http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/homepage_EN
We hear a lot of criticism about the Human Rights Act and the the European Court of Human Rights.
Do you believe the Human Right Act and ECHR are appropriate for the UK?
We hear a lot of criticism about the Human Rights Act and the the European Court of Human Rights.
Do you believe the Human Right Act and ECHR are appropriate for the UK?
news.bbc.co.uk
Article-by-Article guide to the Human Rights Act.
H.A.
I believe that Human Rights are appropriate for everyone - but not if it is used to commit illegal activities. And thats all I have to say about that really.
J.Z.H.
Not at all, the EU idea does not take into account the needs and culture of individual nations, and what they seek to protect. If anything it is an attempt to use a similar aggressive foreign policy to the US government which seek to push their cultural philosophy onto other nations and peoples. The idea here seems to be the gradual erosion of borders by diluting national identities. I for one love and embrace the differences between European countries. Each has it's own history and common identity and Brussells should not in a few decade seek to destroy these identities which have taken hundreds or thousands of years to create.
K.M.
When I go to Spain, I go there because I want to see Spanish culture/people. The same applies all over the world. The EU is very anti European.
J.R.
It's not so much the Human Rights and and ECHR per se. It's more the implementation and judges' interpretation of it. Under European Law, if a nutter judge in Austria (for example) makes a judgement in relation to the ECHR, that precedent applies across Europe until or unless the court in Strasbourg says differently. Also, our own judges, have made some pretty weird interpretations too. The worry is that these judges are unelected and unaccountable - yet they are effectively creating law by their judgements. I'm not a fan of Tony Benn's politics generally, but he has some good things to say about power and democracy. He says there are three things to ask a person in power:
1) What power have you got?
2) Where did you get it from?
3) In whose interest do you exercise it?
4) To whom are you accountable?
5) And how can I get rid of you?
Ask these of a judge and you won't like the answers.
21 September at 11:34 · Like
James Rigby *five things!
B.H.
The problem is in the wording. All sorts of unforeseen legal actions may be brought under the provisions; many of them deeply offensive to law-abiding and hard-working citizens.
K.M.
Nobody should interfere in others' laws. The people, not government, should decide the laws. Iran as an example, has some awful laws which it's people hate. But it's not up to any other country to change them, it's up to Iranians. Well, that's my view anyway.
F.G.
The ECHR fails in its most fundamental duty to uphold every ones international human Rights by each member state. Its duties should be limited to its involvement to uphold the EU treaties member states have signed so the first people on top of its hit list of cases should be all members of government who have broken the Maastricht treaty on Government Budgets and debts. Then it might gain more credibility and support by the people it supposed to serve rather than protect
S.F.
Only horrible things: right to life, not to be tortured, freedom of conscience... TERRIBLE indeed!!
S.F.
the HRA is independant from the EU so lots of the comments on this thread are fairly irrelevant to the subject.
K.F.
I struggle to get my head around the fact that people are outraged that their individual human rights are protected in law?
M.R.
So Fi....are you surprised?
M.R.
K.M......how would you suggest the people of the UK made laws?
M.R.
K.M....what happens in Spain that you feel is so un-Spanish? Lest I state the obvious, Spain is in Europe, as is the UK.....
M.R.
Perhaps people would be happier with the UN Declaration, which pre-dates the HRA by many years:http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
F.G.
just a pity our human rights are not always upheld by those responsible for delivering and upholding law. Its them we often need protection from.
M.R.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.
M.R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
M.R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998
M.R.
Perhaps once people have read the above, they may understand what Human Rights are, and why they are as applicable in the UK as anywhere else in the World. I would be very interested in debating with anyone who has read to above, to hear why they feel Human Rights are not required in the UK....
J.Z.H.
The HRA isn't independent of the EU it's an integral part of membership of the union, and what you are describing are laws already in existance. Plus, it is not ethical for one nations constitution or laws to be dictated by others, unless they lead to suffering of the population under the state's government. Do not forget that the ECHR led to the creation of the European Court of Human Rights - a federal court which has the power to override legal rulings made by courts in member nations, as do foreign nationals within the EU have the power to interfere with other member states politics (see Art 16 of the ECHR). Kind of a slap in the face to any autonomy states have. The EU as pointed out above is most definitely anti-European, and the ECHR is a waste of time, as the existance of the protocols shows, and due to the fact that most countries have these laws already in place.
J.R.
As far as I can see the only problem (?) with the ECHR is that it actually rules and enforces human rights legislation, unlike the UN, which sits on it's hands whistling Dixie. I cannot think of an ECHR ruling that I have disagreed with but I guess there's time. Perhaps instead of whingeing people should cast their minds back to why we have HR legislation!?
M.R.
Joel....I think you have just destroyed your own argument.....yes, the ECHR should be a "back-stop", but strangely the UK did not have Human Rights legislation until 1998!
Alan Wyllie
I was so proud when the HRA came into Law. We(The UK) should be proud of that act.
J.R.
Look back to the dark days before the Human Rights Act was passed. All that torture, slavery, unlawful imprisonment, free speech and association limited that went on in the 50,s 60s, 70s and 80s.
K.F.
You have confused me more Joel ? How can you object to your human rights being protected , wherever you may be in Europe ?
I can only imagine how apoplectic with rage you would be if your human rights were legally protected right across the globe!
A.P.
The key thing here is that the ECHR is not always consistent with the prevailing views of the British population. Britain has a democratically elected parliament and I don't think it's acceptable for the European courts, presided over by unelected judges and unelected European Commissioners, to gainsay that view. There have been several cases where the ECHR has been at odds with the majority of the British public.
Beyond that, the ECHR represents part of a much wider issue with the European Union.
From Wikipedia:
"Member States cannot exercise competence in areas where the Union has done so."
These areas include:
the internal M.R.et
social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty
economic, social and territorial cohesion
agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources
environment
consumer protection
transport
trans-European networks
energy
the area of freedom, security and justice
common safety concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty
The areas mentioned pretty much cover all aspects of government. In essence, the Lisbon Treaty gives the EU license to almost entirely sideline national government over time and I don't consider that to be acceptable.
A.P.
S.F."Only horrible things: right to life, not to be tortured, freedom of conscience... TERRIBLE indeed!!"
You've glossed over the the lack of a right to eject those that enter the country from abroad and break its laws.
S.F.
"You've glossed over the the lack of a right to eject those that enter the country from abroad and break its laws."
Did I?
S.F.
\\http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-threatens-to-scrap-human-rights-act-477989.html\\
S.F.
"* Neither the convention nor the European Court is linked to the EU or Brussels. The ECHR is a separate international agreement signed by 46 countries, including Russia and Turkey."
So Fi
\\http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/human-rights-act-myths/index.php\\
"The HRA was independently passed by the UK Parliament in 1998. It incorporates the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Convention was adopted by the Council of Europe in 1950 – a body set up after WWII to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe. This body is completely separate to the EU. The UK played a major role in the negotiations and drafting of the Convention which it voluntarily adopted in 1951. "
S.F.
So again if you want to discuss the merits of being or not being in the EU please start a new thread.
M.R.
James...there were indeed instances of torture and unlawful imprisonment and restriction on free speech before 1998, and they continue....but at least now we have a framework whereby people can now obtain justice....
F.G.
they might have passed it but they blatantly ignore it and no court holds it up unless its pressured too. Dont be fooled about OUR RIGHTS cos I can assure you few care to be honest
M.R. Adam.....let me see "The key thing here is that the ECHR is not always consistent with the prevailing views of the British population. Britain has a democratically elected parliament"....and the British Government brought in its own Human Rights Act.....are you saying that because you, personally, happen to disagree with Human Rights legislation, that you represent the whole country? Perhaps we are "not worthy" to debate with you?
M.R.
Frank...still on Planet Paranoia?
K.M.
Welcome back M.R..
M.R., we already have our own laws in the UK, why do we need anybody else interfering with them?
K.M.
On the Spain comment, M.R., the same thing happens in Spain as what happens here in the UK. It doesn't feel very British anymore in 'some' parts of the UK. As Joel put it "The idea here seems to be the gradual erosion of borders by diluting national identities."
So go one, call me the 'B' word......
K.M.
*on, lol :o/
K.M.
Plus it took me years to learn Spanish, lol, so I really hope they don't lose their national language ;)
A.K.
The European convention of Human rights in the main is a good thing..But Strasbourg has too much power and overides member states legal systems...As we saw with the votes for priosoners...If we had not complied we would be open to fines or compensation claims..
Some of the laws are stupid like how curved a banana should be...a yorkshire pud must be baked in Yorkshire.....I think we need to get back to go old common sense...
This charter is not working we need a plan B....
S.O.
"New research out this week shows one in seventeen (6%) people lose their home after being diagnosed with cancer and one in six (18%) have difficulties in keeping up with their mortgage or rental payments.
For those with cancer who are self-employed, the figure is higher still with one in nine (11%) losing their home, according to Macmillan Cancer Support, who say over 250,000 people are diagnosed with cancer in the UK each year."
These are myths, total lies created by the rubbish British tabloid press!
A.P.
No M.R., I'm absolutely positive that the majority of people would want foreigners convicted of crimes such as rape to be deported. You're not seriously suggesting otherwise are you?
A.P.
6% of people diagnosed with cancer lose their homes? Do only 6% of cancer sufferers die? Sorry, bad taste!
S.F.
wrong thread dear!
M.J.N
I think we need to scrap both and introduce a UK Bill of rights. The new bill must have proper rights, not 'right' which allow for criminal activity.
M.R.
Adam....refresh my memory, where do you live?
R.F.
Skip to the end without reading anything then post my own opinion... ECHR rocks. We shouldn't need it of course, but our country is just too full of sociopathic scumbags who can't tell rights from wrongs.
No comments:
Post a Comment