Major Incident In London

[MCMC1875]

Human Rights Act.

Repeal it now I say and deport all the benefit claiming 'terrorists'.

Anyone in favour?

Edited July 27, 2005 by MCMC1875

[blue phil]

Yes , MCMC , the vast , vast majority of the country of all racial and political persuasions .

Unfortunately , the liberal elite are contemptuous of the people and pursue their own agenda . The barrister Blair and his human rights lawyer wife wouldn't want to repeal unnecessary laws would they ? Not in their interests ....

How about a referendum... ?

[Modi]

Human Rights Act.

Repeal it now I say and deport all the benefit claiming 'terrorists'.

Anyone in favour?

335245[/snapback]

A few extracts from the Human Rights Act 1998:

RIGHT TO LIFE

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

PROHIBITION OF TORTURE

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY AND FORCED LABOUR

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed

RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

RIGHT TO MARRY

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Yep, definitely a law worth repealing. Fancy ensuring no one is in slavery, everyone has the freedom to live, everyone has the right to a fair trail, and no one should be tortured illegal. What was the Government and that nasty EU thinking of?

But no doubt you'll counter with these rights are being infringed by terrorists. Yes, they are, but this terrible piece of legislation also states:

PROHIBITION OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

Which rather makes the claim it gives free reign to criminal actions rather redundant.

[stuwilky]

Yes , MCMC , the vast , vast majority of the country of all racial and political persuasions .

    Unfortunately , the liberal elite are contemptuous of the people and pursue their own agenda . The barrister Blair and his human rights lawyer wife wouldn't want to repeal unnecessary laws would they ? Not in their interests ....

  How about a referendum... ?

335268[/snapback]

The VAST MAJORITY?

######.

If that was the case why the hell did the Labour party get re elected? Some "majority".

Most people would love to deport the "benefit claiming terrorists" but of course how do we identify them?

Edited July 27, 2005 by stuwilky

[MCMC1875]

Modi

Our fine country was not too bad before said '98 was it?

Edited July 27, 2005 by MCMC1875

[Modi]

Modi

Our fine country was not to bad before said '98 was it?

335275[/snapback]

Did I say it was?

However, over the last few hundred years legislation has been introduced that has improved the rights of everyman in the country. The Human Rights Act reinforces and clarifies these rights.

To repeal it would require it to be replaced with something else otherwise those milestones for freedom are not law. Is there any part of the above that isn't a sound principle?

The problem lies in what people think the HRA is about - spread mainly by misinformation and hysteria by the tabloid press. It is not a law that gives free reign for criminals, terrorists or general evil doers. It reinforces the values that a decent, civilised society should hold dear and makes it perfectly clear that trying to 'use' these rights to one's own ends through atrocities such as July 7th is not the case. A lot of people seem to forget that, or just don't realise it.

[Manchester Blue]

Blue Phil were you not one of the first people complaining about the police actions the other day and stating that in a free country people have the right not to be shot. Surely repealing the Human rights act would ensure peopl would forego that right amongst many others.

[MCMC1875]

Then Modi, how do you propose do deal with those baddies who shelter in our in our land under this 'law'?

[Bing]

Before the Human Rights Act came in we were all hardly out in a field picking cotton for 20 hours a day and suffering Chinese water torture at the hands of the local bobbies.

Whilst The Human Rights Act recently gave a prisoner serving life access to hardcore pornography in his cell under the banner of 'right to information and freedom of expression', it has given us no protection from the Government's move to restrict trial by jury or indefinite detention.

[stuwilky]

Then Modi, how do you propose do deal with those baddies who shelter in our in our land under this 'law'?

335287[/snapback]

If you are talking about asylum seekers (and you appear to be - although labelling them all as baddies stinks of total ignorance) you might find that they are in this country under provisions laid down in the Immigration and Asylum ACt 1999

[MCMC1875]

Hang on - by 'baddies' I mean those who are out to commit crime. What angle are you on StuW?

[stuwilky]

Hang on  - by 'baddies' I mean those who are out to commit crime. What angle are you on StuW?

335290[/snapback]

I was ensuring that was the case. And that you werent referring to...

"all asylum seekers"

"all immigrants"

"all muslims"

or something similar.

So, what relevance does the HRA have to people who are out to commit crime? None, they can be nicked for the same offences as you or I. If conspiracy is one of them then they get charged. Same as you and I.

The problem, as always, is identifying them before (or indeed after) they commit the crime. Repealing the HRA wouldnt help in this....so what good would repealing it do?

[Modi]

Then Modi, how do you propose do deal with those baddies who shelter in our in our land under this 'law'?

335287[/snapback]

I think you're missing the point. How does the HRA give baddies a licence to commit a crime?

Killing people is against the law. Planning a terrorist act is against the law.

Someone can't go into a court and say "the Human Rights Act allows me to commit murder". Or is that in the small print?

[blue phil]

Modi , the principles behind the Human Rights legislation have been enshrined in English and British law for generations - and in some instances you list , for centuries ! You make it sound like slavery would still be legal if it wasn't for the Euro's stepping in and delegating laws upon us . The HR law neither clarifies or reinforces anything - they cloud the issues and make laws where perfectly clear national laws already exist . The only people benefitting are the lawyers like Mrs Blair who constantly debate the wording and meaning of clauses that everyone from the Italians to the Dutch are meant to agree on .

My argument is that there is simply no need to transfer the ULTIMATE legal authority to Brussels or wherever - especially when there is serious doubt as to how accountable and representative to us Brits these law makers are . Instead of delegating upwards and surrendering the powers of Westminster , our parliament should have supreme authority over the fate of our people . Accepting "wholesale" laws made in Europe does not necessarily mean that these laws are suitable for us - or for all of Europe , which is as diverse as it ever was .

This leads me to the interpretation of this legislation . As long as we are bound by this supranational legislation the ultimate authority of its interpretation will also be supranational . In other words we no longer have supreme power over our own affairs . That is why it should be repealed . If necessary some aspects of these laws could be brought in by parliament - but interpration and ultimate sovereignty must remain at Westminster .

It's nothing to do with the "principles" and worthy values behind its myriad of clauses . Anyone aquainted with with the legal history of Britain stretching back into ancient times will realise we treasure these values a lot more than some other states I could mention . Or rather we used to . When people are being blown up and a young kid is gunned down in the streets for nothing it's up to us and OUR representatives to sort out responsibility and dispense justice - not pass the problem on to Europe and money grabbing lawyers . What next ? Should we let the UN get involved in our policing ..?

[MCMC1875]

OK then, lets keep Hooky, Bakri et al on the DSS and turn a blind eye.

Edited July 27, 2005 by MCMC1875

[stuwilky]

The HRA is a UK Act of Parliament. It is based on the principles laid down in the EU Publication but essentially it is a UK Act of parliament.

Can someone tell me how the removal of anything in it would facilitate the easier removal of terrorists from society?

It is here for those who want to check http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm

And Phil, the HRA placed into statute many things which, in the UK, were common law principles, adding them into statue reinforces them, and on certain issues clarifies them. LAw in this country is far from clear otherwise we wouldnt need an army of judges to decipher the many complex parts. Statue is far clearer than case or common law.

[stuwilky]

OK then, lets keep Hooky, Bakry et al on the DSS and turn a blind eye.

335294[/snapback]

Hooky is currently in jail awaiting deportation. (and yes it took to long)

You appear to be doing a "blue phil" and not answering the question.

What relevance does the HRA have to what you are saying?

[Modi]

BP

On the whole, I don't disagree with what you're saying about the need for sovereign laws. I personally don't see it as cedeing responsibility to Europe to the extent you obviously do, but then again I am *probably* more pro-European than you and so we could discuss where the line is for ever and still not convince each other.

At no point did I say that we were in a lawless society with terrible human rights (small letters) before 1998. What I did say was that if you read what the HRA is actually about, the content isn't what is spread by mass hysteria media. The majority of the content as you've even said yourself "have been enshrined in English and British law for generations - and in some instances ... for centuries !" If I understand it correctly, when the HRA came into force, it effectively repealed all the individual legislation that it encapsulated. Therefore, to repeal this would require another round of legislation to get back to where we were, otherwise slavery would be back....

If you want to argue the case for a reform of the HRA so that Brussels or wherever doesn't have the final say, that's fine. I don't personally think that is necessary, but that's the nature of disagreement on the UK's position in Europe.

What I do disagree with quite strongly though is the quite frankly absurd notion that the HRA is a veil from criminals to hide behind. It isn't. Repealing it would have no more effect on the acts of violence seen in recent weeks than, say, debating the finer points of English law on a football messageboard does.

[MCMC1875]

The point is how can we keep these criminals from sheltering in this land?

[stuwilky]

The point is how can we keep these criminals from sheltering in this land?

335299[/snapback]

The point is "how would repealing the HRA prevent them from doing so?"

Or are you unable to answer that?

[MCMC1875]

Deportation.

[colin]

The point is how can we keep these criminals from sheltering in this land?

335299[/snapback]

May I respectfully suggest that you think that UK people are a pure as the driven snow and that all crime is committed by immigrants.

The vast majority of immigrants are hard-working & law abiding people, indeed it could be said that an awful lot of them get the short straw when it comes to living in the UK. You only have to look at the background the the Morecambe Bay disaster to get a flavour.

The UK is perfectly capable of providing itself with indigenous criminals. There are thousand of them.

Which is not to belittle your point that some immgrants are criminals. It's just that so too are loads of people who live here.

Possibly being a bit crass here, but can you imagine the Express or The Mail if Harold Shipman was of Asian descent and called Patel and had come over from Uganda when Amin expelled them all.

[stuwilky]

Deportation.

335302[/snapback]

Why does the HRA prevent deportation? No

Have people been deported since 1998? Yes

So, what precisely are you trying to do other than make yourself look like you havnt got a clue what youa re talking about?

NB - I dont disagree with the sentiment that terrorists should be rooted out of our society and locked up. But the HRA neither helps nor hinders that activity. The big problem is identifying them, the same as with any crime.

Now unless you have something relevent to add shall I consider this particular discussion to be over?

[Scotty]

The point is how can we keep these criminals from sheltering in this land?

335299[/snapback]

I'd suggest that the point is how do we spot these criminals. Or are you suggesting that we should deport all asylum seekers, whether they're criminals or not?

[thenodrog]

Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns eh? You lot would talk a glass eye to sleep.

You pontificating lot all sound like Vicky Pollard. Ah but... Yes but..... No but.