Given that the person who started this thread is choosing to ignore several people who might have interesting things to contribute (such impeccable logic from the prof !) there's no point in even bothering to respond .......
-
-
Taking Mr GG's point, it is still worth pointing out that Simon is entirely wrong here. British law pre HRA did not have adequate safeguards, which is why so many people had to recourse to the European Court of Human Rights (nothing to do with the European Union) - an extremely torturous process, & not to be underetaken lightly - and mostly won. Which wasn't the end of the story - the British government then had to be persuaded to apply the Court's judgement. The HRA simply enshrined the legislation the Court was working under in British Law (actually I should say under English law and Scottish law), thereby making it a much simpler process.Originally posted by Simon View Post
I wonder what Simon believes are unneccessary human rights?Comment
-
Also, I think this (Guardian) article gives a detached account of the development of human rights legislation in this country (and globally). It outlines the post-WWII origins of modern human rights legislation, which emphasises the difference between civil and political rights and fundamental human rights.
It details the British leading of the legal drafting team; the opposition of Churchill's government to the right to petition the European Court on the grounds that it would entail a forensic scrutiny of British Common Law, and how this became the historic Conservative attitude which has continued through Thatcher, Major to the current right-wing.
And, as Floss has said, when the right to petition the ECHR was introduced the UK repeatedly lost its case.
As for the case which Simon mentions, there is no clear line of demarcation between justice and over leniency: in a humane democracy error must always lie on the side of leniency rather than injustice.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Though it should be noted that one if the other Guardian stories above points out that the original convention was seen by Churchill as entirely drawing on long standing British ideals, and it was largely drafted by a lawyer who went on to be attorney-general in another Conservative government. It was not some lefty invention at all.Comment
-
The extraordinary thing here is the first sentence. WHY was he allowed to stay? And why are many others also allowed to stay?He was an illegal immigrant but was allowed to stay. He was granted indefinite leave to remain. Thereafter, there was little difference between his criminal activity and that of a British criminal and the law ruled that he should be treated in the same way, since by this time his son was a British citizen.
I cannot understand why there's even a debate about this. Foreign criminals and illegal immigrants should be deported. End of.Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
Mark Twain.Comment
-
The rights (as in correct application) and wrongs of this case are subject to British Common Law. The latter is full of loopholes and hardly worth the paper it is written on because we have never had a British Constitution. The use of the Human Rights Act as French Frank states enshrines the powers of the European Court of Law (not the EEC) in much of the United Kingdom. The HRA is partially one facet of the non-existent British Constitution and plugs some of the holes applying to the individual. It is not perfect because of the piecemeal way our laws have evolved and clashes at times with those we already have. It is clearly time the legal lords (heaven forfend it is the politicians) sit down together and draft a constitution that sensibly deals with issues of state and individual laws. The various Amendments of the US Constitution go farther than ours towards creating a nation based on Human Rights although there are still many miles to travel before they achieve true equity. In Britain the HRA is a partial step towards national adulthood. When cases like that of Philip Olawale Omotunde arise it partly shows that legally our nation is still adolescent, yet also shows that when we do achieve legal adulthood every case must still be dealt with individually.Comment
-
I'm with the 'liberals' and 'lefties' on this one ..
I see no reason to scrap laws that have an obviously noble purpose (protecting the freedom of the individual) merely because the odd scoundrel takes advantage of such laws.
Furthermore, I'm deeply suspicious of these 'Daily Mail'-type stories which generally pander to popular myth and prejudice. Scratch beneath the surface and one generally finds that the facts of these cases are not quite as simple and straightforward as indicated by the normal half-truth (if we're lucky) press reporting. These are often to do with the welfare of a criminal's innocent children, and in a civilised society that must surely be a factor in any decision-making.
I'm uncomfortable with Cameron's diatribes against human rights legislation, just as I'm uncomfortable with his rantings against the Scottish Government abiding by the admirably humane aspects of Scots Law and tradition and mercifully allowing a terminally-ill prisoner to end what's left of his life with family at home.
In both cases I clearly see that awfully self-righteous 'Little Englander' mentality, which is inappropriate to say the least for a UK Prime Minister and would-be world statesman ...Comment
-
To paraphrase Sebastian Faulks' "A Week In December"...the HRA was likened to applying running boards to an Aston Martin....and that the lawyers rubbed their hands as they'd get three bites of the cherry...paid once for the initial case, a second time for the appeal and the third time..well, can't exactly remember, but you get my drift.Originally posted by Simon View PostWell, makropulos, it's possible to make a convincing argument that the whole thing was unnecessary in Britain in the first place... British law had adequate safeguards already in place for all the necessary human rights and the vast increase in millionaire lawyers has been an unwanted, but well forseen (especially by the lawyers) consequence.
Well, it would certainly be a start.
Comment
-
Also worth noting are the comments of the late Law Lord, Lord Bingham, about the HRA. No lefty, he was widely regarded as having one of the best legal minds of his generation. In his excellent book The Rule of Law he surveys the Human Rights Act in some detail and concludes:
"Over the past decade or so, the Human Rights Act and the Convention to which it gave effect in the UK have been attacked in some quarters, and of course there are some court decisions, here and in the European Court, with which one may reasonably disagree. But most of the supposed weaknesses of the Convention scheme are attributable to misunderstandings of it, and critics must ultimately answer two questions. Which of [its rights] would you discard? Would you rather live in a country in which these rights were not protected by law? [The] rule of law requires that the law afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights...In all countries which are parties to the European Convention the central rights guaranteed by the Convention are protected, though disappointed claimants can still seek to pursue their claims in the European Court at Strasbourg if unsuccessful at home".
As others have mentioned, repealing the Human Rights Act here would not prevent individuals who felt that their Convention rights had been infringed from pursuing a claim in the European Court (in a long and tortuous process). Only if the UK were to derogate from the Convention itself would that option be denied. But would we really want to be included in that unsavoury group of countries where human rights are held in so little regard that they are not signatories to the Convention? Wouldn't that be a regressive step for a country which was among the first to prize individual liberty and whose lawyers were among the authors of the Convention?Comment
-
Can someone who supports the HRA please explain to me which economic categories of people benefit from it? Genuinely.
I wouldn't have the money to take legal action even if they put a flight path to Heathrow through my bedroom. That is why I am now against it.Comment
-
Well said scottyOriginally posted by scottycelt View Post
Shoulder-to-shoulder with you on that one
Comment
-
Maybe I should answer my own question then. It benefits (a) the extremely wealthy and (b) those who are able to claim taxpayers money for legal support.
In other words, most of us pay for others to enjoy legal protections that are not affordable, or afforded, to us.
While some in the above categories are helped by the HRA for justifiable reasons - lucky them - others work the system much like a millionaire will pay others to become adept at finding every tax loophole under the sun.
It is by definition a regular smack in the face to many who have been loyal and diligent throughout their lives. For that, they are thanked with legislation that in terms of financial accessibility is so grossly unequal that, in itself, it has become an infringement on many - probably most - people's human rights, some of which are fundamental. End it now.Last edited by Guest; 03-09-11, 16:27.Comment
-
I see your point, Lat but what about the points made by Chris Newman in #21 and aeolium in #24?Originally posted by Lateralthinking1 View PostComment
-
Why stop at the HRA though? If you think that, why not simply repeal all laws? It is not a solution to the inequity of legal assistance, or the inadequacy of the legal aid provision, that the protections offered by the law should be withdrawn. What do you have to fall back on in that situation? Nothing except the potentially arbitrary behaviour of institutions, companies and individuals. However imperfect the system for taking grievances to law (and I am opposed to the cutbacks in legal aid), at least there is a system of law which is in theory available to everyone, and an independent judiciary to enforce it. Plenty of countries have neither of those things. We have had all too many restrictions in individual liberties in recent years - we don't want any more as a result of thoughtless kneejerk reactions.Maybe I should answer my own question then. It benefits (a) the extremely wealthy and (b) those who are able to claim taxpayers money for legal support.
In other words, most of us pay for others to enjoy legal protections that are not affordable by, or afforded to, us.
While some in the above categories are helped by the HRA for justifiable reasons - lucky them - others work the system much like a millionaire will pay others to become adept at finding every tax loophole under the sun.
It is by definition a regular smack in the face to many who have been loyal and diligent throughout their lives. For that, they are thanked with legislation that in terms of financial accessibility is so grossly unequal that in itself it has become an infringement on many - probably most - people's human rights. End it now.Comment
-
amateur51 - Thank you for your response. Always good to hear from you. I think Chris is spot on in two respects - (a) the need for a written constitution - and how long has Britain talked about that one? - we were doing so as 18 year olds in school in 1981! and (b) the adolescence of this nation and its "system". How rare it is for the latter to be mentioned, let alone accepted? I cheer loudly - and with a feeling of "thank god someone can see it" - when it happens. It is so unfortunately true.
This dovetails nicely with the second sentence here of aeolium - "But would we really want to be included in that unsavoury group of countries where human rights are held in so little regard that they are not signatories to the Convention? Wouldn't that be a regressive step for a country which was among the first to prize individual liberty and whose lawyers were among the authors of the Convention?" "Among the first", yes, with the country often being described as a "mature" democracy. Probably best to see it more as "Chariots of Air". Started first, finished near to last. I kind of know the feeling but that is a slightly different point!
As for aeolium's first sentence, I regret that the answer is "yes". Or sort of. Or "no". It depends which part. I have no doubts that other countries who think that the HRA is the best thing since sliced bread would stick us in the most unflattering light for breaking with it. An issue of self-dignity but nothing much for us to worry about in the long-term. It would be up to us to say that our actions were not an attempt to move into the lower of two moral divisions but rather to begin a new division above both.
In other words, it has to be done in a different way. Maybe we could get the world's finest to help us do it!Comment
Comment