Government loses Abu Qatada appeal

[Ancient Citizen]

Legislation to give the European Convention on Human Rights statutory basis in English law was a manifesto committment of both the labour party and the lib dems from 1988 onwards. It would have happened if John Smith had lived and become Prime Minister. In fact it would have happened as soon as the Conservative party lost a general election. As happened in 1997.

Out of interest, if you would repeal the Human Rights Act what would you replace it with?

All very true. I would replace it with nothing whatsoever, as our justice system prior to 1998 had all the necessary checks and balances in place already.

As a general proposition that is undoubtedly true. But you'd be surprised at some of the archaic nooks and crannies that have been cleared out by reason of the Human Rights Act - like the procedure where you had to show cause why you shouldn't go to prison if you were alleged to have breached a court order.

What the HRA does is (a) give an individual a direct right of recourse to the courts where their rights are allegedly infringed, and (b) require our existing laws to be interpret in a manner which is consistent with the Convention.

Both seem to me to be positive developments in the law, even if in 99.9% of cases before 1998 our law was human righs compliant in any event.

It is point 'B' which is causing all the problems. We were, quite rightly signatories to the HRA but what Blair did was enshrine its precepts into British law, which was, and as is now being proved to have been a major blunder as judges are interpreting things like 'Right to family life' and other worthy intentions, completely in their judgements, resulting in dangerous and undesirable elements exploiting this fact.
Without this, Qatada and his ilk, which we are now lumbered with, would never be here.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I really don't understand why some folk get so worked up about the HRA.

It enshrines in law a treaty that was have been a signatory to for around sixty years. A treaty that was drafted by an Englishman, based on common rights that no reasonable person could possibly take issue with.

It protects the individual against the power of the state, which any centre-right thinking person would presumably be in favour of.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I really don't understand why some folk get so worked up about the HRA.

It enshrines in law a treaty that was have been a signatory to for around sixty years. A treaty that was drafted by an Englishman, based on common rights that no reasonable person could possibly take issue with.

It protects the individual against the power of the state, which any centre-right thinking person would presumably be in favour of.

In essence, yes, but there was no need to enshrine this act in our law.
The problems it has caused us are what this topic is about, as I said, without it Qatada would not be here, would that be a problem?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I really don't understand why some folk get so worked up about the HRA.

It enshrines in law a treaty that was have been a signatory to for around sixty years. A treaty that was drafted by an Englishman, based on common rights that no reasonable person could possibly take issue with.

It protects the individual against the power of the state, which any centre-right thinking person would presumably be in favour of.

In essence, yes, but there was no need to enshrine this act in our law.
The problems it has caused us are what this topic is about, as I said, without it Qatada would not be here, would that be a problem?

It would be a problem for me if we sent anyone to somewhere where there was a genuine prospect of them being tortured, as I'm sure it would for the gentleman who drafted the ECHR.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I really don't understand why some folk get so worked up about the HRA.

It enshrines in law a treaty that was have been a signatory to for around sixty years. A treaty that was drafted by an Englishman, based on common rights that no reasonable person could possibly take issue with.

It protects the individual against the power of the state, which any centre-right thinking person would presumably be in favour of.

In essence, yes, but there was no need to enshrine this act in our law.
The problems it has caused us are what this topic is about, as I said, without it Qatada would not be here, would that be a problem?

No, but without such an act, folk other than Qatada may well have been extradited to countries who have a less than scrupulous legal system, and those who practice torture.
And some of them may be innocent, or at least were until they were coerced into signing anything to stop the waterboarding.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I really don't understand why some folk get so worked up about the HRA.

It enshrines in law a treaty that was have been a signatory to for around sixty years. A treaty that was drafted by an Englishman, based on common rights that no reasonable person could possibly take issue with.

It protects the individual against the power of the state, which any centre-right thinking person would presumably be in favour of.

In essence, yes, but there was no need to enshrine this act in our law.
The problems it has caused us are what this topic is about, as I said, without it Qatada would not be here, would that be a problem?

It would be a problem for me if we sent anyone to somewhere where there was a genuine prospect of them being tortured, as I'm sure it would for the gentleman who drafted the ECHR.

I'm sure the chap who drafted the act did not intend that any murderer, terrorist, preacher of hate or other such undesirables would be free to enter our country and claim protection under the act, as has happened recently.

 

[Chris in London]

I really don't understand why some folk get so worked up about the HRA.

It enshrines in law a treaty that was have been a signatory to for around sixty years. A treaty that was drafted by an Englishman, based on common rights that no reasonable person could possibly take issue with.

It protects the individual against the power of the state, which any centre-right thinking person would presumably be in favour of.

In essence, yes, but there was no need to enshrine this act in our law.
The problems it has caused us are what this topic is about, as I said, without it Qatada would not be here, would that be a problem?

There was a very real and pressing need to introduce the Act into our law, which was that pre 1998 if your human rights were infringed you had no remedy other than a complaint to Strasbourg. It cannot be a bad thing that if your rights under English law are infringed, you have a remedy in an English court.

It is worth remembering that the convention was drafted in the late 1940s as a direct legal response to some of the horrors perpetrated in nazi Germany during the war. Those freedoms and rights are basically what we fought for - they were the rights denied to a huge proportion of the population of mainland Europe prior to 1945.

Some rights - eg the right to life and the right to a fair trial - are absolute and unqualified. In other words, there are no exceptions to this principle. Most of the rights guaranteed by the HRA and the ECHR however are qualified - the right to family life is not unqualified. It does not outweigh the public interest in deporting a violent criminal that he has a third cousin twice removed here. The right to privacy is not unqualified - it does not for instance preclude debate in the media on matters of legitimate and genuine public interest.

The daily mail often features instances of individual judges in individual cases (arguably) getting the balance wrong. But asking for the repeal of the HRA on that basis is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

All very laudable but the undoubted fact is that this individual and others like him are exploiting sections of the act to their advantage and our detriment. This is not tolerable in any civilised country and no matter how you dress it up it will certainly result in further abuse.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In essence, yes, but there was no need to enshrine this act in our law.
The problems it has caused us are what this topic is about, as I said, without it Qatada would not be here, would that be a problem?

It would be a problem for me if we sent anyone to somewhere where there was a genuine prospect of them being tortured, as I'm sure it would for the gentleman who drafted the ECHR.

I'm sure the chap who drafted the act did not intend that any murderer, terrorist, preacher of hate or other such undesirables would be free to enter our country and claim protection under the act, as has happened recently.

I'm sure he didn't and if he saw the world we inhabit today, I imagine it would blow his mind - in both a positive and negative sense - however isn't that, in actual fact, the point?

In an at times bewilderingly ever-changing world it is vital that we have certain totemic principles that the state and the bodies that perform its functions are legally obliged to uphold. Certain rights which cannot (unless it is proportionate to do so) be departed from, irrespective of how much the sands around us shift.

Much like the benefit system, there will always be individuals that exploit it, that is the nature of human affairs, but it is surely correct that these principles (that you appear to accept per se) are enshrined in British law, and as Chris says, actually give people recourse within this jurisdiction, rather than having to go to Strasbourg to seek a resolution.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I want to know where was the Human rights Act when thousands of us were herded into football stadia and horribly tortured by Stuart Pearce?