Why do the Tories want to abolish the HRA?

Neil3030

Seems that abolishing the act won't actually achieve what many people are suggesting - e.g., lots of rights of criminal suspects are protected under separate legislation (ironically brought in by Thatcher).

What are they up to?

Eric Cartman

Neil3030 wrote: »

Seems that abolishing the act won't actually achieve what many people are suggesting - e.g., lots of rights of criminal suspects are protected under separate legislation (ironically brought in by Thatcher).

What are they up to?

from wikipedia :

Michael Howard cited a number of examples of how, in his opinion, the Human Rights Act had failed: "the schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws".[37][38]

between that and the death penalty.

Neil3030

Eric Cartman wrote: »

from wikipedia :

Michael Howard cited a number of examples of how, in his opinion, the Human Rights Act had failed: "the schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws".[37][38]

between that and the death penalty.

Yeah I've seen a few of these arguments but in many cases they are apocryphal or covered by other legislation.

Which leads me to believe that they either don't understand the act, or that they are tugging on populist heart strings while servicing an ulterior motive.

Death penalty, you say?

johnnyskeleton

The specific issues as far as I know are the indeterminate "whole life" sentences which were found to be a cruel and inhuman punishment in the vinter case (the gist of it being that even a slight glimmer of hope of release is fine but no chance whatsoever breached art 3 and possible art 7) and the British government basically said that they werent going to comply and were threatened with fines. The echr eventually fudged the issue in later cases.

The other one is the thompson v home sec case whih was a Uk Supreme court decision which found that indeterminate inclusion on the sex offenders register without review was a breach of human rights.

Ireland and the uk have similar legal systems in many ways but the big difference is that ireland (like the usa, canada, germany etc) has a history of judicial scrutiny of legislation that is incompatible with the constitution. In the Uk, parliament is supreme and if they pass a law the courts must enforce it. That is until the hra came along and the uk got its first taste of quasi constitutional democracy.

On the one hand they have a point - its hardly for the unelected courts to tell the peoples representatives what laws they can and cant pass, but it seems strange to us that such a move is popular in the UK. I suppose we have a history of not trusting the government overmuch and like checks and balances, whereas the people of the UK seem to put a lot of faith in their represnatitves.

The examples cited above from michael howars do not, it seems to me, represent realistic examples of echr jurisprudence.

The burglar suing through taxpayers is a misrepresentation of Airey v Ireland (right to civil legal aid to vindicate important rights like getting a divorce) which does not cover an unstateable claim for a burglar to seek damages (ive never actually heard of such a case succeeding, despite it being a popular misconception of the law.

The compensation for delay of a convicted rapist is presumably a reference to mcfarlane, although at issue in mcfarlane was a delay of years and it was the irish government who suggested that a civil claim for damages would arise which the court adopted (im not sure if suh cases are common in the uk, but they are not here.

The school child one im not sure. Rights to education are wishy washy. There is probably a statutory right to be primary schooled in thr uk anyway, so as you say this isnt a right that stems only from the echr.

I guess the Tories view is that they will decide what is a fair or unfair way to legislate and will not be told otherwise by a foreign court. Possibly also the europhobic aspect of the party is coming out as well

Manach

My understanding, based on a quick skimming of Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction by Clapham, is that the Conservative party wishes to curb what it sees as excessive judical lawmaking based on an overly liberal reading of the initial charter of the ECHR. They would likely prefer to see the foundation elements of the ECHR read in a way that reflects the original foundation and not in ways that reflect a more rights driven agenda interpretation. For instance that of granting prisoners votes (AFAIR) was a particular red flag.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

For instance that of granting prisoners votes (AFAIR) was a particular red flag.

They could always do what the Irish did - allow prisoners the option of registering for postal votes to ensure minimal uptake.

gallag

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They could always do what the Irish did - allow prisoners the option of registering for postal votes to ensure minimal uptake.

Or we could stick to our principles and not have our democracy circumvented by a foreign court.

johnnyskeleton

gallag wrote: »

Or we could stick to our principles and not have our democracy circumvented by a foreign court.

So international bodies being able to comment on breaches of human rights is a circumvention by a foreign court?

gallag

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So international bodies being able to comment on breaches of human rights is a circumvention by a foreign court?

Well, yes.

oscarBravo

gallag wrote: »

Well, yes.

Proper order. If a democratic majority want to deny someone basic human rights, what business does Johnny Foreigner think he has having an opinion on the subject?

Jasnah

The only reason I was really against a Tory majority was this. It's going to be so tragic if one of the founding members leaves the jurisdiction of the ECHR, not only for the blow it will cause to UK citizens, but for the fact that other countries may begin treating its judgments as inconsequential too. It's one of the most important institutions in Europe and to see it sacrificed in the name of populism is very grim.

gallag

oscarBravo wrote: »

Proper order. If a democratic majority want to deny someone basic human rights, what business does Johnny Foreigner think he has having an opinion on the subject?

Well, yes, I happen to believe that myself and my fellow country men can and should have the ultimate authority on all aspects of the running of our country, I know, going by the tone of your post in your eyes that makes me a xenophobic looper but what travistys of justice has the ECHR stopped? Sure seems like it's main job is forcing us to stop the deportation of people who call for our destruction and trying to force through stuff like the prisoner vote against the vast majority of the people's will.

Mabey you are just fundamentally opposed to anything that seems like less Europe?

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Well, yes, I happen to believe that myself and my fellow country men can and should have the ultimate authority on all aspects of the running of our country, I know, going by the tone of your post in your eyes that makes me a xenophobic looper but what travistys of justice has the ECHR stopped? Sure seems like it's main job is forcing us to stop the deportation of people who call for our destruction and trying to force through stuff like the prisoner vote against the vast majority of the people's will.

Mabey you are just fundamentally opposed to anything that seems like less Europe?

Personally, I'd like to see the electorate have a say in this.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Personally, I'd like to see the electorate have a say in this.

You just did! The Tories won!!!!!!

end of the road

gallag wrote: »

You just did! The Tories won!!!!!!

means nothing as unless the tories want to leave europe which they won't, then they will do as they are told

ancapailldorcha

I was specifically referring to the repeal of the HRA. It's more important than this nonsense EU referendum.

johnnyskeleton

gallag wrote: »

Well, yes, I happen to believe that myself and my fellow country men can and should have the ultimate authority on all aspects of the running of our country, I know, going by the tone of your post in your eyes that makes me a xenophobic looper but what travistys of justice has the ECHR stopped? Sure seems like it's main job is forcing us to stop the deportation of people who call for our destruction and trying to force through stuff like the prisoner vote against the vast majority of the people's will.

Mabey you are just fundamentally opposed to anything that seems like less Europe?

Em, your fellow countrymen do have ultimate authority on such matters. The HRA is about the UK Supreme court (mostly English/Welsh/Scottish with a token Irishman) having the power to declare legislation incompatible. And if the UK Parliament (similar makeup) do not have to agree with findings of the ecthr. On immigration, the echr does not require any country to take in someone that they dont want.