Gove and the Human Rights Act

he is intent on abolishing it As I posted above, it cannot just be 'abolished' without going through all the stages.

with due respect, that is scaremongering aimed at the most vulnerable.

It will be repealed in tandem with the enactment of the new Bill of Rights. It looks pretty certain it will be in the Queens Speech and the aim is to have it enacted speedily. It will get through with no problems whatsoever inside the House but there will be an almighty row outside from a huge and varied raft of organisations and individuals. Scotland are going to keep their HRA - I wonder ifvthisxwill lead to Eglish and Welsh people bring able to apply for political asylum in Scotland?

I think Scottish GNers should henceforth not be allowed to pass comment on this proposed legislation as it won't affect them ( unless they offer political asylum of course)

None of this is scaremongering ( apart from the political asylum bit of course) but funnily enough I am scared

I see the Law Society is intent on apposing the repeal.

Like the teaching establishment found, Gove whose background is journalism. with no expertise in either Education or Law appears to meddle without any clear understanding. According to the Legal Society the post should have gone to a lawyer as "so much needs fixing and only someone with a clear understanding of the system should have been appointed"

The Law Society argues that the 1998 ACT is a fundamental safeguard of many of our basic rights and freedoms.

The question will be "who is going to safeguard us from our government if the IEC of Human Rights is replaced by a watered down National Bill of British Rights with no right of appeal to the international court.

However I am not clear at this stage whether scrapping the HR Act will simply put us back to before 1998, and people will revert to appealing to the ECHR

Theresa May clearly stated she wanted us to withdraw from the ECHR. Does having our own act which will be a watered down version be tantamount to a withdrawal? It really is a complex, vexed question as is the EU referendum and the so-called English votes issue. These are major major questions and to hope to rush them through is foolhardy. Remember the rushing through of the Dangerous Dogs Act and the problems that causes? And that was ' only' dangerous dogs. This is the problem of sound bite policy making.

Gosh - didn't realise the pun there

[groan]

g2

Cameron is intent on rushing through all contentious issues before the opposition gets it act together. We are dependent on the SNP to do the job for us - there's irony for you!!! Although they are keeping their HR Act. so maybe they won't have anything to say.

That's why it will get through so easily on a vote but there is going to be a real bunfight with the legal establishment and the civil/human rights organisations

Be interesting to see who is against the repeal and who for it.

Certainly the Tory press is for the repeal.

We know the Law Society is against, as is Amnesty, Liberty, - not sure who else.

Well that's a pretty good list to start with!

Well, I'll email my MP and ask her if this is true and, if so can she explain exactly why this Act needs to be repealed and that, as my representative in Parliament I would like it to be made known that I don't agree with it and could she tell me which way she is likely to vote. Then, hopefully [if I can work out how to do it] I'll put her answer up on here.

If she's Conservative, then she'll support the Government -- or the whips will have her hide--

But it will be interesting to see the reply which will be a template provided to all of them

Agreed; and it will be in black and white for all to see. In fact, she might get an email from all of us [me, the S.O. and DD].

One of the reasons that they will almost certainly give is the difficulty May had over various Islamic terrorists and her inability to do as she would like with regard to deportation etc. A lawyer could explain the case much more succinctly but one thing I would question is that is it necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Exactly - and why should a government be able to do as it wants without being subject to the rule of law? Very often what she wanted to do was actually illegal and had not followed due process - we shouldn't rewrite laws to help governments be more slapdash and careless in their approach. When I read some of the immigration appeal tribunal decisions it's horrifying what governments were trying to get away with

Will we still be signatories to the UN Convention on Human Rights if the ECHR is abolished?

What was in place before the 1998 Act, if anything? Is it Tory policy to go back to that?

TBH, I do think it was ridiculous that Britain couldn't get rid of Abu Hamza more expeditiously.

thatbags We can leave the ECHR not abolish it, but I don't know about the UN thing - that is an interesting question and one I fervently hope we don't have to answer.

Before the 1998 act it was just the ECHR which was set up after the war. No Tory policy is not to go back to that they want to introduce something of their own. Look at my post 15.02pm.

Shall do. Thanks.

The ECHR ( neither the court or the convention)isn't being abolished - the issue is whether we will have access to the court if the Bill of British Rights isn't upto the standard of the convention

X posts

Thankfully this is devolved to the Scottish government .