Human rights question

[petitchoupette]

Hi folks, I'm a bit confused, so hopefully you can help me to clear something up?
In the aftermath of the election, I am trying to gt my head around a couple of issues, but it is difficult to obtain a clear picture of them due to the hysteria and extreme reactions on internet forums/paper comments, etc.

So can you nice, straight talking people at MN help me out?

It's a simple question regarding the issue surrounding Theresa May and her wish to curtail 'human rights'. Is this as simple and diabolical as it appears? And why would anyone support this?

Please do tell me, if you voted for this party, how you would excuse this detail your mind. Please don't skirt around it, just tell me what she means and why you support it.

I am confused by this election more than any other that I've lived through, and honestly do not know what I think of any major party anymore.

detail in your minds, oops.

Not clear. They'll be repealing the current Act, but by replacing it with a new one.

Until we see that draft legislation, it's not possible to tell. And it's all tied in with their negotiations for EU reform too. If they secure any major changes in EU agreements, then a new law will be needed to enact it (this would be true of any issue renegotiated regardless of party in government).

Thanks.
All I'm hearing here is that the party wish to abolish rights for workers, so that employers shall be able to 'abuse' them.

It is hard separating the hysteria from fact.
That said, I do not warm to this individual. (understatement).

I think they want to scrap the EU Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The argument is about Strasbourg telling us to give voting rights to prisoners, stopping us deporting terrorists etc

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-conference-cameron-announces-plans-to-scrap-human-rights-act-9767435.html

It is all tied up with political correctness gorn mad and the ascendancy of the judiciary and even a foreign judiciary over Parliament. The progressives in the Labour Party took us into it - Blair etc. It seems to be one more step in possibly limiting sovereignty od Parliament and placing it in the hands of a supranational unelected judiciary.

Lots of Tory MPs want to scrap it.

www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/293281/Human-rights-law-is-undermining-UK-s-democracy

This is one of the issues the opposition should have made more an issue of. Hard won Human rights being removed is a disgrace. The masses punished for poor legislation for the Judiciary.

'All I'm hearing here is that the party wish to abolish rights for workers, so that employers shall be able to 'abuse' them.'

No it's not about that. That is what the progressives will claim. It is about scrapping what Blair and his progressives did in 1998 when they took us into it.

It's not the end of workers' rights.

We still have human rights and we are subject to the European Convention of Human Rights anyway. But it seems to involve changes about where cases may be tried etc

"Britons who want to bring cases would, however, no longer be able to have them heard by a high court first. Instead, they would face delays and extra costs in taking cases directly to Strasbourg. Before the 1998 Act “brought rights home”, it took an average of five years at a cost of £30,000 to go to Strasbourg."

But the British Bill of Rights would allow cases to be tried here. But it all depends on what is in the Bill of Rights and what may be removed.

"But what about a British bill of rights? If a British version were to be introduced to replace the Human Rights Act, it could restore the right of domestic courts to hear cases in this legal milieu without the need to go directly to Strasbourg.

Some Labour politicians argue that if all it means is putting a British badge on the Human Rights Act, then they are fairly relaxed about the development.

But it will depend on how the British bill of rights is written. If it is regarded as an opportunity to remove some human rights and becomes “HRA minus”, then the challenge for its supporters would be to state what rights they wish to take away from British citizens."

www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/01/scrapping-human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights

The HRA (Human Rights Act 1998) incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law so that the vast majority of human rights claims in the UK are dealt with here not in Strasbourg.
The ECHR is not an EU creation and predates the EU. It comes under the auspices of the Council of Europe. The Convention was largely a British initiative, supported by Churchill, to ensure that the fundamental rights that underpin the UK legal systems should be enjoyed throughout Europe following WWII. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is not an EU court. There is much debate in the UK judiciary as to how far they should or should not follow Strasbourg judgments.
The EU has is a Charter of Fundamental Rights which incorporates the ECHR and further rights into EU law. The UK signed up to this in the Lisbon Treaty as have the other Member States.
Chris Grayling produced a paper on the British Bill of Rights etc last year.

I think what I'm most disturbed by is that they have said they'll abolish the existing legislation but not specified precisely what they intend to replace it with.

It's like they've said they'll make £12 billion of cuts but refused to say where.

It's why people are scared and mistrustful.

Thanks so much for taking the time to write your thoughts, it is really helpful and much appreciated:)

The cases that seemed to rile people most were:

Forcing insurers to ignore gender when setting motor policy claims

Banning a blanket ban on prisoners right to vote

The idea is that a British bill of rights would be heard only by judges in the UK and that cases in the ECHR heard about non-British citizens would not automatical alter UK law and practice.

Overview of Conservative policy from Carl Gardener, human rights and European law barrister;

"The broad description of the policy is that it would

Repeal Labour’s Human Rights Act

and

Put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation.

Taken with the rest of the proposals, it’s clear the Conservatives have plumped for what I called Option 2 in my piece earlier this week: a cosmetic rebranding and fairly substantial amendment of the Human Rights Act. But nothing in this policy paper would affect the UK’s position in international law: it does not involve withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, or leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court.

The key changes intended are as follows:

UK judges would no longer have to take European Court of Human Rights judgments into account in our courts;

some European Court judgments would be treated as just advisory, rather than as binding on the UK – a special Parliamentary procedure would be set up to consider whether to comply with them;

UK judges would lose the ability to “reinterpret” Acts of Parliament so they comply with human rights;

the Bill would only apply on UK territory, so no human rights challenges could be brought in our courts to the conduct of British forces abroad;
Ministers would no longer be required to comply with international law or the UK’s treaty obligations;

human rights would only apply in “serious” cases, not in “trivial” ones, and
it’d be made easier to remove people from the UK by changing legal tests about the risk of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and by ending the ability of some criminals to argue that they have family ties here."

And the conclusion;

"I wouldn’t say the plan signifies nothing; but it’s not as significant at it sounds."

Full post and further analysis on the Head of Legal blog here;

www.headoflegal.com/2014/10/03/full-of-sound-and-fury-on-human-rights/

The argument is about national sovereignty. As I understand it, no-one wants to turn Britain into a dictatorship full of human rights abuses. But many object to the idea that a supranational, unelected and unaccountable court has final say - greater power - than a democratically elected government. So the idea is not to abolish human rights but to replace the existing unaccountable system with one that is accountable to the British electorate. There will be some who spin this as an evil attempt to abolish human rights but the reality is that no-one wants to do that - this is about national sovereignty.

The right wing press are in general for it and the Guardian is against it. Reading the arguments of both, the right wing case seems to be stronger, but I am no a legal expert

www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/oct/03/uk-bill-of-rights-national-newspapers

However, Toby Young says that we may regret doing it

"You’ll regret not having a Human Rights Act when Labour get back in

It’s bad being bossed about from Strasbourg. But the risks of the alternative are worse
...
In that scenario, there’d be nothing to prevent a despotic Labour government riding roughshod over human rights, such as the right to free speech."

www.spectator.co.uk/life/status-anxiety/9336851/youll-regret-not-having-a-human-rights-act-when-labour-get-back-in/

I must admit I don't like the sound of that one little bit. I paraphrase what Thatcher said

"No Mr Delors, we shall not have political correctness gorn mad by the back door"

What we need on this is Xenia. I haven't seen her for ages, is she still on here? We missed her common sense during the entire election campaign. Has she been banned or something?

If so, I hope she has taken it to Strasbourg. Free speech is the cornerstone of all our liberties.

WHo decides whats trivial?

Thanks again everyone.
I've found it virtually impossible to achieve a calm and rational view of these issues online, and even amongst friends.

Regardless what our beliefs of who we vote for I think that it is far more productive to communicate without insults flying and scare tactics. This site, along with metafilter are the only sources online where I've actually been able to 'listen' to those who think differently to me.

If you want to read intelligent discussion rather than ill informed Daily Mail/Daily Express rants the Headoflegal blog mentioned below and Adam Wagner's UK Human Rights Blog are both good reading - and the comments left by readers are also mainly well informed and reasoned.
Xenia is still around from time to time but uses other names.

Speaking of Xenia (no idea there) whatever happened to Ttosca the resident leftie ?
(sorry to but in btw!)

Is blacksunday ttosca? I don't know but seems similar

Stuff here.

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigning/save-our-human-rights-act

And remember that Theresa May now has no LibDem resistance to bringing in her "Snooper's Charter".

It should be said that apart from the human rights legislation which is a separate issue during the last government the Beescroft report suggested changing employment legislation including proposals to allow employers to make no-fault dismissals. Some people call it "firing at will." This was overruled by the LibDems but now they are no longer in coalition the Tories could look at it again. See;

www.gov.uk/government/news/beecroft-report-on-employment-law

STIDW I think this is an excellent suggestion. Oh and ignore Liberty propaganda on the human rights stuff.