General / Off-Topic Scotland exempt from Tories’ Human Rights Act axe
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
That's a shame, and I live in Scotland, if anything needs to change its the Human Rights Act, we need to be
able to get rid of the Hate preachers , because if we don't, all hell is going to break loose!!
able to get rid of the Hate preachers , because if we don't, all hell is going to break loose!!
I'll be interested to see how this one turns out...
Not surprising when we think to the "zero-hour contract" ... it's in the mentality
Last edited:
Yeah! Who needs protection from torture, who actually needs trials? Another thing, no more freedom of thought nevermind expression. Marriage? Ha you'll need permission for that! Get rid of the Human Rights. Best to make one up that controls the people more, and sounds nearly like the old one, but not quite.
Or just the one we have just now.
Or just the one we have just now.
I think we all know where this is heading. The English want their own British Bill of Rights so that it's easier to make modifications to "counteract terrorism". Eventually it will lead them to abolishing the Welfare State, and anyone who finds themselves in debt will have to sell themselves into some sort of indentured servitude to pay their bills.
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
Long live the Empire....wait this isn't a game you are talking about is it? You can tell a lot about a civilization by looking at how they treat the weakest people. I fear at times we do not look like very nice people.
This issue could put Hollyrood and Westminster on a major collision course.
The ECHR has been in place for 65 years.
Westminster can claim it has a technical power to ammend any legislation it passes, even when that legislation included an assurance it wouldn't, but if that argument is accepted it would mean the independence of the USA could also be repealed.
I suspect this is sabre rattling by a very stupid man who is out of his depth, but we shall see.
I think a modern democracy should be capable of deciding what is a reasonable level of human rights without it having to go to the EU. I seem to remember quite a few abuses of this over the years - common sense ones where you'd say "oh come on, this is just silly now". The EU is too soft - all this "right to family life" for convicted murderers, etc, if they have spawned sprogs in this country so cannot be deported. Take away someone else's right to life, lose your right to family life I say.
It is also necessary to recognize that the freedom of expression in United Kingdom was hallucinating. In France when we looked at the Islamist preachers who shouted in the streets in UK, their hatred of the west, we were bewildered
Last edited:
It's specifically when we believe that people shouldn't have rights is when we most need them.
That's one opinion. Mine is that rights come with responsibilities and choices made can, and should, set aside some of those rights. Right to life is a higher priority than a right to a family life - take away someone's right to life then you've failed your responsibility and your rights to a family life are subordinate.
No exceptions. Ever. It has nothing to do with the crime of the criminal, but the sanity of the state and society that has to inflict these punishments.
We all think that. Though I will add that reports about human rights need to be obtained from a reliable source. UK newspapers are little more than comics.
I suspect this report is as much muck raking by journalists as anything else.
The Torys are certainly attempting to milk this, though their purpose is not entirely clear. Westminster and the Tory government doesn't have the authority to impose this on Scotland.
For the record I specifically agree with the HRA because I disagree with it. There are crimes that I personally would kill the perpetrator or torture him. Or inflict many other cruel and unusual punishments.
These laws are there to protect me, my society and my state. Because inflicting certain punishments would change myself, my society and my state.
A Human Right denied for one reason could also then be denied for other less serious crimes once a precedent is set.
These laws are there to protect me, my society and my state. Because inflicting certain punishments would change myself, my society and my state.
A Human Right denied for one reason could also then be denied for other less serious crimes once a precedent is set.
SNP definition of human rights is to ignore the families of victims and allow criminals rights. Example, Pan Am Flight 103 (involved in the Lockerbie bombing) The bomber was allowed to go home, free from prison, because he was ill, ignoring the fact he murdered hundreds.
At the risk of falling foul of Godwins law.....
.
The human rights act was set up as a reaction to the appalling abuses perpetrated by the state. In that case, all the concentration camps, death camps and slave labour was perfectly legal under () German law.
.
The HRA is there to stop abuses by governments, the same people who draft the laws. So saying the laws of a nation should be above the HRA effectively makes the HRA useless.
.
That being said, the HRA does seem to have been abused in some cases, particularly where someone uses it as a shield when they themselves are effectively promoting breaches of the HRA ("I have a right to a family life even though I am preaching that all jews should be killed" or even better "My right to free speech means I can call for anyone who offends the Prophet to be killed")
.
There is also a problem with the perception of the HRA and judgements. There was the case of the illegal immigrant who was allowed to stay "because he had a cat".
.
The real story was this chap had outstayed his (student I think) visa. They were trying to deport him but he was fighting on the grounds that he had a life here. In particular he had a long term (British) girlfriend whom he lived with. This was the basis for "family life" as deporting him would effectively break up the relationship. To prove that they had a long term stable relationship various bits of evidence were produced, testimony from friends, a joint tenancy agreement, and one bit of evidence to show that they were in a stable and potentially long lived relationship was that they had bought a cat together.
.
Not quite the "loony Human Rights" story it first appears.
.
.
I would advocate the UK pushes for more balanced judgments by the ECHR and for the ECHR to limit it's attention to major class actions rather than individual cases, rather than scrapping it entirely. To date the ECHR seems to have been very "by the book" and legalistic. It needs to be more flexible in order to recognize when it is being "played".
.
The human rights act was set up as a reaction to the appalling abuses perpetrated by the state. In that case, all the concentration camps, death camps and slave labour was perfectly legal under () German law.
.
The HRA is there to stop abuses by governments, the same people who draft the laws. So saying the laws of a nation should be above the HRA effectively makes the HRA useless.
.
That being said, the HRA does seem to have been abused in some cases, particularly where someone uses it as a shield when they themselves are effectively promoting breaches of the HRA ("I have a right to a family life even though I am preaching that all jews should be killed" or even better "My right to free speech means I can call for anyone who offends the Prophet to be killed")
.
There is also a problem with the perception of the HRA and judgements. There was the case of the illegal immigrant who was allowed to stay "because he had a cat".
.
The real story was this chap had outstayed his (student I think) visa. They were trying to deport him but he was fighting on the grounds that he had a life here. In particular he had a long term (British) girlfriend whom he lived with. This was the basis for "family life" as deporting him would effectively break up the relationship. To prove that they had a long term stable relationship various bits of evidence were produced, testimony from friends, a joint tenancy agreement, and one bit of evidence to show that they were in a stable and potentially long lived relationship was that they had bought a cat together.
.
Not quite the "loony Human Rights" story it first appears.
.
.
I would advocate the UK pushes for more balanced judgments by the ECHR and for the ECHR to limit it's attention to major class actions rather than individual cases, rather than scrapping it entirely. To date the ECHR seems to have been very "by the book" and legalistic. It needs to be more flexible in order to recognize when it is being "played".
Last edited:
Nice, all laws are abused to a certain extent, but the odd Loony Example doesn't justify throwing out the whole shibang.