NationStates Jolt Archive

Earlier today I saw an article in the Daily Express* calling for the abolition of the Human Rights act. This Act seems to provoke, in some people, a strong degree of negative feeling, often accompanied by allegations that it protects terrorists, gives criminals more rights than victims, prevents people being deported, et cetera, et cetera.

I didn't really know anything about this act, so decided to have a look rather than take a newspaper's word for it (even such a reliable and unbiased source as the Daily Express; I'm untrusting like that). The full text is available here (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/19980042.htm#aofs), with most of the interesting bits (what rights the Act actually protects) under "Schedules" near the bottom.

It seems to my legally-uneducated eye that this Act isn't some subversive means to protect miscreants, but rather a means to protect the public at large from the totalitarian desires of their elected representitives. Just about every right in the list is accompanied by something along the lines of "[right] shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

Now, other than the "morals" thing in the bit above (I'll protect my own morals, thank you), I don't see anything objectionable in the Act at all. It clearly has exceptions listed to allow law enforcement and the military to go about their duties, exceptions for punishments (even the death penalty), and so on, and any perceived increase in "compensation culture" or Health and Safety Above and Beyond the Call of Duty doesn't seem to have any relation to this Act.

So, waffling over, what is it that people have against the Human Rights Act, and why do certain sectors call for its abolition?

*My parents get it, OK? Besides, Beachcomber and the cartoons are great.

Everything is justifiable under Human Rights, and despite the little clause you mentioned the Courts are upholding the Act above all else.

Terrorists granted asylum and benefits; murderers being given hard core pornography; Cherie Blair making obscene amounts of money off it - how can anyone not dislike it?

I don't see a problem with the act as it is.

Everything is justifiable under Human Rights, and despite the little clause you mentioned the Courts are upholding the Act above all else.

Terrorists granted asylum and benefits; murderers being given hard core pornography; Cherie Blair making obscene amounts of money off it - how can anyone not dislike it?
Sorry for the delay, DNS went away for a while. Such is the interweb.

It's hardly a "little clause", it's repeated several times... I strongly recommend you read it, if you haven't.

Believe it or not, it doesn't say you can't deport people (to mine eyes), it says that, so long as you tell people what they're being arrested for and suchlike, the state's perfectly entitled to arrest terrorists (and anyone else suspected of a crime). It doesn't say anything about giving anyone porn in prison (You might make a tenuous case under "Freedom of Expression", but I recon you'd get laughed at).
Cherie Blair? Well, the less said about her the better.

How can anyone not dislike it? Well, without it, how do you know that you are entitled to the rights contained within it? All of those rights contained within it are things I'd wish to have myself, why should I wish them denied to others?

but rather a means to protect the public at large from the totalitarian desires of their elected representitives.
Aka, themselves.
The most totalitarian government is nothing in comparison to a crowd of wooed ignorants with the power to vote.

Is the point that someone don't want to be part of the European Convention of Human Rights because the convention grants too many rights?

I guess I just don't get it? :confused:
Seriously, what is the problem?

My dislike of the HRA comes from the fact it seems to be such a pointless piece of legislation.

I mean who among us remember the widely reported cases of criminals being tortured and executed in 1997, or the dispicable rounding up of protesters by men in dark suits and black vans?

These things weren't happening anyway so I'm not sure what the Act is protecting us against. In fact, the only time I seem to hear about the Act being invoked is when someone is using it to circumvent common sense.

Britian has got on fine using common law for centuries and I fail to see what advantages can come from this obvious move towards a codified legal system.

My dislike of the HRA comes from the fact it seems to be such a pointless piece of legislation.
[snip]
Britian has got on fine using common law for centuries and I fail to see what advantages can come from this obvious move towards a codified legal system.
That seems a fair point to me, but I'm quite happy about being able to see what can't be done to me written down clearly.

Having read the first line of the schedule it seems like a pretty odd Act.

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.So no one can be deprived of their life, unless the government says so (judicial and legislative)? That seems to be entrenching the government's power rather than protecting it's citizens against the government.

All in all article 2 seems pretty pointless. The majority of the points in Article 2 just seem so ambigious. The term 'absolutely necessary' in point 2 of article 2 seems incredibly open to interpretation.

Article 12 is an absolute joke. 'Men and women have the right to marry if their government says so' is effectively what it says.

On the whole it seems alright, but a little on the weak side. I say weak in that the government of the day can make laws to bypass this act quite easily. I do not see anywhere in this act that prevents a government from arresting someone for an indefinite period of time. It uses the word reasonable, but again it does not define the words it uses. In the sense of this act 'reasonable time' could be 10 years or more.

*sigh* But then I guess no one has defined what 'reasonable doubt' is in a court case.

Like so much in politics it says a lot, but means little without a specific interpretation.

I think some people don't actually know what the Human Rights Act does.

Basically it does the following things:

- Gives redress to British courts under the European Convention, instead of having to take cases to the European courts. Hardly a bad thing.

- Totally abolishes death penalty in the UK

- Makes it unlawful for a public body to act in a way incompatible with the Convention. Again, hardly a bad thing.

- Requires UK judges to take account rulings in Strasbourg.

- Requires UK judges to interpret legislation in a way compatible with the Convention. Once again, hardly a bad thing.

- Doesn't give judges power to override Acts of Parliament.

That's what it does. No more, no less.

murderers being given hard core pornography;


This has to be one of those issues where most people go "meh."

Though I'm quite skeptical it was done under the HRA, do you have a story/source?

Having read the first line of the schedule it seems like a pretty odd Act.

So no one can be deprived of their life, unless the government says so (judicial and legislative)? That seems to be entrenching the government's power rather than protecting it's citizens against the government.
What is says is that the government may not interfere with a persons right to life except

1) by the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. - i.e. no arbitrary killings, there must be a law and there must be a lawful conviction. This is the only time the government can perform any action with the intent to kill a person.

The other three exceptions
2) (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
are the only exceptions in whitch the killing of a person by the government may not be deemed illegal. And only if the use of force was no more than absolutely necessary. This is a strict limitation.


All in all article 2 seems pretty pointless. The majority of the points in Article 2 just seem so ambigious. The term 'absolutely necessary' in point 2 of article 2 seems incredibly open to interpretation.
And that interpretation is in the domain of the European Court of Human rights - not the domestic courts. They have to use WCHR-rulings as points of interpretation.


Article 12 is an absolute joke. 'Men and women have the right to marry if their government says so' is effectively what it says.
HInders the possibility of denying a man and a woman getting married due to race, religion etc. "the national laws governing the exercise of this right" are laws about procedure and such.

On the whole it seems alright, but a little on the weak side. I say weak in that the government of the day can make laws to bypass this act quite easily. I do not see anywhere in this act that prevents a government from arresting someone for an indefinite period of time. It uses the word reasonable, but again it does not define the words it uses. In the sense of this act 'reasonable time' could be 10 years or more.
See Article 5

The term 'reasonable time' must be interpreted while keeping in mind the complexity of the case, and the acts of both the government and the accused. So a 'resonable time' could be quite different in the case of a clear-cut robbery, and a complex case of fraud.

See also nr. 4:
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

And, of course, you have to take into account previous ECHR rulings on this subject.

We definitely need to get rid of the Human Rights Act. It hasn't done a thing for your average person, all it's been used for is pandering to the dregs of society. As Fartsniffage said, it's not like we were some murderous, totalitarian dictatorship that went around torturing people. Our system of common law and parliamentary sovereignty has served us well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. All the human rights act has done is prevent us from acting in the best interests of our people. It's likely that the act would prevent us from doing things like sending islamic extremists back to countries where it's likely they'll be killed, basically putting these animals before our own people.. It allows a load of unelected judges to effectively decide policy. I don't want a political system like that of America, where the will of the people can be so easily subverted by an unaccountable judiciary, that isn't what I want for my country.

Britian has got on fine using common law for centuries and I fail to see what advantages can come from this obvious move towards a codified legal system.
It may surprise you, but there are humans living beyond Britain. The Human Rights Acts intends to apply to those humans as well, even those unfortunate ones to live in countries where the government is not so generous, allowing countries like Britain to apply pressure over those governments to improve the quality of live of those other humans.

I think some people don't actually know what the Human Rights Act does.

Basically it does the following things:

- Gives redress to British courts under the European Convention, instead of having to take cases to the European courts. Hardly a bad thing.

True, however the European courts can still overturn any decision made by a UK court.

[QUOTE]- Totally abolishes death penalty in the UK
No it doesn't. The HRA makes provision for the death penalty to be legal if it is the penalty proscribed under law.

- Makes it unlawful for a public body to act in a way incompatible with the Convention. Again, hardly a bad thing.

So did the individual laws which covered the articles of the convention before they were put into one document. Thats why they were laws and not guidelines.

- Requires UK judges to take account rulings in Strasbourg.

And? The ECHR took precedence over British rulings anyway so a judge not taking them into account would have been either just wasting his and everybody elses time, or making a point about incosistancies in law.

- Requires UK judges to interpret legislation in a way compatible with the Convention. Once again, hardly a bad thing.

Again, laws were in place to protect these things anyway so a judge would have had to apply them instead of the HRA, no real difference made.

- Doesn't give judges power to override Acts of Parliament.

Judges never had this power. Unlike European judges, British judges are reqiured to interpret the letter of the law and not it's spirit. A rule which has lead to some interesting verdicts in the past as the Govt. occasionally makes mistakes in its legislation which the bench is unable to correct, or due to the nature of common law, legislation may not have been removed from the books leading to silly judgements (Asford v. Thornton springs to mind).

- Requires UK judges to take account rulings in Strasbourg.
This is one of the things that I might understand people objecting to, although I've yet to see it; quite a lot of people get worked up over the UK losing its sovereignty to the EU, and this could be brought up as an example.

We definitely need to get rid of the Human Rights Act. It hasn't done a thing for your average person, all it's been used for is pandering to the dregs of society. As Fartsniffage said, it's not like we were some murderous, totalitarian dictatorship that went around torturing people. Our system of common law and parliamentary sovereignty has served us well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. All the human rights act has done is prevent us from acting in the best interests of our people. It's likely that the act would prevent us from doing things like sending islamic extremists back to countries where it's likely they'll be killed, basically putting these animals before our own people.. It allows a load of unelected judges to effectively decide policy. I don't want a political system like that of America, where the will of the people can be so easily subverted by an unaccountable judiciary, that isn't what I want for my country.
That sounds much like the Daily Express article that inspired me to create this thread :)

I really think you need to read both Nadkor's post a few above yours, and the Act itself. You might be surprised at what it actually says...

It may surprise you, but there are humans living beyond Britain. The Human Rights Acts intends to apply to those humans as well, even those unfortunate ones to live in countries where the government is not so generous, allowing countries like Britain to apply pressure over those governments to improve the quality of live of those other humans.

No it doesn't. The HRA is applicable only in Britain, not in other countries. If the British govt. wants to apply pressure on other countries to improve their human rights records then there are far more effective ways than pointless legislation applying only in-house.

No it doesn't. The HRA makes provision for the death penalty to be legal if it is the penalty proscribed under law.

PART III
THE SIXTH PROTOCOL
ARTICLE 1
ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.
ARTICLE 2
DEATH PENALTY IN TIME OF WAR
A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant provisions of that law.

And? The ECHR took precedence over British rulings anyway so a judge not taking them into account would have been either just wasting his and everybody elses time, or making a point about incosistancies in law.


Again, laws were in place to protect these things anyway so a judge would have had to apply them instead of the HRA, no real difference made.
Do you know which laws? I don't know, so I can't comment on what used to be.

This has to be one of those issues where most people go "meh."

Though I'm quite skeptical it was done under the HRA, do you have a story/source?
Count Dracula himself...Michael Howard was banging on about it (no pun intended) for a while a couple of years ago.

No it doesn't. The HRA makes provision for the death penalty to be legal if it is the penalty proscribed under law.

OK.

Before HRA, there was still the death penalty for certain offences.

After HRA, the death penalty in remaining offences is replaced with a judicial sentence.

I would say that is abolished.

Of course, it could be brought back, and HRA provides for that, but it is abolished for now.


Judges never had this power. Unlike European judges, British judges are reqiured to interpret the letter of the law and not it's spirit. A rule which has lead to some interesting verdicts in the past as the Govt. occasionally makes mistakes in its legislation which the bench is unable to correct, or due to the nature of common law, legislation may not have been removed from the books leading to silly judgements (Asford v. Thornton springs to mind).

Oh, I know that, but some people seem to have got under the impression that judges were able to change laws etc.

Count Dracula himself...Michael Howard was banging on about it (no pun intended) for a while a couple of years ago.

Really? I must have missed that.

I'm still somewhat sceptical, I'd like to see the reasoning. But tbh, murderers looking at porn isn't an emotive subject for me.

Really? I must have missed that.

I'm still somewhat sceptical, I'd like to see the reasoning. But tbh, murderers looking at porn isn't an emotive subject for me.
I would give you a source, but alas, searching for 'prison porn' doesn't give the results I wanted. :p

Really? I must have missed that.

I'm still somewhat sceptical, I'd like to see the reasoning. But tbh, murderers looking at porn isn't an emotive subject for me.

Yeah, it was brought up by him and others. Even though, yes, who should care.

People at prison looking at porn! Oh my god, the world is at an end! Who fucking cares? Only the Daily Mail, Express, the bloody Tory Party (for god knows what reason) and the readers of the previously mentioned papers.

It is emotive to many, even though there are so many other things to worry about. Hell, this isnt even something worth worrying about. It doesnt change anything one bit, except prison officers are no longer going through pornographic publications, taking out the most explicit images. So... we have screws wasting less time... And whats bad about that?

And the HRA is not the evil thing the right wing press and the Tory party claim it is. It is just something they can get het up about, and blame for things that largely dont matter, trying to keep people's attentions away from things that really do.