Sorry but this is such a dumb statement. Before the Human Rights Act was passed did we not have laws against murder/torture in 1998? Did we not have race and religion discrimination laws? I know it's "trendy" to hate the UK as some big, racist, evil empire but to suggest that we need the HRA or we're effectively a terrorist state demonstrates a real understanding of the issue.
Amber Rudd fails to understand the internet
- Thread starter Mr Jack
- Start date
In 2008, when the UK was (surprise surprise) trying to violate our human rights by retaining fingerprint and DNA information of innocent people, thank god for the ECHR that ruled this illegal and a violation of privacy. Thank god for the HRA that the families of the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy were able to bring a new inquest. Thank god that with the HRA and the ECHR we have an independent third party that can oversee and advise on our system, meaning we have recourse when our own court system fails. Be thankful for the 15 freedoms - who knows what the hell this tory government will come up with to replace those?
I'm most worried about Mays jingoistic rhetoric about tearing up the HRA. There's no answer, no substance, and no clue (much like the rest of Brexit) about what they will replace it with.
I'm most worried about Mays jingoistic rhetoric about tearing up the HRA. There's no answer, no substance, and no clue (much like the rest of Brexit) about what they will replace it with.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
They wont tear up the hra, just rub out the odd bit here and there, make a few minor changes, update the wording a little, add some supplementary overriding clauses and hey presto its not the hra any more.
The human rights act covers far more things than that though and we would lose out in a big way if it were repealed.
Since certain areas no longer have a right to trial, what do you think the chances are of the new document not enshrining this?
What do you mean sorry?
What like an Iraqi illegal immigrant's right to a family life meaning he has to stay in the UK indefinitely despite killing a little girl in a hit-and-run while disqualified from driving? If scrapping that means we lose then I'm all for losing.
Pick an emotive one why not. The real travesty in that story is the sentence he was given.
For every instance of it failing theres good things as well;
https://rightsinfo.org/infographics/fifty-human-rights-cases/ (seems relatively well done)
Sorry but I think the emotive cases are the most important.
50 cases that transformed Britain - transformed us into what though?
Well check the cases and you'll see. It's not all protecting those who don't deserve it.
areas?
Well, according to the terms of the Act its actually any areas, though its far more likely to be fraud cases, that the Lord Chief Justice, a nominal position held by a government recommended appointee, decides it is in the best interests to suspend a Jury, and its been legal since 2007. The first such case being in 2010.
What I mean is that if the HRA is scrapped, it would not surprise me to see this government refusing (or more likely quietly omitting) to enshrine the right to trial by jury in any replacement document.
I mean, it's already been legislated against in one document, so why bother enshrining it again?
care to explain a bit more?
are we talking sme very extreme situations or do you just think the government is going to wholesale ban jury trials?
flouting pretty much all recent history?
ah so is it in regard to cases that are likley to be very long very complex and technical and well beyond the understanding of most jurys and so given to a specialist judge etc?
Sorry, but I'd have thought you'd be in all favour of that - bringing us into line with Europe etc. E.g. France doesn't permit the right to trial by jury except in the most serious cases.
Well you're wrong, I'm not.
That was its intention, but the problem with legislation is that when you make it vague, it can be abused.
indeed that is at least one aspect that should be modified - citing the 'right to a family life' in order to stop the deportation of people convicted of crimes that serious is farcical.
Not wholesale but the latest Leveson report suggests more cases arent and the judge decides whether it should be a trial by jury