Human rights act

[jasonbc]

BBC News - Commission to review Human Rights Act after terror case

It's about time this act got looked at by some working class people not people who live on another planet in a different country, some how though i don't think this will ever happen.

Personally i would get rid of the human rights act, the blame culture and political correctness in one foul swoop - Ban the lot....and start talking sense again without being afraid of upsetting someone or being sued for saying what most people think

As for these brain washed religous terrorists i would send them home aswell not worrying about there human rights in the slightest,if they refuse to go post them in peices. If they want to die and become martyrs lets see if there own people tourturing them and killing them would give them the same status as martyrs or just complete failures..

THIS COUNTRYS GONE TOO SOFT

DIDN'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE JUST WANTED TO GET IT OF MY CHEST

[Warthog]

However, those are only two people. The Human Rights act is designed to protect us all: closing in on 7 billion people. Should we really change sonething so fundamental because of only two people?

Banning it would also mean that was even less protection for people who have been wrongfully accused: like that pilot who spent a few months basking in "american hospitality" in the Gulf of Mexico.

He would have been screwed and his only crime would have been having the wrong cultural background.

Food for thought.

[Whealie]

One post with the text centred, the next ranged left.

And still your comments remain unjustified

I'll get me coat

[StumpyFingers]

Why does it not mention Rubbish?
Humans should all be allowed to live in a clean environment.
Why then do some feel that they can leave their rubbish in places that others may wish to visit?

[j]

cant comment other wise I would be banned.

[twistgrip]

However, those are only two people. The Human Rights act is designed to protect us all: closing in on 7 billion people. Should we really change sonething so fundamental because of only two people?

Banning it would also mean that was even less protection for people who have been wrongfully accused: like that pilot who spent a few months basking in "american hospitality" in the Gulf of Mexico.

He would have been screwed and his only crime would have been having the wrong cultural background.

Food for thought.

The thing is that these people and the others like them in their cess pit of life do not abide by or recognise human rights. If they did they would no commit their atrocities. By association with such activities they forfeit any rights whatsoever. I agree they should be sent back and not allowed to hide behind the benign laws of the good people they meant to harm. In reality I'm rather stuck for words, this whole system is fundamentally wrong to allow this to happen. I believe in the court of public opinion which usually results in a sensible conclusion, as opposed to the out of touch people JasonBC refers to. These two are not part of our society, they demonstrate that quite clearly. Send them back to whatever awaits them, they should have thought about that before they embarked on their murderous plans because if we don't we, the tax payers will once again foot the bill. Have the courage to say what you feel.

[Zenarchy]

Maybe some of those old cliche's about "two wrongs don't make a right", "be the bigger man", "lead by example", "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", "don't throw the baby out with the bath water", "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" etc.etc. might have some relevance here somewhere.

I believe in the court of public opinion which usually results in a sensible conclusion

[pdsquire]

I believe it was representatives of the court of public opinion who rioted and smashed all the windows of a Welsh paediatrician.

And voted for Jedward.

And put the most aristocratic government in control for 100 years.

Political correctness does not come from the HRA but from ignorance. The media often report one as the other. I admit that sometimes the HRA has deeply unattractive results but it may surprise readers a) that the European Convention on Human Rights was almost all written by the British and b) it is little more than a restatement of the rights we enjoyed anyway.

So that we know what we're discussing, the rights are

Article
2. life
3. freedom from torture, degrading treatment or punishment
4. freedom from slavery or compulsory labour
5. liberty, save detention in accordance with prescribed law
6. fair trial
7. freedom from prosecution for offences which did not exist at the time the act was committed
8. privacy and family life, home and correspondence
9. freedom of thought, conscience and religion
10. freedom of expression
11. freedom of association and membership of unions
12. marriage

As British subjects we have enjoyed most of all of those rights since about 1950. Which ones is it suggested we should now get rid of?

[Zenarchy]

The thing is that these people and the others like them in their cess pit of life do not abide by or recognise human rights.

I'm not trying to justify their actions at all, but we do live in a country that recognises human rights, and I'd like that to continue to be the case, as they're my human rights that are being protected too along with all of the rest of us who do recognise them.

Taking the stance that we should just get rid of the human rights act or any other human rights legislation in this country is much the same sort of depressing and regressive circular reasoning that there's been too much of recently imho.

For example, the "war on terror" is declared, and the politicians say "they want to take away our freedoms", then their response to that is to increasingly take away our freedoms themselves using this as a justification, to "keep us safe".

And so it went for year after year in ever decreasing circles....

[tangle]

What have the Romans done for us?

What rights does it protect?


The right to life – protects your life, by law. The state is required to investigate suspicious deaths and deaths in custody.

The prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment – you should never be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way, no matter what the situation.

Protection against slavery and forced labour – you should not be treated like a slave or subjected to forced labour.

The right to liberty and freedom – you have the right to be free and the state can only imprison you with very good reason – for example, if you are convicted of a crime.

The right to a fair trial and no punishment without law - you are innocent until proven guilty. If accused of a crime, you have the right to hear the evidence against you, in a court of law.

Respect for privacy and family life and the right to marry – protects against unnecessary surveillance or intrusion into your life. You have the right to marry and raise a family.

Freedom of thought, religion and belief – you can believe what you like and practise your religion or beliefs.

Free speech and peaceful protest – you have a right to speak freely and join with others peacefully, to express your views.

No discrimination – everyone’s rights are equal. You should not be treated unfairly – because, for example, of your gender, race, sexuality, religion or age.

Protection of property, the right to an education and the right to free elections – protects against state interference with your possessions; means that no child can be denied an education and that elections must be free and fair.

The HRA is something worth fighting a war for - the 2nd World War. Don't even think about giving up these rights. If you do, you or your children or your children's children will regret it.