Human Rights Erosion- does this worry you?

Yes, it does.

Raab has been working up to this for a long time. This clip from James O'Brien's LBC programme. A younger Raab:

My names Dominic Raab. I am a Tory. I don't support the Human Rights Act and I don't believe in economic and social rights.

www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-top-10-taking-apart-dominic-raab/

From the article you linked to:

Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, said: “The erosion of accountability trumpeted by the justice secretary signals a deepening of the government’s disregard for the checks and balances that underpin the rule of law.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive: “This is not about tinkering with rights, it’s about removing them. “From the Hillsborough disaster, to the right to a proper Covid inquiry, to the right to challenge the way police investigate endemic violence against women, the Human Rights Act is the cornerstone of people power in this country. It’s no coincidence that the very politicians it holds to account want to see it fatally weakened.”

Professor Philippe Sands QC, who sat on the 2013 commission on a bill of rights, said: “Mr Raab embraces a nationalistic and xenophobic spin on the idea of human rights, eviscerating one of its most fundamental tenets: basis human rights exist for all, and must be enforceable at the instance of all. The government wants to wind the clock back to a pre-1945 era, a time when, as writer Joseph Roth put it, ‘the tombs of world history are yawning open … and all the corpses one thought interred are stepping out.’”

Mhari Black was right when she spoke in the HoC about creeping fascism. I feel very frightened for the future.

My names Dominic Raab. I am a Tory. I don't support the Human Rights Act and I don't believe in economic and social rights.

... and how many of those who will be most affected by this ideology will still vote for the party he supports?

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 know those documentaries you've seen about a dictator's rise to power & there's always a bit in the doc where you think 'why didn’t they stop him? They could have stopped him when there was still time?' That’s the bit we're at."

My fervent hope is that Raab loses his seat at the next GE and then finds he's persona non grata in the legal profession when he's looking for a job. In 2019, his majority in Esher of all places was slashed to 2743 from 23,298 so a distinct possibility.

No it doesn’t worry me. We have our own Supreme Court. We will still be part of the European Convention.

It is very worrying. The rights that we have were fought for by many generations of our ancestors.

Raab definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer for it was he who didn't know the importance of the Dover to Calais crossing to the UK trade in goods.

Remember how when Trump was running for President people asked how in such a large country as America he could be a front runner ? The same could be said of Biden (only because of his age). The same could also be said of the Tory constituencies who selected the likes of Raab, Shaps and the rest. Surely there must have been better candidates?

As there are 148 stroppy Tory MPs, who have said they won't necessarily support any government bill, he may struggle a bit anyway.

25Avalon

No it doesn’t worry me. We have our own Supreme Court. We will still be part of the European Convention.

No we won’t. You can’t have a government who is saying that we will not comply with the law and yet still belong to the convention.

It doesn’t work like that.

Raab is intent on us withdrawing from the ECHR.

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.

25Avalon

No it doesn’t worry me. We have our own Supreme Court. We will still be part of the European Convention.

We won't be part of the European Convention, if Johnson's threats come to anything.

It bothers me massively, both the (likely) content, and its other purpose of continuing to stoke divisiveness to please the right wing of the Tories.

Yes, it worries me. They start with something, like immigration, that will be popular with some groups and then move on to restrict your rights. All in the name of what's 'right' for the country at that time. They were given a massive majority to 'get Brexit done' not to go on to implement measures such as this. A move like this cannot be a 'knee jerk' reaction to a setback to their plans. A new 'Bill of Rights' needs to go through rigorous process involving all parties and interests - and the electorate.

Here are changes Raab intends to make

Yes

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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

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