Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Not to want to lose my human rights on the whim of a government minister?

301 replies

SecondRateFrog · 17/10/2021 18:45

Dominic Raab says he wants to bring in a system which allows the Government to legislate against UK court judgements in human rights cases if it doesn't like them. Without going through a debate or a vote in Parliament.
Is this the end of the role of the courts in our democracy?
"Raab threat to ‘correct’ court judgments is ‘deeply troubling’, warn legal experts"
It's in The Telegraph too.
uk.yahoo.com/news/raab-threat-correct-court-judgments-144345935.html

OP posts:
MamsellMarie · 18/10/2021 05:12

What is this about - being able to return immigrant criminals to their country of birth? Stopping someone gluing themselves to the motorway ? Or what?

mathanxiety · 18/10/2021 05:16

It could potentially affect every single aspect of your life, MamselMarie.

If the law is what the government of the day says it is, then government can do what it wants.

MamsellMarie · 18/10/2021 05:31

It could potentially affect every single aspect of your life, MamselMarie.

Examples please.

The scottish government have removed the word 'mother' from all gov policies - they didn't need a change in powers for that. I find that more scary.

travellinglighter · 18/10/2021 06:03

@Viviennemary

Yes. The government are our representatives voted in. Not judges.
You misunderstand. The judges interpret existing law. If a law is wrong it should be changed by parliament not by ministers. You should not change law without parliamentary scrutiny.
Marchingredsoldiers · 18/10/2021 06:24

I find it scary. If I have got it right, there are a few attacks on democrary going on:

  • reorganisation of electoral boundaries, so the conversatives can be in forever (MN caveat: exagerating slightly)
  • effective removal of the right to protest (not an exageration)
  • this

I swear there are others too.

ivykaty44 · 18/10/2021 06:27

*So ministers would be making laws. Not the courts, and not Parliament.+

That’s not democratic

And extremely worrying

mellongoose · 18/10/2021 06:46

@SecondRateFrog

The commentary says that Raab appears to intend to use secondary legislation (so regulations I think) to quickly overturn court judgements that the government isn't happy with. So ministers would be making laws. Not the courts, and not Parliament.
Secondary legislation is debated in Parliament in the form of statutory instruments, I believe. I may be wrong.
Iggly · 18/10/2021 06:48

@Viviennemary

Yes. The government are our representatives voted in. Not judges.

The judges are deliberately not elected. What happens when the government acts illegally?

Which it does sometimes?

NotDonna · 18/10/2021 06:51

What’s instigated this? I’m trying to understand the why; Raab’s rationale.

Iggly · 18/10/2021 06:51

@MamsellMarie

What is this about - being able to return immigrant criminals to their country of birth? Stopping someone gluing themselves to the motorway ? Or what?
It doesn’t matter what it is about.

What matters is the principle. There is a clear difference between those who set the law and those who judge if someone has broken that law.

If someone decides that actually they don’t like the law they set (or someone previous has has), and they then change it to suit them, we have a problem.

It could be used for all sorts of things, and we wouldn’t always know because we’d be relying on the likes of the ever diminishing independent press to report it.

Iggly · 18/10/2021 06:52

@NotDonna

What’s instigated this? I’m trying to understand the why; Raab’s rationale.
Why?
HarebrightCedarmoon · 18/10/2021 06:57

YANBU. Especially not if it was Raab himself deciding, the thick twat.

@Viviennemary Fucking hell. Put the internet down and read a book. Particularly one which contains the words Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.

PersephoneJames · 18/10/2021 07:05

Scary.

I don’t know whether the UK needs a proper assault on its democracy is order for its citizens to appreciate it more. Selfishly I’d have preferred it to have been before I was born!

I wonder if this is to tie in with Patel wanting to remove all threats of prosecution for any border force worker who causes a death at sea. I expect pesky judges aren’t as malleable about the definition of manslaughter depending on the victim’s travel means.

HugeAckmansWife · 18/10/2021 07:10

We do actually need some non elected to have a say. Judges are people of great learning and intelligence. Politicians are popular. Love Island is popular. The Sun newspaper is popular. Non elected judges and Lords (to a lesser extent) can scrutinise and apply their judgement without needing to worry about what will appeal to those who can't see past the end of their noses. The judiciary is also slowly becoming less male, white and elderly which allows for a greater breadth of understanding. Terrifying that their judgements could be summarily overturned by the mates of a PM who fewer than half the country voted for with no chance for the whole parliament to oppose that.

Mummyoflittledragon · 18/10/2021 07:17

This is very worrying and dictatorship seems more and more likely the current Tory cronies end game. Power mad and not very bright.

speakupattheback · 18/10/2021 07:21

@Viviennemary

I agree. Why do a few judges have the right to overturn the government. It's mad.
Because the law is the law. If you want to see how giving the government the right to make the law turned out, I refer you to Nazi Germany.
Theredjellybean · 18/10/2021 07:24

@Viviennemary
I'll put it in simple analogy for you..

Dominic raab's best friend knocks down and kills a small child because he is driving while drunk.
He goes to court and is found guilty.
Judge gives him a five Yr prison sentence.
But Dominic is unhappy with this and so with his shiny new ministerial power he overturns it, as he thinks the judge was wrong.
Happy with that are you?
Think that's OK?

What if that child was your son or daughter??

Still think it's mad that unelected judges get to decide how to interpret the law?

Theredjellybean · 18/10/2021 07:26

I appreciate that is unlikely and a very simple example that would likely never happen but if people are so unable to understand our governance structure then I think it's only way to get them to get it!

skodadoda · 18/10/2021 07:30

@DoctorTwo

It's quite scary when you think about it. Law by governmental decree. That could go so wrong, especially with this bunch of corrupt arseholes. I predict legal chaos.
This
PersephoneJames · 18/10/2021 07:30

They’ll be able to get it through because he’s selling it as a flag waving “no European court should be able to tell us Brits what to do” policy, and only muttering “no British judges either” under his breath.

Warmduscher · 18/10/2021 07:33

@Theredjellybean

I appreciate that is unlikely and a very simple example that would likely never happen but if people are so unable to understand our governance structure then I think it's only way to get them to get it!
I don’t know why anyone is engaging with viviennemary when she’s demonstrated so many times on here that she’s not knowledgable about anything she pronounces on, she’s not interested in a discussion and she’s not willing to understand and learn from when she gets entirely the wrong end of the stick.
lightand · 18/10/2021 07:35

Something or someone seems to have made top people think they can do anything they want.

Bizarre

EdgeOfTheSky · 18/10/2021 07:44

@Viviennemary

Yes. The government are our representatives voted in. Not judges.
Courts and judges deliver the law.

It takes parliament to make or change law.

BigGreen · 18/10/2021 07:45

This is very scary. Thanks for posting, I hadn't realised.