Should the HRA be amended or scrapped altogether?

[Bobbisox]

http://www.google.com...N0702961317501150546A

[ummmm]

Amended, maybe. Not scrapped.

[sandyRoe]

Isn't it about how the judges read it? For example, 'a right to a family life' doesn't say a right to such a life here in the UK, as far as I know.

[sara3]

amended.. and scrapped for some individuals!

[Sonyme]

Introduce a new element - Any individual who abuses the Human Rights of others forfeits the right to be protected by the act. as it is clear that he/she/them do not accept thr HRA

[Bobbisox]

very good point Sony... why don't the MPs think like that?

[emmie]

Not scrapped, we all need Human Rights, and if they were to scrap it, there should be something in it's place. I believe that a proposal was put forward for a Bill of Rights, but like a lot of things nothing more has been said.
It's in the interpretation in many cases of the various regulations, laws, sometimes the Judges don't use common sense, and stick entirely to the letter of the law.

[anotheoldgit]

It is not the UK's Human Rights Act that we have to worry about, it is the European Court of Human Rights that we have to get rid of, and the only way we will get rid of that is to come out of Europe.

Maybe that won't be far off since they are to have a debate in Parliament on that very issue, then maybe after the MPs have voted whether or not we will be granted a referendum on it, the public will get their wish granted, and it will be goodbye to the EU for us.

[I.Don No]

maybe it should be amended and then renamed the Human Rights & Responsibilities Act 'cos I am completely fed up with people who know the former and have no idea of the latter.

[jake-the-peg]

//It is not the UK's Human Rights Act that we have to worry about, it is the European Court of Human Rights that we have to get rid of, and the only way we will get rid of that is to come out of Europe.//

Sorry for the coarse abuse I just thought if I jolted you then you might just remember this time.

I'll say it really slow

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++

The European convention on Humam Rights is nothing to do with the EU
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++



It was signed in 1951 - if you don't like it blame Winston Churchill it was h

[jake-the-peg]

Hmm cut off!

As I was saying Human Rights are Winston Curchill's Baby not Jaques Delors'

http://www.guardian.c...hts-act-conservatives


Love the idea that Universal Human rights shouldn't be applicable to some people.

Why should people have rights they don't afford to us?

Well if your 6 year old comes home and says that his fiend slapped him - do you storm out and slap the other child? Do you slap the parents?

No, ( well not most of you I reckon ). Tht would put you at the same level as them and decending to it would diminish your standing in the eyes of your friends and community.

It's the same thing. If for example we torture or allow people to be tortured because "they'd do the same to us" it demeans us and shows us as less civillised in the eyes of the world.

It's somewhat difficult to tell China to stop abusing their citizens if you're sending people to be waterboarded in Egypt.

[New Judge]

All very true up to a point, jake.

But I’m sure you realise that the concern with the HRA (and the ECHR) is the deliberately vague wording of the articles and the wide interpretations that have come from the courts as a result of those vagaries.

The fact that a person convicted of a serious crime and who was recommended for deportation can avoid that sanction because he owned a cat and that entitled him to continue his “family life” in the UK is preposterous.

Yes, an extreme example, but by no means an isolated one. But one that should not have got anywhere near the courts.

[DaisyNonna]

Don't forget the legal aid that we are paying for.

[Twenty20]

"we all need Human Rights"


Really? Makes you wonder how we all coped before we had the human rights act.

To be honest, I can't really see how things have been improved since this was brought in.

[New Judge]

It has not changed at all for the law abiding UK citizen. They always have had redress through the courts to correct wrongs which may have been visited upon them by State organisations.

Who it has changed for (to their considerable benefit) are criminals, foreigners (very often foreign criminals) and minorities wishing to use the legislation to circumvent the laws to which the rst of us are subject.

In my memory I do not know any UK citizen in the UK being denied any of the wooly "rights" conferred upon him by the ECHR and the HRA. In particular I don't know of anybody who had been subject to torture or degrading treatment, of anybody who had been denied the right to a family life, of anybody who had been denied freedom of expression or religous freedom.

[sandyRoe]

You'd have to go back a bit. But here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk..._politics/4117611.stm

[New Judge]

I should have added (though not relevant to your example, Sandy) "...where restitution could not have been achieved by non HR laws>"

I think you've raised the internment issue before. I'm afraid, unlike some supporters of HR legislation, I consider that such niceties must necessarily be suspended at times of war, and the IRA by their own admission were at war with the British. Quite why we should consider the rights of members of an organisation that killed and maimed many civilians (and who would have killed and maimed many more had exceptional measures such as internment not been used) is beyond me.