newjez Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Very stormy is not a fan. BJ was in favour. I can hold my hand up and say I know nothing about it. But I would like to. It seems quite a hot topic, and I feel I should be informed. I have found what I think to be a balanced article. I'm interested in arguments for and against. http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-human-rights-act-is-no-friend-of-freedom/18335#.WCAaeaGnxpU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Not a bad article. It misses though some important points. First, there are, as it points out, a lot of its supporters. Who say binning it would result in tyranny and abuse. Yet, the U.K. is, legally about one thousand years old. We did not live in a state of tyranny prior to its introduction. The reason being that the UK has a wonderful set of human rights embedded in a mix of legislation and common law. Including pieces that are ancient but still in force and are some of the strongest in the world. For example, I remember reading about a case in Oz of a mentally incapacitated individual who has been languishing in custody without trial for decades. But, in the UK that couldn't happen because we have Habeous Corpos. Another major issue i sue I have with it is that it is a borderline constitution and I think written constitutions are generally a bad idea as they are hard to change to adapt to societies that have changed a lot from when the original was drafted. Look at the USA and the right to bear arms. It was a very reasonable thing to include when drafted, but today has proved a nightmare. A third issue, is one I have already mentioned. It is terribly drafted. A forth relates to the to the second and third points and is mentioned in the article. It has given rise to many unwanted consequences. There have been many high profile cases that have produced unwanted results that reasonable people find abhorrent. In which case, given the UK was a beacon for human rights prior to its introduction, has a wealth of human rights already in existence, why have it? Has it actually enhanced people's lives and introduced needed safeguards? Was life prior such a state of tyranny that we needed it? I would argue of course not, but it has produced unwanted results. In which case what is the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Have to say i don't think the UK is particularly 'good' on human rights. It thinks it is though and conveniently forgets some of its past transgressions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Have to say i don't think the UK is particularly 'good' on human rights. It thinks it is though and conveniently forgets some of its past transgressions. Explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gbye grey sky Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Explain? Maybe stuff like this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 A big loss if depending on common law to implement human rights. Such rights should be embedded and not for changing through an act of parliament. Indeed the Irish troubles under lined the potential of abuse and in days when the angst around terror can be used to subject elements of the population to ever stricter laws, a human rights tribunal that can be turned to is very important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Maybe stuff like this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius But, while it was then none binding, the UK was able to get around it and did so. It therefore proved about as effective as a chocolate fire guard. Of course, there have also been occasional problems. Look at the issues surrounding Afghanistan and prisoners. But, the EU Human rights have not prevented it or even addressed it very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gbye grey sky Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 (edited) But, while it was then none binding, the UK was able to get around it and did so. It therefore proved about as effective as a chocolate fire guard. Of course, there have also been occasional problems. Look at the issues surrounding Afghanistan and prisoners. But, the EU Human rights have not prevented it or even addressed it very well. Would Afghan prisoners have fallen within the jurisdiction of the ECHR? Edited November 7, 2016 by Gbye grey sky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Would Afghan prisoners have fallen within the jurisdiction of the ECHR? The ones transported through the UK and other parts of Europe would have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.