Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Human Rights Act
Please could somebody explain to me exactly what advantages this piece of legislation was intended to confer on the indigenous British people? As a law-abiding citizen, I thought my Human Rights were ok BEFORE this Act was passed but it seems to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any crook or scum who wants to break the law.
Answers
The idea behind it was to drag other countries up to a certain level, which we were already at. We were not signing up to add any 'rights' to those that existed here. We already had, in place, laws and procedures to stop government or other intervention and to guarantee family life free of hindrance , Sharingan. Asked to define what right the Human Rights Act gave...
09:57 Wed 24th Apr 2013
Sharingan - At the time the Human Rights Act was introduced, I had lived in England (born here) about 57 years and never had any problem which needed the introduction of new legislation about my Human Rights. Society - I can't believe you've not heard of the abuses of the Act, (Abu Qatada, the guy who stabbed Phillip Lawrence etc etc ect etc).
-- answer removed --
Well it depends on who you are and what you do. In your 57 years it would have been illegal to be gay, and lawful to discriminate against ethnic groups and women. Even if the law of the country changed back to that ( which really won't happen) the Human rights act would still protect you against discrimination and harassment.
The thing about Human rights is that they apply to anyone who is a human. The clue's in the name. People who are criminals don't stop becoming humans just because of the crime.
Most law-abiding citizens will never have any cause to protest about their human rights being violated, but that doesn't mean that the law is not important. 50 years ago it wasn't a human right to practise your sexuality if you were gay or bisexual. Today in many countries it still isn't. Nor is there freedom of religion, or expression.
Because in the UK we made many of the necessary breakthroughs in Human Rights before the law came in, it seems to be mostly concerned with criminals. That's unfortunate, and we should perhaps be more careful in the way the law is seen to be applied. Cases like Qatada's have dragged on so long that it sets up that impression of being a protection for criminals or other "undesirables". Which is sad, because the law is actually very important.
Anyone who is Human has, or should have, Human Rights.
Most law-abiding citizens will never have any cause to protest about their human rights being violated, but that doesn't mean that the law is not important. 50 years ago it wasn't a human right to practise your sexuality if you were gay or bisexual. Today in many countries it still isn't. Nor is there freedom of religion, or expression.
Because in the UK we made many of the necessary breakthroughs in Human Rights before the law came in, it seems to be mostly concerned with criminals. That's unfortunate, and we should perhaps be more careful in the way the law is seen to be applied. Cases like Qatada's have dragged on so long that it sets up that impression of being a protection for criminals or other "undesirables". Which is sad, because the law is actually very important.
Anyone who is Human has, or should have, Human Rights.
No it wasn't illegal to be gay before the Act came in - witness Freddie Mercury, Elton John etc etc etc - all openly gay. The Racial Discrimination Act was in place to prevent racial abuse ... so getting back to my original question, please can anybody tell me what advantages it was intended to confer on law-abiding British people?
Latest Posts
Other Sports1 min ago
Road rules2 mins ago
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News10 mins ago
