Human Right Act, Cameron Backs Down

1235

Comments

  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PrestonAl wrote: »
    Why is it hypocritical? They're talking about terrorism and terrorists.

    Changes are going to apply across the board and not just to terrorist, even although that may be how the proponents would like to sell them. The Sun being one of the biggest supporters of repeal of the HRA, do you not find it slightly ironic that they use it to their benefit.

    Come back Alan B'Stard!
  • Mark_Jones9Mark_Jones9 Posts: 12,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So the simple truth is that he couldn't get the majority needed to pass it in the house.

    That slim majority claims its first victim.
    If so it is a disgraceful act of betrayal by the Conservative MPs who stood for election on a manifesto that they are unwilling to implement. They lied to their electorate, gaining votes saying they would do things that after being elected they are refusing to do. If they were unwilling to implement the Conservative manifesto they should not of stood for election as Conservative candidates.
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,337
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If so it is a disgraceful act of betrayal by the Conservative MPs who stood for election on a manifesto that they are unwilling to implement. They lied to their electorate, gaining votes saying they would do things that after being elected they are refusing to do. If they were unwilling to implement the Conservative manifesto they should not of stood for election as Conservative candidates.


    Shortcut to: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/26/sir-malcolm-bruce-house-of-commons-lying-mps

    Sir Malcolm Bruce: Commons would empty very fast if lying MPs had to quit ;-)
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If so it is a disgraceful act of betrayal by the Conservative MPs who stood for election on a manifesto that they are unwilling to implement. They lied to their electorate, gaining votes saying they would do things that after being elected they are refusing to do. If they were unwilling to implement the Conservative manifesto they should not of stood for election as Conservative candidates.

    Much more likely is that Cameron and Gove have quickly realised that the situation is far more complex than the simple platitude contained in their manifesto.
  • MattNMattN Posts: 2,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's not so much the numbers that are the problem.

    It's actually coming up with an alternate system.

    Here's a great explanation of why it's been delayed;

    https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/on-the-referendum-1-gove-and-the-human-rights-act/
  • MoleskinMoleskin Posts: 3,098
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ken Clarke does nothing but cause trouble I don't know why he doesn't just cross the chamber and join Labour.
  • Aye UpAye Up Posts: 7,053
    Forum Member
    Is it simply not the case that UK Parliament and the devolved institutions have a problem with a foreign court having the seemingly unlimited power of overriding the democratic will of those said institutions and hearing cases which should be heard in British courts?

    I know there are many aspects of the ECHR and HRA people disagree with, but surely our own courts being supplanted by unaccountable pen pushers in a lovely party of France is the main gripe? British courts are more than capable of handling cases around Human Rights, to the deportation of suspected criminals. Why do those resident in this country get the right to petition the Strasbourg court?

    Some friends who work in the legal profession acknowledge the whole concept is ripe for abuse. It becomes a joke when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is no longer the final arbiter of justice within these isles. SCOTUK (yes I borrowed an American coloquialism) was created so that there was a separation of parliament and judicial oversight/power (law lords was a perverse system of appeal). Few folk would disagree with most of the ECHR, its how it applies to individuals who want to bring harm to our country from abroad.

    As a nation state, we should have absolute authority over who we choose to work and live here. From my own understanding, the Strasbourg court rulings were only meant to be supplementary, yet we have courts in the UK being reluctant to overrule them (even though legally they could). That part I can just get my head around, but how is it right that the same court in Strasbourg is given a veto over laws enacted within UK legislature? My belief is the only courts which should issue binding judgements are domestic and the ECoJ (EU Court). France, Germany, Italy, Spain have all ignored ECHR judgements and just deported people anyway.

    For the EHCR and HRA to work it needs significant changes, making the UK Parliaments' absolute relative to domestic matters (like extremism, terrorism etc), also making our court system and our SCOTUK the final court of arbitration. Every thing else should be supplementary, no other nation has the right to tell another how to run their own affairs. ECoJ generally doesn't get involved in crminal cases, its more concerned about EU law in respect of competition etc.

    I should think if our politcians actually grew a spine and tell the ECHR to sod off if we don't agree with its judgement, UK public would support them.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,547
    Forum Member
    Aye Up wrote: »
    Is it simply not the case that UK Parliament and the devolved institutions have a problem with a foreign court having the seemingly unlimited power of overriding the democratic will of those said institutions and hearing cases which should be heard in British courts?

    I know there are many aspects of the ECHR and HRA people disagree with, but surely our own courts being supplanted by unaccountable pen pushers in a lovely party of France is the main gripe? British courts are more than capable of handling cases around Human Rights, to the deportation of suspected criminals. Why do those resident in this country get the right to petition the Strasbourg court?
    Simple - because we signed up to its jurisdiction.
    I should think if our politcians actually grew a spine and tell the ECHR to sod off if we don't agree with its judgement, UK public would support them.
    Not much point in signing up to an agreement if we then ignore its rulings. The ECtHR is not a "foreign" court - we are part of it.
  • Aye UpAye Up Posts: 7,053
    Forum Member
    jjwales wrote: »
    Simple - because we signed up to its jurisdiction.


    Not much point in signing up to an agreement if we then ignore its rulings. The ECtHR is not a "foreign" court - we are part of it.

    Forgive I am not simply questioning its legal footing, more so around the morality and perverse situation of a soveriegn state not being in charge of its own affairs.

    To your latter point how is it Germany, France, Italy and Spain have all defied ECHR rulings regarding the deportation of suspected criminals?

    There has to come a point when the domestic judiciary and law makers are supreme relative to the administration of justice in a nation state. I think if law makers in this country, pushed and establish the supremacy of the Judiciary and Parliaments/Assemblies this would go a long way to to mitigating public distrust. I want to see powers remain with us and not subject to opinion or ruling from bureaucrats in Strasbourg.

    The public and parliament would like to see our relationship remodelled to being based on advisory. Lets be blunt there is no need for the court in Strasbourg when our own can do the job more efficiently and sensibly. The only courts who should be making binding decisions on domestic matters are our own (with the exception of the ECoJ as thats a different beast entirely. Why are we paying lip service to our own courts when there is the potential to be overrules from another court in another country?

    There are treaties as part of the EU we have signed up to, I believe they should remain in place. Britain has more or less opted out of the bulk of EU justice related matters I believe, although there are calls for more cooperation. The other problem we have is everyone confusing ECHR and the court with the EU when as we know on here they are separate vehicles entirely. If the referendum does happen and Tories get reform on some EU laws along with a passible withdrawal or reform of the EHCR (court), I would hazard a guess many would vote to staying in (the EU).

    There is a massive battle to be fought around the EU and the ECHR, until parliament and the British media start separating the two, Cameron's chances of reform will pissed away before a river can even be formed.
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,337
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Moleskin wrote: »
    Ken Clarke does nothing but cause trouble I don't know why he doesn't just cross the chamber and join Labour.

    Along with Dominic Grieve and David Davies too i take it.;-)
  • Jim_McIntoshJim_McIntosh Posts: 5,866
    Forum Member
    Along with Dominic Grieve and David Davies too i take it.;-)

    DD's speech was very good today.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Chicken Dave strikes again.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    Aurora13 wrote: »
    It is very clear that the view in 1951 was that the ECHR system should protect against only very serious human rights infringements (the types of severe human rights violations witnessed during the War). Pierre-Henri Teitgen, one of Convention’s founding fathers, argued in 1949, for example, that the Convention would address, ‘a list of rights and fundamental freedoms, without which personal independence and a dignified way of life cannot be ensured’.

    It was appreciated in 1951 that the Convention system could develop beyond this very fundamental starting point. Teitgen was a member of the “European Movement”, a body that wanted to establish an ECHR as part of a new European Union. The first proposals for a Strasbourg Court were, in fact, for a “European Court of Justice”, not, a “European Court of Human Rights”.

    Moreover, Hersch Lauterpacht, Professor of International Law at Cambridge and one of the leading intellectual forces on human rights, had some striking things to say about the Strasbourg Court. He emphasised that it would have indirect powers of review over British laws, including Acts of Parliament. He even drew comparisons between a future ECHR system and the American Supreme Court:. The range and number of decisions given every year” by the latter was “a reminder of the vast—and, to some, alarming—possibilities of international review.

    There words were written in February 1950. The States themselves, led by the British government, subsequently watered down the proposals for the Strasbourg enforcement regime. By November 1950, when the ECHR text was complete, the Court’s jurisdiction had been made subject to each State’s acceptance of an optional clause, as was a State’s acceptance of the right for individuals to petition Strasbourg (in fact, the European Commission of Human rights). When the UK government ratified the ECHR in March 1951 (Clement Atlee) it accepted neither of these optional clauses, and it looked like the Court might never come into being as eight States were required to accept it before it could be instituted. Needless to say, that was not the end of the story. By 1958 nine States had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, so it came into being in 1959.

    The UK had accepted the optional clauses in 1966, (Harold Wilson) with little appreciation of what would follow a decade later. However, the clauses were accepted for limited periods of time. On successive occasions in the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, therefore, the UK had the opportunity to withdraw its acceptance of these key aspects of the Convention system – but she didn’t.

    The relevant Whitehall documentation for the 1970s can now be consulted at The National Archives. Very briefly, it reveals a strong element of British concern (especially at the Home Office) at the way the Convention system had evolved, but that in the final analysis there was more political advantage for the UK to remain committed to the Convention system than withdraw from it. So, for example, the UK’s continued acceptance of the optional clauses was debated by the Thatcher Cabinet in late 1980, when it was reported that the Court was “interfering with the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty” and “limiting [the UK’s] freedom of action” (accusations which are being repeated today). Nonetheless, in 1981, as in subsequent years, the optional clauses were accepted for five more years.

    Much more could be said about these events, as well as those that followed. For example, the UK tried in vain to ensure that the right of individual petition would remain optional when Protocol 11 to the ECHR was negotiated in 1994. The Court, it was said, had too much power, and the implied threat of non-renewal of individual petition would act as an appropriate check on its authority. However, the UK was virtually alone in making this point, it lost the argument; with Protocol 11 the right of individual petition became compulsory.

    The rest as you say is history regarding Individual Petition.

    Nothing like a bit of plagiarism:
    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/21/what-was-the-point-of-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-dr-ed-bates/
  • Richard1960Richard1960 Posts: 20,337
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DD's speech was very good today.

    I like David Davies he has a fairly independent mind and is not afraid to speak up.:)
  • Regis MagnaeRegis Magnae Posts: 6,810
    Forum Member
    MattN wrote: »
    It's not so much the numbers that are the problem.

    It's actually coming up with an alternate system.

    Here's a great explanation of why it's been delayed;

    https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/on-the-referendum-1-gove-and-the-human-rights-act/

    Very interesting. Thanks for posting that.
  • MattNMattN Posts: 2,534
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Chicken Dave strikes again.

    Aren't you happy with this?
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Along with Dominic Grieve and David Davies too i take it.;-)

    And taking Andrew Mitchell & Edward Garnier along with them....for starters :D

    Still it's nice to see some of his own side stepping up to save Dave from the dodgy corners of the Tory Mailifesto
  • Tom2023Tom2023 Posts: 2,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tories propose huge legal change and are criticised for putting the proposals out for consultation :D

    And can we stop all the hysteria and look at the facts.

    Scrapping the HRA does not mean people will lose all their legal rights. The HRA will be replaced by a BRA and MPs of all parties will have scrutinised it to ensure law abiding people do have the same if not more rights than the HRA. The criminals and ne'er do wells however will not be able to take the piss. Having a kitten will no longer mean you can stay in the UK and carry on being a career criminal.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tom2023 wrote: »
    Tories propose huge legal change and are criticised for putting the proposals out for consultation :D

    And can we stop all the hysteria and look at the facts.

    Scrapping the HRA does not mean people will lose all their legal rights. The HRA will be replaced by a BRA and MPs of all parties will have scrutinised it to ensure law abiding people do have the same if not more rights than the HRA. The criminals and ne'er do wells however will not be able to take the piss. Having a kitten will no longer mean you can stay in the UK and carry on being a career criminal.

    :D:D:D:D
  • MorlockMorlock Posts: 3,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tom2023 wrote: »
    Having a kitten will no longer mean you can stay in the UK and carry on being a career criminal.

    Since when has having a kitten got anything to do with the Human Rights Act?
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Morlock wrote: »
    Since when has having a kitten got anything to do with the Human Rights Act?

    It doesn't...the ownership of a pet was one very small piece of evidence used in one case where the person was using "right to a family life" in one deportation case.

    The fact IIRC correctly he also had a wife and child...rather more substantive/compelling evidence.

    But Tessie O'May took half a sentence out of a written judgement ran to pages and tried to make out ownership of a cat was an example of where the HRA was "allowing foreign criminals to stay in Britain".

    And some people clearly fell for it...ably assisted by the likes of the Daily Mail.

    Meanwhile we are all supposed to forget it was the HRA that in the end had to be resorted to prevent the police retaining the DNA of people never even charged with an offence and who gave samples voluntary in order to exclude themselves and thinking they were assisting the police during criminal investigations. :)
  • Watcher #1Watcher #1 Posts: 9,019
    Forum Member
    Tom2023 wrote: »
    Tories propose huge legal change and are criticised for putting the proposals out for consultation :D

    And can we stop all the hysteria and look at the facts.

    Scrapping the HRA does not mean people will lose all their legal rights. The HRA will be replaced by a BRA and MPs of all parties will have scrutinised it to ensure law abiding people do have the same if not more rights than the HRA. The criminals and ne'er do wells however will not be able to take the piss. Having a kitten will no longer mean you can stay in the UK and carry on being a career criminal.

    If we are going to look at the facts, having a kitten was never a reason for anyone staying, despite what you might have read.

    HMG loses less than 1% of the cases brought under Human Rights Law.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Watcher #1 wrote: »
    If we are going to look at the facts, having a kitten was never a reason for anyone staying, despite what you might have read.

    HMG loses less than 1% of the cases brought under Human Rights Law.


    Doesn't help either when the Home Secretary stands on a public platform and says the same thing.

    One of the most disingenuous things I have ever seen...and ANY respect I had for Teresa May vanished at that point...why she's been Tessie O'May to me ever since ;-)
  • Tom2023Tom2023 Posts: 2,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Morlock wrote: »
    Since when has having a kitten got anything to do with the Human Rights Act?

    In 2008 at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and involved a Bolivian student who had overstayed his visa. He said he should not be deported because he had a proper permanent relationship with his partner and should not be deported.

    One detail provided, amongst many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    Tom2023 wrote: »
    In 2008 at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and involved a Bolivian student who had overstayed his visa. He said he should not be deported because he had a proper permanent relationship with his partner and should not be deported.

    One detail provided, amongst many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time

    But the case was not about not being deported because of the cat.
Sign In or Register to comment.