Theresa May wants to scrap the human rights act

[electra]

I heard this on radio 4 at the weekend.

Apparently it's something to do with 'foreigners taking advantage' - wow the tories have a nice way of sounding prejudiced against just about anyone don't they?

What riven said too.

cookcleanerchaufferetc You wrote, "People who follow the law and are good responsible citizens should have human rights." and "I simply want those who uphold the law to be given human rights. "

So if you are caught speeding you don't deserve human rights. They can drag you off, beat you, starve you, etc etc because you have broken the law and therefore have lost your human rights.

That is what you are saying basically.

Agreed...I find it quite sad how many people buy into what the media peddles them.

Maybe I'm just cynical (I blame my Dad being a journalist) but I don't believe ANYTHING until I've looked into it for a while and found research from numerous places.

To go back to the deportation to Italy question. I recall ( though my recall may not be perfect) that the offender had Italian nationality but had not lived there for many years, and may not have been able to speak Italian. All his family were here. I presume this particular offender did not have children, but it is an interesting concept to deprot a foreigh national + family when they are going to somewhere they have not been sice early childhood and where they do not know the language. I don't think this should be a bar to deportation myself as plenty of lovely law abiding eastern europeans have come here not knowing much if any english and have flourished.

Yes, Riven has said what I meant to but I obviously didn't get my point across effectively enough. If Theresa May wants people to stop thinking of the tories as 'the nasty party' she is not doing a great job imo. This government is vile and everything bad I thought would happen if they got power is happening and more.

Exactly, if the criminal has done time for the offence then surely that's what counts.

higgle Yeah the law needs to be flexible/sensible enough so that wouldn't happen. On the other hand if someone turns up here and immediately starts assaulting/robbing etc then we should send them back where they came from.

"I always through Christianity was forced on us by The Romans when they invaded?? Hardly indigenous."

It wasn't forced upon us, but it was hardly "indigenous". There was Christianity in Britain long before Rome took it as it's official religion and begun to be intolerant of any other faith.

The true history is complex and mysterious but it does basically involve "foreigners" coming to this country and trying to change the "native" culture and religion, which is exactly what those who misuse the word "indigenous" rant against and is therefore a very nice demonstration of their ignorance.

If everyone coming to this country had just assimilated themselves into the "native" culture and abandoned their own beliefs then we wouldn't even be pagan but heathen (if not something even earlier). The culture those idiots try to defend only exists because we've always been a dynamic melting pot of ideas, cultures and faiths.

Do they teach in schools these days what Human Rights actually are, and where the Bill of Rights etc. originated? Doesn't seem like it.

People would soon know what they were if they lost them!

Not being funny - but genuinely interested electra - what difference would I, as a normal law-abiding citizen notice, if it was repealed?

Sorry BadgersPaws I was being a bit flippant whilst trying to make a point. I'm aware it's more complex than I was making it sound

ajandjjmum - Maybe look at countries where they don't really have any and see what happens there??

For one thing ajand - the right to privacy would no longer exist in the UK. So, the Post Office could tap your phone and listen to all you conversations and would be legally entitled to do so and you would have no recourse, bar going to the ECHR and asking for them to bring action against the UK government.
Though you'd probably need a constitutional lawyer to find all the loopholes.

"For one thing ajand - the right to privacy would no longer exist in the UK. So, the Post Office could tap your phone and listen to all you conversations and would be legally entitled to do so and you would have no recourse, bar going to the ECHR and asking for them to bring action against the UK government."

Not true....

Phone hacking is mostly covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and not by human rights laws.

As an example of that in action, or not as the case turned out to be, BT came very close to being prosecuted under RIPA when it began snooping on peoples internet activity without their explicit consent. RIPA, not the HRA, is what is used for this sort of thing.

I'm not actually saying that dropping the HRA is a good thing, just that it's not true to say that if we dropped it your phone could be tapped.

Apols. was using an old example (a case that went to the ECHR).

AbsDuWolef They had to get permission to tap phones/read letters long before the HRA was passed.

What it did was make it hard for the government to scrap those other laws protecting us which they could have at any time.

I lived in this country for about 45 years before they HRA appeared so I know it wasn't total anarchy from my own experience.

But - I don't think it would be as bad as countries that are not signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a lot of rights are protected elsewhere. I don't think they're going to start suddenly detaining people without charge and torturing. hopefully.

"I don't think they're going to start suddenly detaining people without charge and torturing. hopefully."

Oddly enough the British Government was detaining people without charge from about 2001 until it was stopped by through application of the HRA in 2004. Control Orders were introduced which could do a lot of things but fell short of allowing people to be actually put in prison.

So if we didn't have HRA then we would probably still be detaining people without charge and if it went away we might well begin doing it again.

Wanting to get rid of the Human Rights Act doesn't equate to being in favour of torture, murder, slavery etc. That's a totally false opposition that just serves to heighten emotions and close down sensible debate.

I do think the HRA is flawed, and manifestly subject to exploitation by people whose only interest in 'human rights' is in exploiting every loophole to protect their own interests. I am also deeply concerned about sovereignty being eroded by the EU, particularly in the light of recent events that have indicated just how fragile the EU is, and how unable it will be to survive into the future without ever-increasing fiscal and political union. More broadly again, I am beginning to feel that the current culture, which increasingly replaces a social contract with a set of legalistic 'rights' is corrosive to the normal, everyday functioning of society.

I would far, far rather have a UK Bill of Rights than a European one, would far rather live in a country where there's a generally accepted sense of right and wrong than have either. I'm in favour of scrapping the HRA.

The HRA implemented the European Convention on Human Rights into Uk law. The Uk was already a signatory to the Convention and was bound by it, so the HRA just means that UK courts, rather than the Eur Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg can hear human rights claims.

So even if the HRA was repealed, the uk would still be bound by the Convention. The organisation responsible for the Convention is the Council of Europe which is nothing to do with the EU. the Council predates the Eu and the UK was a member well before it joined the Eu.

So human rights "problems" shouldn't be blamed on the EU.

Also, the Tories aren't proposing withdrawing from the Council of Europe, or not being bound by the Convention, so we'd still have the same rights.

And of course (bigger picture), these rights are very important and valuable. It's why rape victims can't be cross-examined at trial, it's why we can peacefully protest, it's why states can't engage in degrading and inhumane treatment. How can the right to life, to liberty, to freedom of assembly and expression not be something we cherish and defend with all our might?

And as for why criminals have rights too under the HRA: well the clue is in the name.