[Closed] Tory "Bill of Rights"

the best way to protect a citizen from their own government is to have a further level of appeal that goes out with the state.

The prisoner voting issue sums it up perfectly though - regardless of whether you think prisoners should have the vote personally, do you think that the correct jurisdiction for that decision is with our own parliament, or somewhere else?

If that decision were left to the present Tory party, they wouldn't have the right to vote, as they'd have hung them all. But with Paul Dacre apparently now writing their policy for them, on the hoof, give it a few weeks and that'll be a policy proposal too

binners - Member
I think this whole issue symbolises how far to the right UKIP has dragged the political conversation in this country. To even be proposing this is utter madness. God only knows what other barking mad ideas they've got lined up to try and out-UKIP UKIP. Its pretty terrifying the direction the present Tory party is heading in. And I genuinely believe, if this kind of nonsense is anything to go by, a Tory victory would be absolutely catastrophic for this country.

If the labour party worth worth calling an actual opposition, they'd be busy pointing out the insanity of all this right wing reactionary claptrap. Whats that we hear from Ed..... oh... what a surprise.... nothing at all.

As someone said, the tories are combating UKIP, by becoming UKIP.

@binners how can it be catastrophic for the UK not to be subject to the ECHR ? We managed OK for a very long time without it. I don't think UKIP have dragged the debate to the right, I think the British people have done that and politicians have responded. The same is true in other countries, there are some significant issues politicians have been trying to ignore.

You're right. When you ask most people about their priorities, they don't talk about the NHS, education, or our bawked economy, they get straight onto the stuff that really matter to peoples day to day lives. The European Convention of Human Rights.

The swivel eyed loons of the Tory Party and UKIP are always banging on about the European Bogeyman, but it just never registers in the top ten of voters concerns, who've generally got more important stuff to be thinking about. So, to me, this is just yet another example of reactionary little englander nonsense that the right just obsesses about. And I don't want those people in power thanks, with frankly ludicrous proposals like this, because that'd be ultimately incredibly bad for us as a country

My personal view is that we wrote the thing and I generally agree with it. However it's application is a travesty and I don't believe foreign judges should have a right to overrule our legislative system.

It's not overruling the UK legislature. The legislature voted to adopt the ECHR and to make all subsequent legislation consistently with it. The court just finds whether or not the other legislation is consistent with the ECHR and returns it to the member state. The member state is free to act like Belarus and legislate inconsistently with the ECHR.

The UK legislature could also vote to renounce the ECHR and be like Belarus.

I think this whole issue symbolises how far to the right UKIP has dragged the political conversation in this country.

I don't think you can lay all the blame at UKIPs door. The Conservatives also have to distance themselves from Labour.

jambalaya - Member

Well the United States think a constitution is the best way. The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.

Absolutely, a constitution is another way to do it. But having today's government write a constitution is not a good way to defend citizens from today's government (regardless of who they may be)

ninfan - Member

The prisoner voting issue sums it up perfectly though - regardless of whether you think prisoners should have the vote personally, do you think that the correct jurisdiction for that decision is with our own parliament, or somewhere else?

I think that having the right to vote be a political football is an incredibly bad idea (and that the case demonstrates that really well), so yes, I think it should lie somewhere else.

And it sums up the issue perfectly in other ways- because the facts of the story are far more nuanced than most people know (or care). And the government would rather spin it and bluster rather than put into place the minor changes in process required to make us compliant. If anything, you learn more about the ECHR by watching their subsequent actions over the subsequent 10 years- slow, patient, considered, ruling against compensation payments etc, it's hardly the actions of an overbearing powertripper.

kimbers - Member

how about the 99.15% ECHR of appeals that go in favour of the UK government according to a lawyer on the news just now

It seems he was referring to the number that the ECHR throws out as inadmissable.

The actual number of cases that they proceeded with involving the UK last year was 35, of which 12 were upheld.

It amazes me the Tories utter hypocrisy on anything EU related anyway. They bang on and on about the ECHR, because they instinctively dislike it. Yet they're all for the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/eu-us-free-trade-deal-ttip-transatlantic-trade-investment-partnership ]EU US Trade Deal[/url] which has some pretty sinister implications that we should all be very concerned about. But they're ok with that because it suits their neo-con corporatist agenda perfectly. So what they want is to wave through the EU legislation that suits their political agenda, whilst choosing to ignore any part of it that doesn't fit their narrow right wing narrative

It's Friday binners so I shall thoroughly endorse your last comment on the EU/US trade deal, quite ridiculous that a foreign company could overule UK government policy via a trade treaty and get compensation. Very sinister indeed.

Thats my problem with this whole thing Jambalaya. We apparently won't tolerate Universal internationalist approach to human rights, but we're more than happy for our domestic policies to be written in American corporate boardrooms. I suspect the motivations of European judges are slightly more benign, and less self-interested than those of a rapacious US corporate.

If we're going to be outraged at interference in our affairs, then lets at least be consistent

Well said Northwind. The knee-jerk reaction of most of the popular press to anything to do with 'Europe' has reached the stage where there's a real danger of the UK throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The ECHR issue is pure politicking from the Tories attempting to out-UKIP UKIP. The majority of the people whose votes they are attempting to capture with this are unlikely to be aware of what the court's role is, the volume of its work which affects the UK's courts (and ultimately our legislation) and what the UK's rejection of the convention might mean in real life.

Making the assumption that consensus from elsewhere cannot possibly be permitted to inform our way of life (ninfan's use of the prisoner voting question illustrating this belief) betrays a colonial sense of superiority, something that simply is misguided in the modern world.

The original topic is very sinister indeed. How much do you trust the current government?

How much do you trust the current government?

This is the basic, fundamental problem. We shouldn't have to trust any government.

We shouldn't have to trust any government.

Precisely.

Happy to, unlike Binners I thoroughly support the concept of reading and digesting opinions of people with knowledge and experience who might disagree on an issue, because thats how you further your own knowledge

On balance, I would say this approach, is not going too well for you so far 😉

The UK is one of a very small group of countries subject to such outside influence.

remind us of the percentage in Europe again? its a europenan court with only one nation not signing.

do you think that the correct jurisdiction for that decision is with our own parliament, or somewhere else?

Bloody foreigners eh
The critical point is there is a check on the power of a parliament to curtail the rights of it citizens. Fairly obviously an external check will have greater autonomy than an internal one where the govt appoint the decision makers- would you like me to list the abusers of this process?. I am happy the decision is made by people unaffected by the electoral pressure as history shows, time and again, the majority are often happy to mistreat a minority be it prisoners sunni/Shia. Catholic/Protestant or jews /palestinians [ just for jam that one].

That Express story !!!
The court ruled that Theresa May cannot deport a 29 year old man who has lived with his family in the UK since he was 4 without giving him a hearing at an immigration tribunal. WTF is wrong with that . The court did not order it was against his human rights to be deported because he was illegitimate . it did not order that he should not be deported it just ordered that he be given a chance to argue his case not be whisked off at the stroke of May's pen.

This is a clear example of the deliberately whipped up little Englander hysteria that is being used to drive an anti HRA agenda based on ignorance and deliberate misinformation.

IMHO it is a travesty he is being treated differently just because his father was not married to his mother

He grew up here and has , effectively, lived here all his life.

His case should be heard and I believe his rights have been violated.

If he's been here legally since he was 4 he could have applied for citizenship and hence a passport. Then he has a right to stay (although I do have a view that says for serious offenses if you have another passport your more recently issued UK one should be resinded). As he didn't he should not have a right to stay. He should have no right to stay after commiting a serious crime.

If you have committed a serious crime you have no right to enter the US or to remain there is you are not a citizen. Singapore has a rolling 5 "permanent" residency and if you are on an employment visa if you do something they don't like you have to leave at 2 weeks notice. What is being proposed here is much more flexible.

Ken Clarke - one of the last remaining members of the Tory party who doesn't seem to be completely hatstand, has just come out and said it was unfathomable that we would want to quit the ECHR, when it provides legal protection against governments interfering in peoples lives, which is supposedly what the Tory party is all for.

If you have committed a serious crime you have no right to enter the US or to remain there is you are not a citizen

I am not sure it is a shining beacon of human rights personally- Guantanomo and its prisons/death penalty/guns issues for example so I am not sure why you keep citing it . Furthermore we are discussing Europe and a European court/treaty so it makes more sense to compare it with them than the USA or Singapore or, I assume, anywhere you have visited/worked.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/human-rights-laws-to-be-replaced-by-gut-instinct-2014100391320 ]The Mash nails it again[/url]

JY I keep citing it as its a democratic country of 350m people, and yes I have direct experience of visiting and working there hence I use it as an example, not unreasonable. Despite the acknowledged shortfalls (as noted by yourself) there is still a very long queue of people eager to live and work there so they must be doing something right. All EU member states have to accept the ECHR so how can I make a point of differentiation ? I could quote Switzerland, I'd be pretty sure he Swiss wouldn't hesitate to deport serious criminals - I can check.

I would be very open to some examples of where the ECHR has done something positive for someone in the UK, so far all we have here is scaremonger and philosophical differences.

All EU member states have to accept the ECHR so how can I make a point of differentiation ?

Fair point. I withdraw the objection

Still not a country I aspire to anymore than Russia is - I suspect what CMD is suggesting is nearer Putin than the US

jambalaya FFS the Human Rights Act Did not say he had a right to stay the act said he had a right to present his arguments to the proper tribunal and have them make a decision . All the Human Rights Act did was stop our dishonest twisted home secretary deporting him with the flick of a pen and no thought.

See the other Jamaican case linked to the "gay murder" in that one even Cat Flap May agreed if he was Gay it would be wrong to deport him, so far from being a human rights act scandal, it was a simple factual question is he really gay or is he just pretending to be gay in order to avoid being deported.
The Human Rights act and the Convention are utterly valuable and an asset to the countries justice system the people who oppose them either have sinister motives see May ( if you say things I don't like then you are a criminal) and Grayling( when I act illegally it is just a technicality if any one else does bang them up) or wilfully ignorant see Daily Mail.
good things from the HRA
1 stopped the extradition of Gary Mcinnon
2 allows BA staff to wear crosses
3 protects press freedom
4 made it legal for unmarried and gay couples to adopt
5 justice for rape victims
6 protects our soldiers in combat
7 stops elderly being kicked out of care homes
8 rights for disabled people
9 treatment for combat troops with PTSD
10 justice for the mentally ill.
....add not quite infinitum ..

Now you put it like that, its easy to see why Dave wants to get rid of it. Just imagine how much easier life could be? You abolish everything else, and then everyone is allowed to have the rights that you think they deserve on any given day.

The refusal to recognise of the ECHR would prove to be nirvana for any authoritarian politician. And as Blair proved, and despite railing against him at the time, Dave has continued to prove... once they get into power, they all become authoritarians. The ECHR provides them with lines they can't cross. Can you imagine where we'd be if Blair had been given free range to do as he chose? We'd be living in a police state FFS!

I would be very open to some examples of where the ECHR has done something positive for someone in the UK, so far all we have here is scaremonger and philosophical differences.

[url= https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/press-releases/government-issues-landmark-apology-over-christopher-alder%E2%80%99s-death-custody ]Here's an example[/url] - the ECHR did something positive for the family of this man who died in police custody.

Just had a quick peek at this thread and spotted this little beauty :

jambalaya - Member

Hardly anyone reads the papers anymore......

😆

Thats my problem with this whole thing Jambalaya. We apparently won't tolerate Universal internationalist approach to human rights, but we're more than happy for our domestic policies to be written in American corporate boardrooms. I suspect the motivations of European judges are slightly more benign, and less self-interested than those of a rapacious US corporate.

Best post in this thread.

Hardly anyone reads the papers anymore......

I wish. They just read these kinds of papers

[img] ?oh=8d00499be40fe98f0bacdc5e0baa4c9e&oe=5484CF13&__gda__=1420917804_e6840e987e5c0d4e87ff635c64957c5d[/img]

The UK in 20 years...