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.

It's complicated by the fact that Human Rights is not a reserved WM matter, and the SNP will not repeal the Human Rights Act. I'm not sure about wales and NI (in fact it could have all manner of repercussions in NI) but in theory it could be an England only repeal

Good luck with that one. I suppose UKIP can spin it that all the terrorists with move to Scotland!

OK, here's the list of rights currently protected under the HRA. Either this 'British Bill of Rights' will be identical, in which case it's a waste of time, or some the fundamental freedoms listed below will be removed, which is worrying.

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 rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections

Aside from this, the ongoing crackdown on the scope of judicial review is a really worrying development, as it allows the public to hold public bodies to account when they act beyond their powers.

There are a number of peers who will oppose the bill by proposing rather better clauses than the parliamentary draftsmen but they can't stop it indefinitely as the Commons will vote down the amendments.
Chris Grayling hated judicial review as his view was that public authorities are always right. I expect Gove will have a similar view, so woe betide you if a public authority treats you unfairly in future.

There are a number of peers who will oppose the bill by proposing rather better clauses than the parliamentary draftsmen but they can't stop it indefinitely as the Commons will vote down the amendments.

In any case, under the Salisbury convention, the Lords are obliged to pass Bills which are manifesto commitments of the party that won.

Yes, it's hard to have an argument against the 'Tories are cunts' line when you see all the rights they want to their citizens to no longer have. And then there is Theresa May's snooping charter.

Having said that, Labour's ID card proposal (2010) was horrific. Was one of the many reasons I started moving away from them

Yep, I didn't vote Labour in 2010 specifically over civil liberties issues.

Interesting blog post on the Salisbury Convention

This is not scare-mongering, but the Conservatives have form for "interpreting" human rights in ways which they sell very well to the general public but which truly affect ordinary and innocent people. The example I have in mind is their talk about article 8 (the right to a family life) being a "qualified" right. This talk surrounding a change in immigration rules a few years ago which made it a requirement for the British spouse of any non-EU applicant for a spousal visa to be earning over £18,600 (to be clear, the income requirement was placed on the British spouse, not the incoming spouse). This effectively disqualifies almost half of the population from living in the country of their birth with the person they love, should that person happen to be a non-EU citizen.

This change was talked about in the press exclusively in terms of protecting Britain from ridiculous cases such as terrorists claiming the right to stay in British prisons under article 8 due to having a cat in the UK. The change in rules may have resulted in a couple of prisoners being deported, but by and large it has affected people in genuine, loving relationships. In some cases it has seen children separated from one parent when the non-EU spouse comes from a country where it would be far from ideal to raise a child - so the non-EU spouse goes and the UK spouse stays, and effectively becomes a single parent. In other cases it has resulted in British citizens being forced to leave the country of their birth. No matter how lovely your spouse's country, if, as a couple, you have chosen to build a life and a home in the UK, such a shift is pretty shattering. And there is, of course, no guarantee that the British spouse would get a visa in the non-EU spouse's country.

When ordinary couples were talked about the "qualified" rights were justified in terms of the economic safety of the UK, arguing that this ensured that non-EU spouses didn't arrive only to take benefits. This was nonsense because spousal visas do not allow holders to claim anything other than primary benefits, i.e. education for their children and NHS healthcare.

The above is what the Conservatives can do with the protection of the European Convention of Human Rights. I do not trust them to interpret a "British Bill of Human Rights" in a way that would not harm innocent people. They have said they fully intend to "qualify" more of the rights given in the ECHR, and that human rights should only be invoked in extreme cases. This is no cosmetic change.

I agree with getting rid of this. It has been used by clever lawyers to some disgraceful ends. Somebody couldn't be deported who ran over and killed a teenager. Drunk driving. His human rights would be violated. It's shocking. And it's being replaced by something else which will do what it's meant to be in the true spirit of Human Rights. Not a criminals charter for cowards to hide behind.

Viviennemary

That only works if a government is utterly scrupulous, and uses a change which prevents the cases you describe ONLY to prevent those cases - rather than for other purposes which result in utterly innocent people suffering. As my above post indicates, I honestly don't think that the government will be that scrupulous.

All rights and law are abused. How is repealing the HRA going to stop that exactly? Why is the answer to perceived abuses not to tackle the abuses, but to change the law which enshrines the rights of every individual?

Thank you for starting this thread OP. I had come on here to do the same but you beat me to it

I have seen numerous links on Facebook from people sharing the change.org and 38 Degrees petitions to 'stop the Tories abolishing the Human Rights Act' yet very few of the people that have shared or signed have any awareness of the proposals in the Bill of Rights or even that an alternative exists.

In other words, they have blindly followed the mass hysteria perpertrated by the left.

Let's keep this thread going and add updates as and when they come in please and then I can make it look as if I know what I'm talking about if anyone asks

I have signed and shared an amnesty petition about this issue. I take issue with the idea thar opposing it is mass lefty hysteria. It will have far reaching implications and for the citizens of this country. It is possible scrapping the HRA will invalidate the Good Friday Agreement. Whatever it is replaced with it will not be "the same". I have read the whole consultation document on this and quite frankly I do not like the direction this proposal is taking this country.

yet very few of the people that have shared or signed have any awareness of the proposals in the Bill of Rights or even that an alternative exists.

That's because, as far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), the Conservatives have yet to produce the alternative Bill of Rights, in spite of frequent assurances that it would be published some time ago. Indeed, some of the petitions include those urging them to produce it ASAP so that an informed discussion can be had.

Until such time as the actual text is available, the only thing anyone has to go on is a) what has been hinted in speeches and press releases and b) the Conservative's previous form on human rights.

To me, point a) has indicated a desire to give the government power to interpret / qualify human rights (rather than judges over-ruling government, as currently happens), and point b) shows, as far as I am concerned, that the Conservatives are more than happy to use "fixing human rights abuses" as a smokeshield for policies which do harm ordinary people but which achieve successes in vote-winning areas (e.g. limiting immigration even when perfectly innocent, and indeed British people, are harmed by it).

The Tories did produce a policy document or strategy paper which included such vague things as limiting the use of human rights laws to only the 'most serious' cases. It didn't mention who decides which are the most serious or which are trivial.