Human Rights Erosion- does this worry you?

Whitewavemark2

We desperately need a written constitution. It would make it much harder to bin the legal protection of human rights, and stop the wrecking of the GFA, or indeed ignore the written constitution between Westminster and the devolved countries.

A written constitution would also pin down the separation of powers,, preventing a rogue government from trashing this vital separation.

I agree. But we don’t want THIS government writing it!

MawtheMerrier

And to think he might be a contender for Tory leader - God help us.
Apart from his politics, he doesn’t even seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer or even particularly diligent (remember how he was still sunning himself on a beach while Afghanistan was supposed to be evacuated. )

You do have to ask if there are any sharp knives in that particular drawer.

RichmondPark

growstuff

The proposed legislation removes human rights from UK citizens - it does not increase them in any way, however the right wing media is spinning it.

This is the essence of it. How can anyone support it?

Maybe because they think some people shouldn't have any human rights, particularly "others". They don't appear to understand the concept that human rights are universal.

growstuff

The proposed legislation removes human rights from UK citizens - it does not increase them in any way, however the right wing media is spinning it.

This is the essence of it. How can anyone support it?

The proposed legislation removes human rights from UK citizens - it does not increase them in any way, however the right wing media is spinning it.

Casdon

Germanshepherdsmum

But not all. My vote is for the supremacy of UK courts.

Mine isn’t. Such a system lends itself to corruption.

Yes particularly with this government you simply can’t trust it to retain the separation of powers.

Very very worrying.

Casdon

Germanshepherdsmum

But not all. My vote is for the supremacy of UK courts.

Mine isn’t. Such a system lends itself to corruption.

Agreed. It's actually frightening to think that our rights are systematically being dismantled, and there is no higher court to which to appeal.

I'm with Casdon.

Germanshepherdsmum

But not all. My vote is for the supremacy of UK courts.

Mine isn’t. Such a system lends itself to corruption.

But not all. My vote is for the supremacy of UK courts.

volver

25Avalon

We have The Human Rights Act of 1998 introduced by Labour. Tony Blair was most unhappy that the European Court upheld the rights of criminals over citizens rights to safety. Successive Governments have agreed with him. Our law does not need foreign intervention whereby for example the European Court prevents a man guilty of rape from being deported, against the rights of the woman raped and our own Supreme Court.

Once more with feeling...

The court you are referencing does not represent a "foreign court". It is an international court, set up by Britain, which happens to sit in Strasbourg. It is there to prevent national governments trying to do things that are illegal internationally. It was set up by Britain in the wake of WWII, where the German courts were acting completely within their national laws. Look how that turned out.

Many of those sitting in judgement are British judges/lawyers.

Interesting growstuff I had completely forgotten about that - but the notion of "people in distress" has been popping into my mind a lot recently about this terrible business - so I suppose my thinking about this as "the government's Fascist plan" has subconsciously brought the two together.
Thanks for reminding me.

We desperately need a written constitution. It would make it much harder to bin the legal protection of human rights, and stop the wrecking of the GFA, or indeed ignore the written constitution between Westminster and the devolved countries.

A written constitution would also pin down the separation of powers,, preventing a rogue government from trashing this vital separation.

Yes it concerns me hugely.

One of the reasons I voted remain was that I liked being part of an organisation large enough to temper the worst excesses of individual member states. Losing that was a blow. To now lose the ECHR and human rights that have taken generations to win is taking us to a very dark place.

It's clear from many posts on here and information I read elsewhere that the people who most support the removal of these checks do so either through ignorance or because they personally stand to gain.

25Avalon

We have The Human Rights Act of 1998 introduced by Labour. Tony Blair was most unhappy that the European Court upheld the rights of criminals over citizens rights to safety. Successive Governments have agreed with him. Our law does not need foreign intervention whereby for example the European Court prevents a man guilty of rape from being deported, against the rights of the woman raped and our own Supreme Court.

Once more with feeling...

The court you are referencing does not represent a "foreign court". It is an international court, set up by Britain, which happens to sit in Strasbourg. It is there to prevent national governments trying to do things that are illegal internationally. It was set up by Britain in the wake of WWII, where the German courts were acting completely within their national laws. Look how that turned out.

I make no apology for reminding people of Mhairi Black’s blistering speech on the rise of fascism in this country. Five minutes of plain speaking that everyone should watch:

For whom do the Government think that rights have gone too far? Do you know how scary it is to sit at home and wonder if it is you? Is it your rights that are up for grabs?

the othering of people .. the normalisation of human cruelty.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZ3QwA5wy8

MaizieD

CaravanSerai

Only a few weeks ago, Raab was seeking to interfere with a carefully considered legal decision to release a prisoner into parole. It was a popular publicity crusade on his part and proved at the time that he had given no evidence to support his claim that the decision was wrong.

There’s no doubt in my mind that he wants to destroy the doctrine of the separation of powers which requires that the principal institutions of state - executive, legislature and judiciary—should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens’ liberties and guard against tyranny.

French social commentator and political thinker Montesquieu in 1748:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty...there is no liberty if the powers of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive... there would be an end to everything, if the same man or the same body... were to exercise those three powers.

But that is where we are heading if we give ministers the power to overturn legal decisions.

This⏫

I've been banging on about the separation of powers for what seems like an eternity.

Mostly received with polite indifference... ☹ Or claims that we're not a dictatorship or even going down that route...

Yes

CaravanSerai

Only a few weeks ago, Raab was seeking to interfere with a carefully considered legal decision to release a prisoner into parole. It was a popular publicity crusade on his part and proved at the time that he had given no evidence to support his claim that the decision was wrong.

There’s no doubt in my mind that he wants to destroy the doctrine of the separation of powers which requires that the principal institutions of state - executive, legislature and judiciary—should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens’ liberties and guard against tyranny.

French social commentator and political thinker Montesquieu in 1748:

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty...there is no liberty if the powers of judging is not separated from the legislative and executive... there would be an end to everything, if the same man or the same body... were to exercise those three powers.

But that is where we are heading if we give ministers the power to overturn legal decisions.

This⏫

I've been banging on about the separation of powers for what seems like an eternity.

Mostly received with polite indifference... ☹ Or claims that we're not a dictatorship or even going down that route...

"Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich" for the pedants.

NotSpaghetti

It bothers me a lot.
Why would they want to do this unless it's to avoid being "in the wrong" and to take power away from the "little people". Another attack on refugees, minorities and people in distress in my opinion.
They are despicable.

Did you use the word "distress" for any reason?

The Nazis passed a law in 1933 called "The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich" - more commonly known as the Enabling Act.

The Act meant that the Nazis could do what they wanted perfectly legally.

25Avalon

We have The Human Rights Act of 1998 introduced by Labour. Tony Blair was most unhappy that the European Court upheld the rights of criminals over citizens rights to safety. Successive Governments have agreed with him. Our law does not need foreign intervention whereby for example the European Court prevents a man guilty of rape from being deported, against the rights of the woman raped and our own Supreme Court.

I don't understand this post. Raab claims that the UK is not withdrawing from the ECHR. The HRA already allows the UK to act independently. The ECHR provides protection when a government goes rogue.

The ECHR would only prevent a rapist from being deported in very unusual circumstances, if all other British legal requirements had been fulfilled.

Human rights don't exist to protect a government, which is what Raab's changes would do.

It bothers me a lot.
Why would they want to do this unless it's to avoid being "in the wrong" and to take power away from the "little people". Another attack on refugees, minorities and people in distress in my opinion.
They are despicable.

We have The Human Rights Act of 1998 introduced by Labour. Tony Blair was most unhappy that the European Court upheld the rights of criminals over citizens rights to safety. Successive Governments have agreed with him. Our law does not need foreign intervention whereby for example the European Court prevents a man guilty of rape from being deported, against the rights of the woman raped and our own Supreme Court.

Yes

Here are changes Raab intends to make