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.
Options
John Reid threatening to invoke the CCA to opt out of human rights act
Former 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
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
0
Comments
I'm hoping for someone more liberal - like maybe Judge Dredd?
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
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!
I like that...did you coin the term yourself?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
so they're not human, rights are rights, they arent privilidges to be taken away from people at discretion
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
Guess who's constitution this was.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd probably agree with this.
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.
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?
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?
lol, that was, to the letter, exactly what I meant.
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.