Plus, even if the man would have been allowed to stay only because of the cat - what harm would that have done, in the end, compared to the harm done by not holding up the human rights above all other laws?
Last edited:
General / Off-Topic Scotland exempt from Tories’ Human Rights Act axe
- Thread starter Surfinjo
- Start date
Plus, even if the man would have been allowed to stay only because of the cat - what harm would that have done, in the end, compared to the harm done by not holding up the human rights above all other laws?
The problem is a simple one.
The EU human rights is really for civil law countries, where any laws can be codified. The UK is common law (Set by precedent). No matter how one wants to value the human rights act it will never really work with the UK legal system.
Scotland has a unique legal system, for good or bad. It is in some cases very strange, yet in others a benchmark of good sense.
The UK may find itself in a position where it may have to make huge payments if it does not pull out of the deal.
I suspect that if The UK was to pull from the act, I suspect Scotland would too. Maybe because they could get a better deal in the UK.
As for the human rights horror stories, most are nonsense made up for shady newspapers.
Is the act a good thing? For the most part yes, but the issues it does have are not popular in the current climate.
The EU human rights is really for civil law countries, where any laws can be codified. The UK is common law (Set by precedent). No matter how one wants to value the human rights act it will never really work with the UK legal system.
Scotland has a unique legal system, for good or bad. It is in some cases very strange, yet in others a benchmark of good sense.
The UK may find itself in a position where it may have to make huge payments if it does not pull out of the deal.
I suspect that if The UK was to pull from the act, I suspect Scotland would too. Maybe because they could get a better deal in the UK.
As for the human rights horror stories, most are nonsense made up for shady newspapers.
Is the act a good thing? For the most part yes, but the issues it does have are not popular in the current climate.
i think you misunderstand.
.
Some ECHR decisions do seem to be very poor.
.
however some of the "loony" decisions are less looney and more reasonable when the full facts are known.
.
The prisoner votes issue seems to be a silly one, except (AFAIK) the ECHR only says that the blanket ban on every prisoner voting is unlawful, not that all prisoners should vote. E.g. someone in for 14 days for contempt of court can't vote if that occurs over polling day. The UK gov has dragged it's heels on this one, probably because it sounds bad politically to "give prisoners the vote" even if it was actually "give some prisoners the vote".
.
When a group of prisoners sued the uk gov in the ECHR over this they won, but the ECHR declined to award any damages (which is probably what they were after).
.
But effectively leaving (because by making a national court superior to the ECHR that is effectively what you are doing) the HRA we are taking a step in the wrong direction. China stays within it's legal framework when it arrests and executes people. So did Burma, Zimbabwe, Apartheid South Africa and pretty much every Human Right violating state in history.
I didn't misunderstand at all. The Odd Looney example (even if it's a thousand) is still just that. Most of the time HRA works, it's when it doesn't we hear the reports of the Crazy HRA.
The problem is the perception of a need to examine the issue is contrived.
But the issue is, do we trust any government to rewright a list of what will be our human rights?
More importantly, once it has been done once, how can we prevent another government doing it again?
The ECHR has been around for about 65 years. It's really only in the last few years that it has become a political issue and it seems most of those issues are either isolated or ficticious.
Seems like we're on the same page here. I was pointing out that some of the daily mail headlines about the "loony HRA" which seem to make the HRA out as some sort of nutty pamper the criminal/punish the victim organisation, are actually not that loony and even fairly sensible if you look at the facts
:
The Health and Safety at Work act also gets similar stick with stories about kids being banned from playing conkers etc. Yet it saves the lives of around 500 people a year (not to mention those saved from disability and injury).
Doesn't the very idea that the government is seriously considering doing this send a shiver down your spine? It does me. What next i wonder.
Quite..................................
