Gove and the Human Rights Act

Gosh - didn't realise the pun there

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.

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

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

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)

It will be repealed in tandem with the enactment of the new Bill of Rights.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?

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 can't just be 'abolished' without going through due process.

It is hardly likely that it would be repealed and replaced by nothing; it will be either amended or replaced by a modified law.

Depending on any of the above getting through Parliament which it may not.

It's like all reasonable ideas the practice is different to the theory.

It has been abused and found wanting in many areas and could be bettered.

I can't see how constitutionally appals agsinst the European Convention could be heard in UK Courts - it just doesn't work like that , they would have no locus and thus no legitimacy

Not having to go speeds up the process? Yes, that makes sense. But I would have thought that with a will, the UK could organise that without having to have a massive great HR Act of its own. Maybe not but it doesn't seem an impossible idea.

Laws do like to tie things in knots though.

Oh dear - I mssed out a not in my 11.36 post - sorry

I think one of the advantages is that it speeds the process up which is actually one of the aspects of Article 6.

Seen as a huge advantage by whom? Government or people challenging what they see as attacks on their human rights?

My understanding was that having to go to Strasbourg was seen as a huge advantage and actually brought back some power into the UK

Magna Carta 1215
Bill of Rights 1689

www.theguardian.com/humanrightsandwrongs/800-years-making

I will reserve judgement.

That's interesting, RQ.

I thought the UK Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force only in 2000, was a codified version of the law as set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It meant, among other things, that people in the UK could take their HR cases to UK courts instead of having to go to Strasbourg.

Since the UK is a signatory to the ECHR as well as to the UN convention on human rights, why is it felt necessary to have a special UK version. Apart from the fact mentioned above about not having to go to Strasbourg, which is, presumably, an advantage, what else is gained?

Did the UK have its own HR Act before the 1998 one or did we use the international ones?

Wasn't it 1998? Not 1988

And Gordon Brown approved plans for constitutional reform of this act in 2007, so Labour too thought it was not fit for purpose.

My basic problem is that I just don't trust the motives behind this and that if the DM thinks it's a good thing then I am even more suspicious

I agree that every Act should be subject to scrutiny and review - that makes sense; but this Act is so fundamental to our liberties and the party in power is so regressive in its approach that it is understandable that there are those who have concerns.

I would hope that most (including article 6 obviously) will be enshrined in the new legislation.
Perhaps some should be re-interpreted and re-written to ensure that judges do not have their hands tied by legislation where strict adherence to the law results in questionable decisions.

The CJA of 2003 was an attempt to modernise a system where previous failure had resulted in miscarriages of justice.
Just because something has been in place for a long time does not mean it should not be subject to scrutiny and amendment if needed.

rose what would be more relevant to the UK today, which part of the act would you argue is irrelevant?

In my work, I sometimes have to grapple with Article 6 ( right to a fair trial). Sometimes it's frustrating but look at countries that don't have this.

there have been some cases where the balance bewteen the rights of two sets of people are/ seem unfairly weighted to one side but that is nowhere near enough reason for throwing the whole act out and bringing in some weak replacement inspired not by the grand ideals underpinning the Convention but by a party political agenda based on narrow self interest