So should the HR act be replaced ?

[Loosehead]

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?th readID=2284&&&edition=1&ttl=20060626134522

I tend to think that it has been misused by HR lawyers to sue for rediculous things. It also seems to give Human rights to criminals whilst effectively denying them to the General public. eg I can infringe the human rights of a burglar by putting up barbed wire but my human right to not be burgled seems to be secondary. What do ABers think?

[lightoftruth]

what we need to be careful of is that we arent unwittingly allowing a wave on fascist legilslation through. Whilst i would 100% agree that HR law is heavily abused it is one of the frew things we acts as a buffer to stop the government completly taking over.

We are already seeing the right to freedom of speech and protest being eroded my anti-terror legislation. IF we get rid of HR law we have to ask ourselves with the current government ( you are completle awful at drawing up laws) what it will be replaced with???

I for one am scared at the prospect of what they would do. We have already seen that the blair government doesnt give a toss about what the public think

[jake-the-peg]

Wondered who'd post this - I knew I could rely on you ;c)

I think this is a bit of a joke.

Cameron wants to either repeal, replace or ammend the act but can't say how other than he'd set up a commission of highly paid lawyers to look at it.

He wouldn't withdraw from the European Convention of Human rights - which is what the 1998 Human rights act enshrines into UK law.

So the main difference would be instead of taking a case to the courts in the UK you'd have to take it to the courts in Strasbourg.

The lawyers must be rubbing their hands with glee!

Can't understand where Cameron is getting his reputation for just saying what people want to hear!

[Loosehead]

Do agree that the act is being mis used then jake ? I take your point about the proposed replacement.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't know.

I've looked at the act and it's very hard to understand.

There do seem to be differences between how these things are being handled in say France and here but I don't know whether that is due to the 1998 act, other legislation or the way judges are interpreting it.

It's important that we don't return people who'd face torture etc. in their own countries especially if it's for crimes like speaking out against an unpleasnt regieme. But we mustn't become a haven for every petty criminal.

The situation needs looking at by somebody with a good legal head who's preferably not related to any political party and who's not going to swayed by the screaming rants from the tabloids.

I have to say that right now both main parties give the impression that they're scambling to do the bidding of the Sun each week - and that's no way to run a country.

[JudgeJ]

There is little point in repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act (whether it is replaced with something else or not) unless Britain also withdraws from the European Convention on Human Rights on which it was based.

One thing the 1998 Act did was to make it slightly easier for litigants to persue their causes as they could be handled in British courts instead of having to be remitted to Strasbourg. Unfortunately, alongside this somewhat dubious benefit came a large number of drawbacks. Not the least of these is the fact that the 1998 Act is often used in attempts to circumvent British laws which are applied for the benefit of the majority of the population and which have stood the test of time.

The Convention (and hence the Act) are deliberately vague and almost every case raised under its auspices involve an undue amount of interpretation by judges. Furthermore, the perception is that the Act only benefits criminals, terrorists and foreigners. There seems to be some truth in this. When was the last time you read (even in the Guardian) of a ruling being made or action being taken in the name of the Act in favour of a law-abiding British person?

The British constitution and laws are perfectly able to cope with abuses of power by the Government. I don�t recall too many people being held without trial, or tortured or having their right to privacy violated before 1998. In fact there have been more examples since then. I also, though, don�t recall �travellers� attempting to drive a coach and horses (and their caravans) through planning law, or prisoners taking the governor to court in an attempt to exercise their right to be provided with razor blades and pornography.

Far from ensuring that justice is done, it very often impedes that process with its unbalanced emphasis on Rights for wrongdoers.

[jake-the-peg]

It's not too surprising that you don't hear of the act being used to support a "law abiding citizen" because it's pricipally designed to protect individuals from the state.

But I agree repealing the act would do nothing.


I do have to disagree that the british constitution is able to protect us from a Government who is

Is trying to introduce mandatory identity cards

Tried to give the police rights to hold people without charge for 3 months

Then there's the little matter of double jeopardy, trial by jury in fraud cases and most worryingly of all the legislative and regulatory reform bill which plans to give government ministers the rights to introduce, ammend or repeal legislation with little recourse to parliament, no more than a show of hands.

We need the ECHR now as never before with this government.

Brazillian electricians are shot and the police lie about the circumstances, when Moslems have their doors kicked down and are imprisoned on the back of dodgy intelligence.

You're always going on about the government's contempt for the people - would you really want to strip a level of protection from us?