Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies™ Exclusive...
Food & Drink16 mins ago
Human rights.
39 Answers
Should this be abolished?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TWR. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Human rights can not be abolished as they represent the rights an individual has regardless; just for being a human. They can be ignored and denied, or individual ones can be up for discussion as to whether they should be included, and the term can be misused when the legal profession misapply the name, but by definition they can't be abolished unless we all agree no one has any innate rights.
http://www.legislatio...ga/1998/42/schedule/1
Honestly, copy and paste me the bits you don't like...
Honestly, copy and paste me the bits you don't like...
I'm a leftie, but I take it you're talking politics?
If a person of foreign nationality is found guilty of a crime, especially heinous, have served their time for that crime, then kick 'em out. Normally I am of the opinion that a debt has been paid to society (not necessarily to those who are the victims or relatives) get shot of them.
If a person of foreign nationality is found guilty of a crime, especially heinous, have served their time for that crime, then kick 'em out. Normally I am of the opinion that a debt has been paid to society (not necessarily to those who are the victims or relatives) get shot of them.
"not to keep his family would infinge his H.R. If they deported him"
The deportation would not prevent him keeping his familty as they can opt to follow him should they so wish.
If that proves difficult then the cause of the problem is the actions of the criminal themself, not the State. Maybe they should take themselves to court and file a complaint against themselves?
The deportation would not prevent him keeping his familty as they can opt to follow him should they so wish.
If that proves difficult then the cause of the problem is the actions of the criminal themself, not the State. Maybe they should take themselves to court and file a complaint against themselves?
I personally think prisoners rights should not equate to human rights, there should be a separate act. I've not thought about it enough to go into detail but I suppose it goes back to the 'with rights come responsibilities' thing I was brought up with. Fail in your responsibilities and you lose your rights.
Yes, Geezer. I have posted similar comments myself.
The problem here is interpretation. As Ed has kindly given us Article 8 to play with, it is worth looking at the exceptions:
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime...”
Simple lad that I am, I would suggest that if we have a convicted rapist or murderer in our midst and he has no right of abode here, that get out clause should make us perfectly entitled to deport him. But no. And so monstrous have the interpretations become that even a man here with no family, but a cat to care for gets protection to his “family life” under Article 8.
My own view is that so long as these travesties keep occurring the law will be brought into disrepute. A disreputable law is a bad law and has no place in the UK. The UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. We do not need to be a signatory as we have our own Human Rights Act of 1998 which virtually mirrors the ECHR. At least then we would be protected from judgements by individuals from those well known stalwarts of human rights and freedoms such as Albania, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
That would just leave our own judgements to worry about and the 1998 Act needs tightening up considerably to make it reputable.
The problem here is interpretation. As Ed has kindly given us Article 8 to play with, it is worth looking at the exceptions:
“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime...”
Simple lad that I am, I would suggest that if we have a convicted rapist or murderer in our midst and he has no right of abode here, that get out clause should make us perfectly entitled to deport him. But no. And so monstrous have the interpretations become that even a man here with no family, but a cat to care for gets protection to his “family life” under Article 8.
My own view is that so long as these travesties keep occurring the law will be brought into disrepute. A disreputable law is a bad law and has no place in the UK. The UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. We do not need to be a signatory as we have our own Human Rights Act of 1998 which virtually mirrors the ECHR. At least then we would be protected from judgements by individuals from those well known stalwarts of human rights and freedoms such as Albania, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
That would just leave our own judgements to worry about and the 1998 Act needs tightening up considerably to make it reputable.
