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?

Sorry don't agree one bit have a child going back next week under article 8 ss did every thing the judgement sited the right to family life I was almost sick

Its one thing to house our own toe rags but I won't pay for illegal immigrants they have broke the law twice once by coming here illegally then again by committing their crime

I think Theresa May has been set up for a fall. Played well with activists but Ken Clarke and the judiciary are miffed about the 'cat' story.

Do you remember that young chap who is being extradited to the USA who is a British citizen. Was it to do with computer hacking or something. It doesn't seem to protect him yet that person who ran over that little girl and killed her seems to be still here.

Maypole it's not case of disagreeing: that's your experience, mine is different. That's experience not opinion.

And I think the illegal immigrant thing is a classic case of baby / bath water: other countries have found ways to solve that without scrapping the HRA. Scrapping all of it throws the good away with the abd.

Reading around a bit more, it's pretty clear that May's comments on the HRA are a sop to the Right of the Tory Party, who are getting pretty restive in the absence of any of the changes on immigration, Europe and so on that they hoped for.

Unless the Coalition can get some kind of assent from Strasbourg that subsection 2 of article 8 of the ECHR is sufficient justification to declare the 'right to family life' is not inalienable, modifying the HRA will make no difference and people fighting deportation will still be able to contest it all the way to the European Court. Or, in other words, it'll make no difference. Hence it's likely that May is offering a choreographed tidbit to the Tory Right so as too deflect from the absence of more rightish policies elsewhere in government.

DC was saying it's not an inalienable right on TV today though, surely if he is saying that he already has some kind of back up?

Seems they would have to ditch coalition first anyway so breathing space at least.

ss 2

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Already allows interference where it "necessary ... for the prevention of disorder or crime" anyway.

It allows for Interference, but anyone could challenge the necessity for interference and cost the taxpayer a fortune as the government tries to prove something nebulous like deporting someone for 'the economIc well-being of the country', at vast expense, all the way to Strasbourg. If the Eurocrats aren't behind any change they'll just make this as tedious as possible, which will mean deporting doesn't get easier, which means nothing actually changes. As I said, it's a sop to the Tory Right.

but anyone could challenge the necessity for interference and cost the
taxpayer a fortune as the government tries to prove something nebulous like
deporting someone for 'the economIc well-being of the country', at vast
expense, all the way to Strasbourg.

This is not as easy as you suggest it might be. I have taken a number of cases to the European Court, but finding funding for doing this is actually quite difficult.

My understanding was that it's not the whole HRA that Theresa May is talking about ditching, but amending the part of Article 8 that allows lawyers to cite things like "right to a family life" when fighting deportation following serious crimes.
The HRA was conceived in the aftermath of WW2, when horrific acts were committed against people. I'm not sure that its proponents then quite had in mind someone claiming that ownership of a cat constituted family life.

No one ever claimed that owning a cat constituted family life.

Apparently the judge referred to the persons ownership of his cat - Maya - in his summing up.

A few examples of poor reporting in relation to human rights claims.
The ECHR came to being largely because the UK wanted to promote standards of human rights in Europe following the Second World War. British lawyers and civil servants were largely responsible for drafting the convention.

The cat thing is nonsense. The man was allowed to stay for his partner iirc.

Anyway, the right to family life should prevent deportation - what if there are children involved? Hardly fair that they should pay for their parents crime.

Dawndonna Mon 03-Oct-11 09:19:15

Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections
So, why would we want to get away from this?
Oh, no more riots, for those who are disenfranchised and disillusioned.
No more protests against government policies.
Gaining the right to throw protesters, not just looters from their homes.
To ensure the disabled are slung in with benefit scroungers.
Teresa May makes me sick.

I agree.^The fact that so many people seem to agree with abolishing this safety net just goes to show how dumb some are.

So someone steals a loaf of bread. They happen to be an immigrant, but their partner is british. So their children will have to live without seeing one of their parents? And this is ok? Sick.

I thought it was deportation if your sentence was 12 months or longer. You wouldn't get 12 minutes for stealing a loaf of bread!

Nobody has ever been able to remain in the UK just because they had a cat. The case Theresa May was citing was one where the person made an application for leave on the basis with his partner. There was a rule at the time that if a non-Brit had lived in the UK with their British partner (or it might have been spouse, I forget) for 2 years without enforcement action, they then had the right to stay. This policy is no longer in force. But it was when he made the application. The Home Office mistakenly failed to apply their own policy, which is not particularly unusual for them, so he was successful on appeal. It wasn't because of some kind of technicality, it was the application of the law. Nor was it because of the cat.

You would not be able to remain in the UK simply because you had a cat (trust me, I know of a lawyer who tried this argument and got told to piss off by the judge!). It's a bit worrying that May is either so ignorant of the ECHR and HRA, or is deliberately lying about it. Neither of those is a good thing!

An abusive parent also would not be able to keep the children simply because of the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life. That right isn't absolute anyway. The issue of whether parents right to family life can lawfully be interfered with by removing their children has long since been settled. It can be, and sometimes it. I certainly don't agree with a lot of the care proceedings system, but the faults in it are VERY DEFINITELY NOT because of human rights law.

Lastly, foreign criminals can be removed from the UK even if they have a partner and children. It happens. Judges and the Home Office are allowed to disregard the interests of British children if the offence is serious enough. There was a case this year called Lee where it happened, can't seem to find the reference though.

Exactly Flange

IIRC the cat was cited as part of the evidence that they had an established relationship and life; presumably alongside a wealth of other evidence. It was not the reason for the decision.

I also wonder where people get the idea from that the ECHR was never intended to be applied to non-nationals. When it was written, 1950, there were a number of countries in Europe hosting reasonably substantial populations of non-nationals and refugees, as there are now. If the (disproportionately British) authors of it had meant it not to apply to this group, why did they not say so?

if anyone would like to read about the facts concerning the judgment to which May refers, they are summed up excellently here - with regard to the final judgment and here - the original which was overturned. As this excellent blogger shows the cat was irrelevant.

I think one of the most salient points he makes - and it worries me that I've not seen it much elsewhere - is that we should not be focusing our energies on whether May's speech was grounded in misinterpreptation/fictionwhatever you want to call it but that the whole party's policy is so based. didn;t think I'd say it but thank the lord for Ken, one of the few Tories who actually understands what the HRA is.

I agree Hatwoman