Human Rights Act

[Vivkins3]

Please could somebody explain to me exactly what advantages this piece of legislation was intended to confer on the indigenous British people? As a law-abiding citizen, I thought my Human Rights were ok BEFORE this Act was passed but it seems to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any crook or scum who wants to break the law.

[jim360]

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Sometimes you can't get a simplistic answer because there isn't one. The point here is that while you may not notice this Act influence your daily life, it is still important. It makes things such as education, healthcare, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from sexual, racial and gender discrimination, and so on, rights that cannot be taken away. It gives you a right to a fair trial, and right to privacy. It protects the right to Democratic elections.

All of these we had already, although some of them took a while, but as long as the Act exists they cannot be removed legally. Hence it is a protection from the whims of government.

[Gavmacp]

"don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer!"

[FredPuli43]

The idea behind it was to drag other countries up to a certain level, which we were already at. We were not signing up to add any 'rights' to those that existed here. We already had, in place, laws and procedures to stop government or other intervention and to guarantee family life free of hindrance , Sharingan. Asked to define what right the Human Rights Act gave us and which we did not have before, I doubt whether any lawyer, however ingenious, could identify one.

[jake-the-peg]

The UK was already a signatory to the European convention on Human Rights

This has nothing to do with the EU of course

Before this act the UK government was forever trotting over to the Court of Human Rights to plead various cases

The act simply embodies the convention into British law so British Judges can hear and decide such cases.

If the Act were repealed all that would happen is the Government would spend loads of money trotting over to the European court for cases to be held over there.


The Newspapers have stirred up so much self-righteous public anger against 'the act' and they have neglected to point out that its repeal would have zero effect unless we withdrew from the European Convention on Human Rights

[Vivkins3]

Well it seems that nobody CAN actually give me an answer to my question. I'm certainly getting a lot of stick from one particular Madam. What I would like to know is what advantages it was intended to condfer upon the average person that THEY DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE. It seems to have done nothing for me (and other law abiding people) but LOTS for the likes of Abu Qatada.

[bednobs]

i thought fredpuli HAD given you an answer. to your question. Must get my glasses out.

[jim360]

I HAVE given you an answer. If you don't like the answer that's your choice, but it is an answer all the same. Human Rights legislation enshrines in law all the rights we, for the most part, already had -- and makes clear that they are Human Rights and not just "nice people" rights. True, for the most part it's an issue mainly for the "not nice". But that doesn't stop it helping the nice people - it's just that it's less noticeable.

[Peter Pedant]

when you said your rights were OK BEFORE the act,
you were just saying you didnt know you were alive

because obviously they werent

Before the act - you had various rights which could be whittled (and frequently were) away - but the HRA are settled.

Reviews of ministerial decisions - [the man at the ministry REALLY does know best.... Douglas Jay 1947 I think] - became MUCH easier because the old rule - wednesbury perversity - the judges would only overturn if no reasonable minister would have done that - was augmented by one of proportionality.

I have to say I dread repeal of the Act