Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

John Reid threatening to invoke the CCA to opt out of human rights act

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2087869,00.html


and who was it who said that the civil contingencies act would be abused for a non-emergency...... moi



as this happens: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/alan_finlayson/2007/05/last_week_one_my_students.html
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thank God he's going soon... I thought Blunkett was bad until Reid came in.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wonder who would be more fit for the purpose of next Home Secretary... Patricia Hewitt or Margaret Hodge?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    I wonder who would be more fit for the purpose of next Home Secretary... Patricia Hewitt or Margaret Hodge?

    I'm hoping for someone more liberal - like maybe Judge Dredd?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Colonel Blimp :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From the Guardian Article
    The home secretary said the three men were not considered "at this time" to represent a direct threat to the UK public.
    Sir Ian said: "Nobody can be perfectly satisfied that they are not a risk to the public here, but the intelligence is pointing in another direction."

    None of the three men have been charged or prosecuted for terrorist offences. The Adam brothers were named during the "fertiliser bomb" trial, at the end of which their brother Anthony Garcia, 25, was jailed for life last month. Lamine had been banned from working on London's underground system as part of his control order.

    The response article is shocking, and if it didn't make the papers i will want to know why.

    He's a knee-jerk administrator, and has done little to engage communities while eroding their civil liberties. Almost all totalitarian regimes you can shake a stick at began with a so-called crisis, then some emergency laws to combat them, that were never lifted. I don't think we're quite there yet but don't think it couldn't happen here
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is how V for Vendetta starts......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep...

    I can't believe they are even openly admitting that there is a consideration to pull out of the HRA.. it's a fucking ridiculous thing to say/do - it's there for a REASON.

    And the whole thing surrounding control orders is shaky to say the least!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    look at the Have Your Say page on the Beeb; the most recommended comments are for those wanting us to pull out of the HRA. thats the scary part.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree, it is scary - I hate this whole goverment actually making people make irratitional decisions through fear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well i wouldn't say it was government, i'd say its more to do with this tablocracy that we appear to live in, where policy makers live in constant fear of a media manufactured public outrage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tablocracy

    I like that...did you coin the term yourself?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well yes in the sense that I never heard it from anyone; I used it in a seminar, all these big-wig academics coming up to me at the end saying stuff like 'I like that, where did you hear it?'

    :D
    You heard it here first (possibly, unless someone else said it and you heard it there too)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well yes in the sense that I never heard it from anyone; I used it in a seminar, all these big-wig academics coming up to me at the end saying stuff like 'I like that, where did you hear it?'

    :D
    You heard it here first (possibly, unless someone else said it and you heard it there too)

    Its good, though I'd like to be the first to modify it to coin the term: "Tablo-Managerial Complex." Meaning the cooperation/relationship/occasional antagonism between the "tablocracy" you mention and the new managerial/media oriented political class.

    thesite.org...seat of academic innovation ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its an interesting term, although I'm not entirely sure that its all that new anymore. The key turning point in Uk politics was Alistair Campbell joining the staff of New Labour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can't say I'm bothered about opting out of the human rights act (a lot of it is far from conducive to the national good) - I'd far rather we had a proper written consititution. But these new stop & search proposals are particularly worrying. Just like in the US with the Patriot Act, it'll be promoted as merely a measure against terror suspects but will end up being used against the population generally.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can't say I'm bothered about opting out of the human rights act (a lot of it is far from conducive to the national good)

    I keep hearing this, and I'd like to ask specifically why this is the case in your view, and what events or examples have led you to this conclusion.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    look at the Have Your Say page on the Beeb; the most recommended comments are for those wanting us to pull out of the HRA. thats the scary part.


    Ask the man on the street what they think of the HRA and they will tell you it's bollocks.
    There are too many stories in the papers of criminals being treated like royalty e.t.c. for the man on the street to think anything else.

    At the moment, from what i've seen and spoken to people about, the numbers of people who support our remaining part of the HRA is a definite minority.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At the moment, from what i've seen and spoken to people about, the numbers of people who support our remaining part of the HRA is a definite minority.

    Well quite, but thats just it; if you persued the man in the street (not with a bat or anything, I mean with questions) further you would probably not be able to get any basis for this.

    Popular opinion based on nothing; that's quite a scary thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have a read on the other topic regardng Rampton prison and the inmates challenging a decision to ban smoking, saying it breaches their human rights.
    When you cnsider animals like this are abusing something that is supposed to protect us, you can see why so many people want to scrap it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When you cnsider animals like this are abusing something that is supposed to protect us, you can see why so many people want to scrap it.

    OK I've had a look at this story, a couple of points I think come from this;

    1) They've applied under this legislation, there hasn't been a decision on it yet. I can appeal to the magical pink unicorn for infinite riches, doesn't mean it will happen.

    2) Even if they DO get it, in the grand scheme of things its an annoyance rather than something that is a serious threat to public good; whereas the revocation of the HRA would be. For the protection and access to law that it afford the most vulnerable people in society, its a clear cost-benefit choice.

    3) Thankfully we appear to live in a society where the majority of people do not have to use it..but the flipside to this is that i do not think the majority are aware of the actual benefits and protections that the Human Rights Act affords.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Have a read on the other topic regardng Rampton prison and the inmates challenging a decision to ban smoking, saying it breaches their human rights.
    When you cnsider animals like this are abusing something that is supposed to protect us, you can see why so many people want to scrap it.

    so they're not human, rights are rights, they arent privilidges to be taken away from people at discretion
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be fair the abolition of the HRA would probably make hardly any difference. Pre-HRA most of the things that the HRA has enforced would likely have been enforced by judicial review.

    Its hard to get worked up on either side, if the HRA was got rid of torture doesn't suddenly become legal (it was illegal before we got the HRA), but then people who currently use the HRA will use judicial reviews.

    Actually the HRA is a bit toothless, because if Westminster passed a law tomorrow legalising torture all the courts can do is say that it contravenes it, they can't actually overrule it.

    That said all constitutions and laws are worthless pieces of paper unless the state is willing to abide by them
    ARTICLE 118. Citizens of XXXX have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.

    The right to work is ensured by the XXXX the steady growth of the productive forces of XXX society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.

    ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the XXXX have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

    ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the XXXX have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

    ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the XXXX have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native Ianguage, and by the organization in the factories, XXXX farms, machine and tractor stations and XXXX farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.

    ARTICLE 122. Women in the XXXX are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.

    ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens of the XXXXirrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

    ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the XXXX . is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

    ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of XXXXX are guaranteed by law:

    freedom of speech;
    freedom of the press;
    freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
    reedom of street processions and demonstrations.
    These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

    ARTICLE 126. In conformity with the interests of the XXXX people, and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the masses of the people, citizens of XXXX are ensured the right to unite in public organizations--trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations,' sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies; XXXXXXXXXXX .

    ARTICLE 127. Citizens of XXXX are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator.

    ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.

    ARTICLE 129. XXXXX affords the right of asylum to foreign citizens persecuted for defending the interests of the working people, or for their scientific activities, or for their struggle for national liberation.

    ARTICLE 130. It is the duty of every citizen of XXXX to abide by the Constitution of XXXX, to observe the laws, to maintain XXXXX, honestly to perform public duties, and to respect the rules of XXXX intercourse.

    ARTICLE 131. It is the duty of every citizen of XXXX to safeguard and strengthen public, XXXXX property as the sacred and inviolable foundation of the XXXX system, as the source of the wealth and might of the country, as the source of the rosperous and cultured life of all the working people.

    ARTICLE 132. Universal military service is law. Military service XXXXX

    ARTICLE 133. To defend the XXXX is the sacred duty of every citizen of the XXXX Treason to the country--violation of the oath of allegiance, desertion to the enemy, impairing the military power of the state, espionage is punishable with all the severity of the law as the most heinous of crimes.

    Guess who's constitution this was.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I keep hearing this, and I'd like to ask specifically why this is the case in your view, and what events or examples have led you to this conclusion.

    Well, an example would be a woman a while back who claimed asylum on the grounds she was suffering from HIV, and was granted asylum status on the basis of medical facilities in her country being below par. This was a result of the Convention.

    Needless to say, lawyers saw a quick buck with this precedent. Personally, I don't think a law which theoretically means anyone with HIV from a country with sub-standard medical facilities is by default granted asylum and provided with treatment to be good for the UK. Not going to argue over this is right or wrong, it's been done before, in case anyone takes issue.

    Also, I oppose anti-discrimination. I'm not for social engineering.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Also, I oppose anti-discrimination. I'm not for social engineering.

    As a general rule that seems reasonable, although I contend that there might be scope for the limited application of such measures in some limited circumstances.
    Actually the HRA is a bit toothless, because if Westminster passed a law tomorrow legalising torture all the courts can do is say that it contravenes it, they can't actually overrule it.

    Well if this is the case then surely we need to look at ammending such legislature; what I am concerned about is the trend in society to a sceptical and even popularly hostile view of 'human rights' as a notion, or a discourse or whatever. I'm not saying the legislation is perfect, or that it is worth defending to the death - the IDEA of human rights IS, and if you believe in human rights you believe in it for everyone.
    Well, an example would be a woman a while back who claimed asylum on the grounds she was suffering from HIV, and was granted asylum status on the basis of medical facilities in her country being below par. This was a result of the Convention.

    An interesting point and no doubt theres many examples of this; unfortunately in a world of perrenial inequality this will always happen. What I think we need to look at is strengthening the transnational forms of governance we have at the moment. As I previously stated, my main concern is that people are led to believe that failings in the application of policy are analagous to failings at the level of ideology.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As a general rule that seems reasonable, although I contend that there might be scope for the limited application of such measures in some limited circumstances.

    I'd probably agree with this.

    An interesting point and no doubt theres many examples of this; unfortunately in a world of perrenial inequality this will always happen. What I think we need to look at is strengthening the transnational forms of governance we have at the moment. As I previously stated, my main concern is that people are led to believe that failings in the application of policy are analagous to failings at the level of ideology.

    Well, I'm no supporter of internationalism and the idea of 'one world', to which transnational forms of government (largely unaccountable to the people over which they preside) are, in my view, a step towards. So I can't agree with such legislation, either pratically or ideologically, except in a strictly limited, very basic capacity.

    I'd also dispute that a world of inequality makes such cases a necessary consequence. Perhaps if high finance stopped fucking the third world over so much, and drug companies were brought under stricter control regarding the prices of their products, there would be no problem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I never thought I would say this about anything that came from New Labour, but I agree with the Government on this one. Human rights laws prevent Britain from fighting terrorism properly. Several court cases have seen to that. However, the solution is not to opt out of the Human Rights Act. It is for New Labour to admit to this being one of its greatest failures, (and boy, there's lots of competition) and to scrap it altogether.

    And to those of you who now have steam coming out of their ears... what good is the Human Rights Act? The way that some Lefties talk, you'd think that Britain was some sort of crackpot dictatorship before it came in, that there was mass torture of British citizens going on. Liberals only like the HRA because it's symbolic of nothing... just like liberalism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I never thought I would say this about anything that came from New Labour, but I agree with the Government on this one. Human rights laws prevent Britain from fighting terrorism properly. Several court cases have seen to that. However, the solution is not to opt out of the Human Rights Act. It is for New Labour to admit to this being one of its greatest failures, (and boy, there's lots of competition) and to scrap it altogether.

    And to those of you who now have steam coming out of their ears... what good is the Human Rights Act? The way that some Lefties talk, you'd think that Britain was some sort of crackpot dictatorship before it came in, that there was mass torture of British citizens going on. Liberals only like the HRA because it's symbolic of nothing... just like liberalism.

    Why the use of 'Liberal' as a dirty word there?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    I never thought I would say this about anything that came from New Labour, but I agree with the Government on this one. Human rights laws prevent Britain from fighting terrorism properly. Several court cases have seen to that. However, the solution is not to opt out of the Human Rights Act. It is for New Labour to admit to this being one of its greatest failures, (and boy, there's lots of competition) and to scrap it altogether.

    And to those of you who now have steam coming out of their ears... what good is the Human Rights Act? The way that some Lefties talk, you'd think that Britain was some sort of crackpot dictatorship before it came in, that there was mass torture of British citizens going on. Liberals only like the HRA because it's symbolic of nothing... just like liberalism.

    Well, to play devil's advocate, perhaps addressing the source of the terrorist problem (unconditional support for Israel and unjustified military occupation in the muslim world) would be the answer?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote: »
    Why the use of 'Liberal' as a dirty word there?
    Same reason that Lefties use the word "conservative" as a dirty word.
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Well, to play devil's advocate, perhaps addressing the source of the terrorist problem (unconditional support for Israel and unjustified military occupation in the muslim world) would be the answer?
    I agree. That would go quite some way towards easing the problem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd also dispute that a world of inequality makes such cases a necessary consequence. Perhaps if high finance stopped fucking the third world over so much, and drug companies were brought under stricter control regarding the prices of their products, there would be no problem.

    lol, that was, to the letter, exactly what I meant.
    And to those of you who now have steam coming out of their ears... what good is the Human Rights Act? The way that some Lefties talk, you'd think that Britain was some sort of crackpot dictatorship before it came in, that there was mass torture of British citizens going on. Liberals only like the HRA because it's symbolic of nothing... just like liberalism.

    Theres a book you would really enjoy out at the moment; its called 'How to be Right' - Boris Johnson. Are you trying to grant my bring back Colonel Blimp wish?

    You completely miss the point; criticising a country that you live in does not mean you hate it. This is not the worst country in the world, very far from it...but its not the best of all possible worlds, and until that day there will always be a place for amendment.

    And SG, we've been here before with the IRA in the 1970s; mass civil rights curtailments but the bombs kept coming. What stops us fighting terrorism effectively is our foreign policy, not the HRA.
Sign In or Register to comment.