Idiot

The idea was simple; these standards would first be enshrined in regional treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and then be given legal effect in every country. In the UK this was achieved when Labour enacted the Human Rights Act (HRA) in 1998.

The incoming Tory government now intends to strip our people of these universal rights by repealing the HRA.

No, the Tory government won’t strip anyone of any rights by repealing the Human Rights Act.

Did those rights exist in Britain pre-1998?

Yes.

Would they still exist post repeal?

Yes.

So Keir Starmer is blowing fucking smoke, isn’t he? Because they are rights that we gain by treaty, not domestic law. So, whether we have those rights or not depends on the treaty, not domestic law.

The key question is where are those rights justiciable? In the domestic courts or not? And how? According to continental style Roman Law? Or English style Common Law?

As long as we remain members of the Council of Europe (no, not the EU, the Council of Europe) then those rights still exist whatever the status of the Human Rights At.

22 comments on “Idiot

  1. The rights existed before the HRA because of the ECHR. Prior to the ECHR, we did not have all its rights. Many Tories (and UKIPs) don’t want “unelected foreign judges” making judgments that the UK must comply with, so there is a lot of noise about getting out of that treaty obligation.

    The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK. – manifesto 2015

    Although I doubt they mean for the Supreme Court to be able to overrule Parliament. Also this Scottish Parliament will keep the HRA, so it’s a bit of a mess.

    That there are very few adverse rulings and some of the adverse rulings need never have happened if not for Home Office cock-ups and faffing about, is by the by.

  2. In another post today you criticise David Cameron for wanting to “be able to denounce anyone doing something they don’t like” – that’s a human rights issue too. These people are authoritarians. Particularly if it’s politically expedient.

  3. I’m afraid Tim there are a lot of idiots around and they will.make their voices heard over the next few months. And no UKLiberty is definitely NOT one of those idiots.

    It would do us all good hough to do a bit a research for ourselves to find out what it is the gevernment and everyone else is talking g about or THINKS it is talking about.

  4. Kier Starmer ought to be the last one anyone should listen to when he cries ‘wolf’, since he’s let the she-wolves of the feminist rape industry run rampant through the halls of justice for the last few years…

  5. It would do us all good hough to do a bit a research for ourselves to find out what it is the gevernment and everyone else is talking g about or THINKS it is talking about.

    Yes. A problem is that the Conservatives – despite having made noises about this for years, including in their 2010 manifesto iirc – have yet to publish a draft bill. Chris Grayling promised it would appear before the recent general election – it didn’t. Martin Howe QC says there is a 40 page draft.

    So all we can go by is what Conservatives have said and the implications of that.

  6. Rob – not even 1997.

    The year 2000 was when the Human Rights Act came into force.

    90’s Britain was a dark place, where Jarvis Cocker roamed the scorched earth and Noel’s House Party was considered prime time entertainment.

    The only bright spot was muscular she-hulk, Jet from Gladiators. Millions of teenaged boys had confused fantasies about her beating them up with a giant foam stick.

  7. http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/the-14-worst-human-rights-myths/

    The section on stories is well worth a read.

    Indeed. And undermines the view that “Newspapers chase the views of their readers, not form them”. Because virtually no-one would have a clue about the alleged material involvement of a cat in a human rights case or human rights involvement in luring a prisoner with fried chicken etc were it not for the Sunday Telegraph, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Sun & co.

  8. Yoomin Rights Myths:

    European Court of Human Rights judgments are made by unelected and under-qualified judges

    Just wrong. Judges of the European Court of Human Rights must hold legal qualifications to be appointed. And, they are each elected by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, which is made up of representatives from all member states including the UK.

    The ECHR currently includes judges from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Russia, Moldova, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria.

    You know, bastions of incorruptibility and yoomin rights.

  9. The problem is Steve, we are an original signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and indeed the UN Charter. We were instrumental in setting up this international court.

    Scrapping the HRA will not in itself make the slightest difference to our position as signatory to that convention. Are we suggesting we withdraw for a post-war convention we ourselves wrote?

  10. Ironman – Are we suggesting we withdraw for a post-war convention we ourselves wrote?

    I don’t know what the government’s plans are (I suspect this is more symbolic than substance), but I would be in favour of withdrawing from the Convention, yes. And, of course, the EU and ECJ. And the International Criminal Court.

    We British are a proud and a fierce people. No foreign judges should ever have a say in defining our laws.

    Let Johnny Foreigner play with his pretend courts if it amuses him.

  11. The ECHR currently includes judges from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Russia, Moldova, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria.

    You know, bastions of incorruptibility and yoomin rights.

    It’s another myth that the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, juries etc were Anglo innovations: they actually originated in these 13 august nations.

  12. Are we suggesting we withdraw for a post-war convention we ourselves wrote?

    AIUI, the present suggestion in short is to repeal the Human Rights Act, put the Convention rights in a British Bill of Human Rights (or a Bill of Rights of British Humans, or whatever), make it very clear that the UK Supreme Court is the last resort, that the European Court will only have an advisory role.

    Of course it is much more difficult than that, which is quite possibly why it is taking years to happen. For example, there is not only the Council of Europe aspect, but also the devolution settlement – this Scottish Parliament will refuse to consent to repeal.

  13. The ECHR currently includes judges from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Russia, Moldova, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria.

    You know, bastions of incorruptibility and yoomin rights.

    That seems to be an implicit suggestion that a judge will necessarily hold the same views as the government of his country. But that aside, why would the critics complain, assuming it were true? The judgments would go their way if it were! Their complaints result from the adverse judgments.

  14. JeremyT – We have so much to learn from jurists from the University of Tblisi. Only a bigoted Little Englander could object, surely?

    Ukliberty- That seems to be an implicit suggestion that a judge will necessarily hold the same views as the government of his country. But that aside, why would the critics complain, assuming it were true?

    Because we don’t think Albanians or Russians should be laying down the law to us.

    Because it would be one in the eye for the rotten transnational cosmopolitan New Class and their shitty leftwing institutions.

    Because it would make Cherie Blair cry.

  15. Steve,

    Because we don’t think Albanians or Russians should be laying down the law to us.

    I’m sure you’re a man of principle, but the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail et al don’t complain about the agreeable judgments made by foreigners.

    They complain about decisions made by domestic courts too and I have no doubt they would continue to do so if there were a ‘British Bill of Rights’. This is less about foreign judges (that is part of it of course, but not the whole), more about it being politically expedient to assuage the people who have been spun yarns that agree with and reinforce their points of view.

  16. UKL – the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail et al don’t complain about the agreeable judgments made by foreigners.
    I read neither, but suspect those organs do object to a mixed bunch of failed-state communists, fascists, and islamists being the supreme authority under English law.

  17. Why not restore what has already been lost, viz: unanimous verdicts and the prohibition of double jeopardy. And a solemn reminder before every trial that it is better that 12 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man shld be wrongly convicted.

    The formal institution of jury nullification cld usefully be considered and also the determination of sentence by the jurors.

  18. I read neither, but suspect those organs do object to a mixed bunch of failed-state communists, fascists, and islamists being the supreme authority under English law.

    This isn’t solely about “foreign judges”, it’s about attitudes to human rights and the rule of law. “Cat-gate” was a domestic decision. The fried chicken story was about UK police. Foreign judges are just another thing to complain about. They won’t stop complaining if rights cases are only decided domestically, by judges born and qualified in the UK, will they?

  19. ukliberty – “That seems to be an implicit suggestion that a judge will necessarily hold the same views as the government of his country.”

    No it isn’t. It is an implicit suggestion that they are fruit of a poisoned tree. You can only climb the greasy pole in a corrupt Third World sh!thole, like France, if you suck up to the right people, have cousins in the government, pay off the right officials and so on. By definition the legal minds that rise to the top of these fetid dung heaps are not worthy of sitting in judgement on decent folk. All the decent lawyers in said countries are dead or in jail.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.