The Human Rights Act. Which bit dont the Government like ?

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=2mzcsnr" target="_blank"><img src="http://i58.tinypic.com/2mzcsnr.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

 

Honest question, I keep seeing that they are going to abolish it and swap it for a British Bill of Rights. Why ?

 

It's a question I'd like to see an answer to (assuming the graphic is correct).

 

I think its more to do with not being able to deport terrorists like old hook hand. They use the EU HRA as a loop hole to stay in the country which they despise.

 

I am assuming it is, it came up ona google search so,it will probably be just the bullet points I imagine.

 

Which bit would that come under ?
I am willing to bet that the British Bill they bring in replaces these Freedoms with things we cant do.
I think they already breach Article 6 with the secret trials they brought in last year.

 

Honest answer - I think the bill of rights would be identical.

It's just then the law would not be subserviant to the European Court so the more lets say generous interpretations (and the cost of defending them) could not be applied to the UK.

Votes for prisoners.
Extradition of murderers because they have a cat (although I think that one was made up)

Etc.

 

Article 11 - they've been trying to get rid of unions for years, and that article specifically allows membership of such bodies.

Seriously though, am fairly sure they can't just ditch it without leaving the EU, so surely they can amend it to achieve their aims.

 

Those are the rights contained in the European Covention. We had to incorporate that into uk law so it's essentially the same rights.

The tories don't like that they can't just ride roughshod over people.

 

They just need to uphold that rights can be justifiably eroded in certain circumstances. No need to do away with it totally.

 

If it can be legally eroded at all, no matter how 'justifiably', it's not a right. It becomes something that the government allow you to do as long as you play by their rules.

 

It's a basic human right. I'd rather some people you'd rather not get them than them be taken away.

 

There are absolute and qualified rights in the legal sphere. For instance a right to life is absolute, in this country at least, but a right to liberty is qualified (if you commit a crime punishable by a custodial sentence then that right is eroded). You have a right to freedom of expression provided you break no laws while expressing yourself.

 

See my latest post. I agree with you in principle.

 

Don't think they are wanting to make it unfair so much as rewording it to stop obvious scumbags abusing it, like the ones that claim they have a right to family life despite the fact they have had nothing to do with said family for years and costing us time and money in the courts

 

Why is the European court of human rights hated by the UK right?

http://gu.com/p/3y2bf

 

They regularly breach Article 8 by splitting up families with one UK spouse and one non-EU spouse, as the criteria are so strict as to be prohibitive (or prohibitively expensive) Even those who meet the criteria are likely to be split up for three months while the application goes through - even those with dependent children who are UK citizens. Meanwhile, any EU citizen can bring their non-EU husband or wife to the UK free of charge, so to speak. The Tories are directly discriminating against British citizens in favour of foreign citizens. Bet the Daily Mail would love that one.

 

Dont they object to article 4....that one goes against all that they stand for......get rid of that one and bingo its open season for them .....

 

Hate to split hairs P72, but the right to life is in fact qualified. Article 2 sets out circumstances in which the deprivation of life will not contravene that article, namely: to defend a person from violence, to effect a lawful arrest or prevent escape from detention, or action taken for the purpose of quelling a riot. Important to say of course that deprivation of life even in these circumstances must be proportionate in the eyes of the judiciary in order for the article not to be found to have been breached.

The only truly absolute right in the convention is that found in article 3, which prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. That's why it has been so difficult to deport Captain Hook and others who would be likely to be subjected to torture if sent to a country where it's use is known to be prevalent. I think that someone above has it right: any attempt to prevent citizens pursuing their convention rights through the European courts would be incompatible with remaining in the EU. And Cameron's referendum might yet result in a vote to remain. It's going to be a very bumpy ride on this one.

 

The right wing basically don't agree with any of the Articles as a universal right, if you are rich ,yes, if you are poor they don't class you as human and deserving of any rights.