Gove and the Human Rights Act

rightsinfo.org/your-rights/

Very interesting infographics which show what human rights mean and how they are abused.
Exactly why we need to keep our Human Rights Act.

actfortheact.uk/

To send a letter to Michael Gove to stop him getting rid of the Human Rights Act.

Oh good, you're not ignoring me altogether just on the other thread.

No. We have a UK Human Rights Act. That's the one that Cameron wants to get rid of and replace with a Bill of Human Rights which gives people in the UK less protection than the Human Rights Act.
We are signed up to the European Court of Human Rights. We cannot get rid of that without getting out of Europe.

Is it not the European Human Rights Act which is at issue? Heaven knows there have been some strange miscarriages interpretations of justice because of it. I understood what was planned to take its place was a UK HRA, not an abrogation of responsibility for human rights per se?

www.welfareweekly.com/un-investigates-grave-and-systematic-uk-human-rights-violations-call-for-evidence/

Very timely, but I do not think its recommendations will be out before next summer. Perhaps that's why Cameron and Gove want the HRA scrapped before then.

The Tories want to scrap the Human Rights Act by next summer.

www.welfareweekly.com/tories-to-scrap-human-rights-act-by-next-summer/

They wish to get their own bill through without scrutiny by parliament.
I can see an epetition coming about this.

rightsinfo.org/infographics/fifty-human-rights-cases/

This is an interesting human rights information graphic, showing lots of cases that changed the law in one way or another.

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/josie-appleton/move-along-now-new-law-barring-thousands-of-people-from-public-spaces

Another load of our rights taken away from us.

signed

Perhaps you ought to read the article on the link before you decide who is hypocritical, Grannyonce.

In 2012 the government introduced 7000 new laws without a vote in parliament.
Magna Carta stated that nobody could be fined or put in prison without a fair trial. In 2013 the government introduced secret courts that would meet behind closed doors, without a jury and it would be illegal to tell anyone what happened. These trials are for crimes involving national security. But it is up to the government to decide if national security is involved.
As the Hampden Trust says, even King John did not go that far.

Just been reading about the Magna Carta with my grandson. Apparently only three of the original 63 clauses are still law.

The petition to have a referendum on the Human Rights Act now has over 237,000 signatures. It's on www.change.org if anyone else wants to sign.

Not sure what your point is G1

so the labour government who brought in the Human Rights Act

human rights are not for any government to bestow on its voters but ours as of right and no government can withdraw and fiddle around with at will.

were right according to you (WW) but the current government is destroying
human rights protection by looking again at the whole HR position
a tad hypocritical.

So agree with the statement that human rights are not for any government to bestow on it's voters but ours as of right and no government can withdraw and fiddle around with at will. Lay off DC. - Your understanding of history is flawed and your arguments misleading.

savetheact.uk/magna-carta-human-rights-are-not-a-gift-to-be-bestowed-upon-us-by-monarchs-barons-or-politicians/

The week of Magna Carta this thread needs resurrecting.
We appear to be forgetting that our human rights are threatened.

I've just been listening to radio 4 news addressing this case. Yes, very good use of the HRA. So very sad as it seems the deaths were avoidable.

One very good use of our Human Rights Act. It was a terrible tragedy that appears to have been avoidable - a pointless, awful death for those young soldiers.

Did anyone notice the item on the news about 3 young soldiers who died - I think it was on Dartmoor? I didn't see the entire item but anyway apparently the army may be held responsible for lack of due care. The judge is going to use OUR Human Rights Act, - right to life. Hope Gove is taking note.

Hopefully this has been kicked into touch.

Jinglebellfrocks please read

Reality check: can owning a cat be grounds for appeal against deportation?

Is it true?

No. The original reports of the court case make clear that the appeal was actually a dispute about a rule which dictated that if someone was settled in the UK in a relationships for more than two years without enforcement action, then they automatically have a right to remain.

The cat was mentioned in the appeal and judge's decision, as evidence of the man's relationship - not as a reason in itself.

Original reports from the 2009 case also make clear that the cat was only mentioned in passing and wasn't the reason the man was ultimately allowed to stay.

The Telegraph story reports the solicitor in the case Barry O'Leary, saying the cat was only mentioned to demonstrate the couples long-term commitment to one another. The appeal was won not on the basis that the man had a cat here, but that it was one element that represented the commitment of the relationship he was in. The solicitor said:

As part of the application and as part of the appeal, the couple gave detailed statements of the life they had built together in the UK to show the genuine nature and duration of their relationship. One detail provided, among many, was that they had owned a cat together for some time.

The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. The Home Office asked for the decision to be reconsidered. They argued it should be reconsidered because the decision was wrong in law, and one error they cited was that too much consideration was given to the couple's cat.

The home secretary mentioned the case in the context of her plans to change the rules to stop convicted criminals resisting deportations on the basis of article 8 – family ties. But the Bolivian man – who has never been named – was not even a convicted criminal.

A paper (pdf) by The Human Rights Futures Project at LSE debunked this myth in July this year. I've just spoken with one of the researchers on the paper who says their source for this information was the solicitor and barrister in the case, who approved their interpretation of events. The paper says:

This case is often listed, misleadingly, alongside cases... of convicted criminals who challenge their deportation on Art 8 grounds. In fact, the case concerned a man who came to the UK as a student and was refused leave to remain and did not concern deportation on grounds of criminal conviction. The immigration judge had allowed his appeal on the basis of a former Home Office policy (DP3/96) which said that if an individual lived in the UK with a settled spouse for two years or more without enforcement action being taken against them, they were entitled to leave to remain. The appeal was also allowed on Art 8 grounds – he had a long-term relationship with a British citizen and they had lived together for four years. The reference to the cat was one detail provided by the couple as evidence of their long-term relationship but did not form any part of the tribunal's reasons for deciding that he should be allowed to stay in the UK.47 The Home Office appealed but the senior immigration judge upheld the decision on the basis that the former Home Office policy (DP3/96), although it had since been withdrawn, still applied in this case (due to the date of the initial decision)

www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/04/reality-check-cat-theresa-may

What do you mean by no outside benchmarks. The EU?

it's just that the Govt wants to decide which ones we should have with no outside benchmarks- that is scarey!

You hit the nail on the head there GrannyTwice

The problem is quite often because the government does not proceed at a timely pace. If they did their job properly many of the cases which seem to be attributable to the HRA would not arise. When the governments behaviour is supplying these people with excuses to escape justice we should look to the government to change not the law.

Not the bloody cat again - tell a lie often enough and there are enough people to believe it for ever. And of course p no one thinks that all human rights would be abolished - it's just that the Govt wants to decide which ones we should have with no outside benchmarks- that is scarey!

What's wrong jings is that they've had years to do this thinking and they didn't - fills me with confidence