sham.

 

[Rascal]

Whilst it's not wrong to separate the ECHR from the EU you must be a signatory to be a member of the EU. Also the British courts cannot overrule the ECHR so the last point of appeal will always be the Strasbourg rulings. This is the whole problem. The UK is bound not to extradite known terrorist even though they are deemed to pose a threat to the UK because the ECHR says so.
We have had the Magna Carta for longer than many European states have existed but we now have to kowtow to a court which does not put our national security first. They use their interpretation of many of our laws against us. They overturn our high court rulings which are based on the same legislation because their interpretation lacks the balance of national security and puts the individual above everything. It is a court against the nation not against the Monarch as the Magna Carta was. It is not the rule of law but the rule of layers as William Hague rightly said.
It's a sham.

The Authotarian right in all its glory. National security blah blah blah. The authotarian left is equally as guilty by the way.

The rights of the individual must be sacrosanct and guarenteed by the majority. The few must never determine the rights of the many.

I find it disturbing that under the guise of national security one grouping out of 47 signatory nations peoples want to rewrite the HRA.

It is not just that i do not trust that imbecile Gove to get it right, i dont trust any one group to get it write. If in the UK there is a concensus for change then all should be involved in that change. Individual human rights are far too important to be treated as a political football by anybody, left, right, centre of even from fucking Mars.

 

[nahnahrickyholden]

Whilst it's not wrong to separate the ECHR from the EU you must be a signatory to be a member of the EU. Also the British courts cannot overrule the ECHR so the last point of appeal will always be the Strasbourg rulings. This is the whole problem. The UK is bound not to extradite known terrorist even though they are deemed to pose a threat to the UK because the ECHR says so.
We have had the Magna Carta for longer than many European states have existed but we now have to kowtow to a court which does not put our national security first. They use their interpretation of many of our laws against us. They overturn our high court rulings which are based on the same legislation because their interpretation lacks the balance of national security and puts the individual above everything. It is a court against the nation not against the Monarch as the Magna Carta was. It is not the rule of law but the rule of layers as William Hague rightly said.
It's a sham.

The Authotarian right in all its glory. National security blah blah blah. The authotarian left is equally as guilty by the way.

The rights of the individual must be sacrosanct and guarenteed by the majority. The few must never determine the rights of the many.

I find it disturbing that under the guise of national security one grouping out of 47 signatory nations peoples want to rewrite the HRA.

It is not just that i do not trust that imbecile Gove to get it right, i dont trust any one group to get it write. If in the UK there is a concensus for change then all should be involved in that change. Individual human rights are far too important to be treated as a political football by anybody, left, right, centre of even from fucking Mars.

Another excellent point, particularly the reference to Gove! It does feel very much the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, which will have such a negative impact on so many vulnerable members of society. That's why our campaign is so important <a class="postlink" href="http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">www.crowdfunder.co.uk/actfortheact</a>