# Cameron vows to fight against human rights ...



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

... and no, sadly this is not a Daily Mash piss-take.



> PRIME MINISTER David Cameron today pledges a new war on the hated European Human Rights legislation that he says has helped to create a broken Britain.



http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/266220/David-Cameron-vows-to-fight-hated-EU-law

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/266219/David-Cameron-Human-rights-in-my-sights


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Aug 21, 2011)

omg


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

To be fair, he's been wanting to scrap the human rights act for years. See e.g. this story from 2006 ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5114102.stm

He's just using the riots to, rather blatantly, gin up an excuse for abolition


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 21, 2011)

"There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else"

oh the irony


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 21, 2011)

I love it when people think human rights are a bad thing.  Twats.


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 21, 2011)

mentalchik said:


> "There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else"
> 
> oh the irony



Innit it just.


----------



## Athos (Aug 21, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I love it when people think human rights are a bad thing.  Twats.


Hanging is too good for them! Make them do national service, then hang them, then let the police clip them round the ear, then let teachers cane them, then take away their benefits, then chop off their hands (that's what would happen if we did it in their country), then ban their veils! These feral Muslim fundamentalist dole-scrounging yardie single mothers in there £6000000 mansions paid for by the taxpayer are what has caused this broken Britain. And the gays.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

It'd be interesting to know just *why* Cameron has such a long-standing interest in abolishing UK human rights law.

If you go back, his _given_ reasons vary opportunistically over the years. First it was to deport terrorists, then it was about deporting the kid who killed Philip Lawrence, now it's something more or less incoherent to do with riots and moral responsibility.

What I can't see though is the underlying reason for attacking human rights. Does the HRA somehow get in the way of neo-liberal capitalism? (If so why did Straw enact it?) Does it make it harder to let old people freeze to death in winter or something?

Anyone think they have a clear interpretation of his motives?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 21, 2011)

Something to do with employment rights mebbe ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2011)

mentalchik said:


> "There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else"
> 
> oh the irony



That irony, is the kick in the teeth that most of us are feeling I think. Double speak, double standards and sheer arrogance!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

It's a good question.

Fundamentally bringing about a British Bill of Rights just limits recourse to bodies outside the UK.

And allows for swifter and easier passing of government initiatives.

Why would he want that? 

I think that's obvious.

The question is.... why should we?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 21, 2011)

one for the home crowd. r/w frothbags have been bleating about the act for donkeys. I think littlejohn even has a hilarious nickname for the act like his 'elf and safety' schtick.

Plus of course, its one in the eye for those pesky pen pushers in brussels telling us we can't call a spade a spade etc etc


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

Exactly.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

Except it's nothing to do with Brussels, although that probably doesn't matter much to aforementioned frothbags.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

strasbourg, Brussels... neither are here.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 21, 2011)

of course the massively individualist culture and the large, violent criminal gangs in the USA is all related to the hated human rights act too, right? And of course their famously liberal policing and sentencing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 21, 2011)

He wants to get rid of the Human Rights Act so that he can bring in Sharia Law cos everyone knows government policy is dicated by Islamists. It's PC gawn mad!


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 21, 2011)

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeet, we really got the fuckin' feudalists here didn't we? And not the good ones either.

Kizmet, I'm sure you're right it will make it easier for the government to just get on with doing the stuff it wants, but I wonder too if this is to ease the way into a serious attack on employment law and trade unionism - the attack that, since this government got in, has been only a matter of time. For instance that clause on freedom of assembly and association could be right pesky if you want to tighten up trade union laws so much that you essentially make it impossible to unionise...


----------



## Voley (Aug 21, 2011)

Linking the riots to the Human Rights Act is impressively ridiculous even by his standards. Interesting it's come out on the same day that Tony Blair's taken a different tack on this issue. Bit of thunder stealing going on here.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 21, 2011)

Cameron says Britain is  broken, and would like to break it some more?

 How about drug testing on human subjects currently deprived of their liberty - eg. psychiatric prisons, long-term psych patients, lifers in prison, etc. No human rights, no problem.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 21, 2011)

These are the cuts we need to be making:

CUT CAMERON. CUT OSBORNE. CUT GOVE. CUT CLEGG. CUT the COALITION.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It'd be interesting to know just *why* Cameron has such a long-standing interest in abolishing UK human rights law.


There can only be economic reasons behind it. Not moral. We'll need to dig deep, but I'm sure we'll come up with something so despicable that it would make the hardest man cry.


> If you go back, his _given_ reasons vary opportunistically over the years. First it was to deport terrorists, then it was about deporting the kid who killed Philip Lawrence, now it's something more or less incoherent to do with riots and moral responsibility.
> 
> What I can't see though is the underlying reason for attacking human rights. Does the HRA somehow get in the way of neo-liberal capitalism? (If so why did Straw enact it?) Does it make it harder to let old people freeze to death in winter or something?
> 
> Anyone think they have a clear interpretation of his motives?


Human Rights Act gets in the way of all flavours of capitalism.


----------



## binka (Aug 21, 2011)

i want someone to ask him to be specific about which sections/clauses he hates the most


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 21, 2011)

does it have to have a deeper meaning? It's just another little thread in the Conservative ideology tapestry, surely?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 21, 2011)

binka said:


> i want someone to ask im to be specific about which sections/clauses he hates the most


journalists don't do that. Just like no government minister or senior policeman has so far been asked to justify the connections they've made been "gangs" and the riots.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 21, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's a good question.
> 
> Fundamentally bringing about a British Bill of Rights just limits recourse to bodies outside the UK.
> 
> ...


It was written by Brits, wasn't it?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 21, 2011)

Giving human beings rights was always going to be a bad idea. Down with humans.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 21, 2011)

I can just see Cameron in the next Tory PPB, pissing all over a copy of Tom Paine's Rights of Man.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Aug 21, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I love it when people think human rights are a bad thing. Twats.



Other beauties; "People need to to earn rights" takes the biscuit for me; "Britain does not need to be lectured on human rights" is another classic.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 21, 2011)

> The first place people learn these values is in the home. That is why I make no apology for talking about the importance of family and marriage. Every government policy must pass what I call the family test: does this make life better for families or worse? Does this make it easier to bring up well-behaved children or harder? Family is back at the top of the agenda.
> 
> Children also learn values in schools. Every school should be a place where children learn manners and morals but that is only possible when there is order in the classroom. So we are taking action to restore authority and boundaries, with teachers able to discipline pupils as they see fit and heads having the freedom to set uniform and behaviour policies and enforce them.



How is this a human rights issue?  Is the EU charter preventing good parenting and quality education?

I wonder what sections of the EU charter he plans on axing.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2011)

What's he on about, schools already do set uniforms and behaviour policies..?


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 21, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> There can only be economic reasons behind it. Not moral. We'll need to dig deep, but I'm sure we'll come up with something so despicable that it would make the hardest man cry.
> 
> Human Rights Act gets in the way of all flavours of capitalism.



Yeah, like I say, I suspect it's clearing the way for the destruction of the remnants of trade unionism and employment rights. I imagine it will also make it easier to clamp down on protest - various police anti-protest powers have been challenged, sometimes successfully, under the HRA.

A few weeks ago I would have said we were drifting towards a more authoritarian future. Now I think the word 'drift' would be optimistic. 'Being driven' would be more like it.

The aristo-finance axis have got it in for us and no mistake.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It'd be interesting to know just *why* Cameron has such a long-standing interest in abolishing UK human rights law.
> 
> If you go back, his _given_ reasons vary opportunistically over the years. First it was to deport terrorists, then it was about deporting the kid who killed Philip Lawrence, now it's something more or less incoherent to do with riots and moral responsibility.
> 
> ...



It's probably got at least *something* to do with resiling from the "fair trial" provisions, IMHO. Perhaps he's looking to the future and the all-too-predictable riots when the economy gets worse rather than better, and a 3 million + dole queue becomes the focus of misty-eyed nostalgia for a golden age when only 3 million were officially unemployed.
We all know that conflict over resources, internal and in microcosm as well as external and in macrocosm, are coming. Perhaps the pols are just making sure that while they live in their safe zone, we won't be able to come get them and stick their heads up their own arses without the risk of exemplary punishment?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 21, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> How is this a human rights issue? Is the EU charter preventing good parenting and quality education?
> 
> I wonder what sections of the EU charter he plans on axing.



The European Convention on Human Rights came into being before the European Union (or the EEC as it was) and has nothing directly to do with the EU, accept every country has to sign-up to the ECHR in order to be a member of the EU.

As there's no way that we are likely to be leaving the EU, all this talk about 'war on the ECHR' is nonsense, Disco Dave is just playing to the gallery.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 21, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's a good question.
> 
> Fundamentally bringing about a British Bill of Rights just limits recourse to bodies outside the UK.
> 
> ...



Under our present system of governance, what *we* may or may not want doesn't really matter. What's the worst we can do if we disapprove? We can vote out one shower of neo-liberal and replace them with another that has slightly different branding, Same shit, different arseholes.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 21, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> The European Convention on Human Rights came into being before the European Union (or the EEC as it was) and has nothing directly to do with the EU, accept every country has to sign-up to the ECHR in order to be a member of the EU.
> 
> As there's no way that we are likely to be leaving the EU, all this talk about 'war on the ECHR' is nonsense, Disco Dave is just playing to the gallery.



Thanks for the timeline.  I still don't know what part of it prevents good parenting and education.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

Hmm there's a whole bunch of things he might have in mind looking at the stuff the ECHR prevents the government from doing or allowing to be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Convention_articles

Fair trials as VP says above, protection of privacy, freedom from wrongful search, freedom of assembly and trade unions, freedom from discrimination on the basis of race or political views ... all things that could be considered inconvenient for capitalism.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 21, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> Thanks for the timeline. I still don't know what part of it prevents good parenting and education.



Short answer, it doesn't.

This whole story is nothing short of a headline-catching media circus, timed to appeal to those outraged by the recent riots, it'll all get forgotten about in a few weeks.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> Thanks for the timeline. I still don't know what part of it prevents good parenting and education.



Well, Tony Blair's recent prouncements seem to seek greater state intervention in families he deems dysfunctional and some of what Shiny Dave is saying sounds like it might be along those lines too, so possibly Article 8?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Short answer, it doesn't.
> 
> This whole story is nothing short of a headline-catching media circus, timed to appeal to those outraged by the recent riots, it'll all get forgotten about in a few weeks.



I dunno, he's been pushing this idea on various pretexts since 2006 ...

The latest incoherent riot-based justification is only the latest in a long line.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, Tony Blair's recent prouncements seem to seek greater state intervention in families he deems dysfunctional and some of what Shiny Dave is saying sounds like it might be along those lines too, so possibly Article 8?


Do people still think the tories are a party that want less state intervention in people's lives?


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Same shit, different arseholes.



Recently, it seems to be the same arsehole everytime.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Do people still think the tories are a party that want less state intervention in people's lives?



Well, people in the Daily Mail do, but I'm not sure how widespread that delusion might be among the rest of the population ...


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 21, 2011)

both of them have been talking about intervention in these 120,000 problem families. It's proper sinister.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> both of them have been talking about intervention in these 120,000 problem families. It's proper sinister.


And how do they identify "problem families". Wouldn't just be down to living in a certain postcode area + benefits+ single parent would it?


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, Tony Blair's recent prouncements seem to seek greater state intervention in families he deems dysfunctional and some of what Shiny Dave is saying sounds like it might be along those lines too, so possibly Article 8?



"he" deems dysfunctional, huh?  

<sigh>

*goes off to attempt to find the charter, then article 8*


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 21, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> And how do they identify "problem families". Wouldn't just be down to living in a certain postcode area + benefits+ single parent would it?


I don't know. Amazingly, although David Cameron said it, no journalist has thought to ask him that.

If they're planning to intervene the must have some criteria. It's a very short walk from problem groups to collective punishment.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> I don't know. Amazingly, although David Cameron said it, no journalist has thought to ask him that.
> 
> If they're planning to intervene the must have some criteria. It's a very short walk from problem groups to collective punishment.


Like curfews for certain areas?
They've certainly been full of it over the last few days.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 21, 2011)

Using the wiki link, I found one that he wouldn't like. Article 6 - the right to a fair trail.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 21, 2011)

yes, we all deserve sunny paths


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 21, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Like curfews for certain areas?
> They've certainly been full of it over the last few days.


for starters, the evictions too are part of that. Who knows where it could go. IDS is very keen on the power of work, and there's no money to _pay_ for work programmes...


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I dunno, he's been pushing this idea on various pretexts since 2006 ...
> 
> The latest incoherent riot-based justification is only the latest in a long line.



He was also banging on about 'broken Britain' on the run up to last year's election, then dropped it until now.

Basically, he hasn't a scooby doo about what to do, and is flapping about more than a fish out of water.

There's very little he can do about the ECHR without withdrawing from the EU, and despite how anyone views the LibDems, there's also fuck all he can do about the ECHR with them in government.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> for starters, the evictions too are part of that. Who knows where it could go. IDS is very keen on the power of work, and there's no money to _pay_ for work programmes...


They don't want people in jobs being paid the going rate, they want them on workfare and prob as far out of london they can be in order to be bussed in.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> <snip> IDS is very keen on the power of work, and there's no money to _pay_ for work programmes...



ECHR bans forced labour ...


----------



## Poo Flakes (Aug 21, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> How is this a human rights issue? Is the EU charter preventing good parenting and quality education?
> 
> I wonder what sections of the EU charter he plans on axing.



One can only speculate why the Tories would oppose the ECHR or the European Charter. I doubt they could pick and choose sections though. I just have a feeling, certainly whenever I read the intellectual basis for modern conservatism, that there is not a great deal of decent analysis that one could point to that can justify these types of positions. Same story for Labour and Lib Dems too, particularly Labour supporters.

There is a perception that prisoners benefit more than 'responsible', 'law-abiding' citizens, I just cannot imagine a major political party would be that worried about something so petty. Maybe they are just looking for exemptions, or other concessions from other European nations by making a big fuss about all of this.


----------



## spring-peeper (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ECHR bans forced labour ...



except under certain circumstances such as war or civil disobedience.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 21, 2011)

Does anyone  remember any mass campaign for the Human Rights Act? I am not sure  to be honest what its benefit is or was compared to pre HRA .

Don't need a list of what is in it as it wouldn't have been agreed if it had bucked the the status quo.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> it wouldn't have been agreed if it had bucked the the status quo.


Equally you could say Dave wouldn't bother getting rid of it unless it was standing in the way of The Programme.


----------



## love detective (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ECHR bans forced labour ...



That never bothered Labour when they were in power



> British exporters backed by taxpayers’ money would have greater freedom to use child workers and even forced labour abroad under a policy reversal floated by an arm of Lord Mandelson’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skill
> 
> The Export Credits Guarantee Department, the creditor and insurer of many multinationals’ projects in poor countries, is proposing to ease tight standards on underage workers that it adopted six years ago after a political outcry


 


> Nick Hildyard, researcher for The Corner House, a campaign group, said he had “real concerns” that the trend of loosening standards would offer exporters increasing opportunities to use child labour and bonded workers.
> 
> He said: “Millions of children and forced labourers will be put at potential risk of exploitation.”
> 
> ...


 


> The ECGD said the labour proposals were designed to bring Britain in line with international norms


 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f28edfe4-01ff-11df-8b56-00144feabdc0.html


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Yeah, like I say, I suspect it's clearing the way for the destruction of the remnants of trade unionism and employment rights. I imagine it will also make it easier to clamp down on protest - various police anti-protest powers have been challenged, sometimes successfully, under the HRA.
> 
> A few weeks ago I would have said we were drifting towards a more authoritarian future. Now I think the word 'drift' would be optimistic. 'Being driven' would be more like it.



Trade unions - probably... although they can be a valuable tool in workplace control. And a lot of legislation in this regard will fluctuate with successive governments.

But protest - definitely. Punishment - definitely. Employment rights - definitely.


Authority always seeks more authority.



> The aristo-finance axis have got it in for us and no mistake.



Lizards?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> ECHR bans forced labour ...


Cameron has been speaking about "civil service" this very day.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 21, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Lizards?



If that's what you want to call them  No, just referring to this government specifically, rather than the more general political class.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

love detective said:


> That never bothered Labour when they were in power
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f28edfe4-01ff-11df-8b56-00144feabdc0.html



Sure but if I'm not mistaken, the campaign against Export Credit Guarantee support for forced/child labour has been based pretty squarely on trying to get them to honour their obligations under the HRA/ECHR.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

Actually though, looking at ECHR non-compliance statistics, one definitely gets the idea that the people with the strongest motivation to want to get rid of the HRA are secret and/or political police and immigration depts. So it's mainly expulsions and extraditions (e.g. to places like the US or Syria where people are likely to have their human rights violated by torture etc), domestic mistreatment of dissidents and a desire to take a tough PR posture on immigrants and asylum seekers.

see e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1543945


----------



## love detective (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Sure but if I'm not mistaken, the campaign against Export Credit Guarantee support for forced/child labour has been based pretty squarely on trying to get them to honour their obligations under the HRA/ECHR.


Indeed that's what the campaign was based on - and the ECGD countered that



> there is no arguable case that the ECHR or the 1998 [Human Rights] Act would apply to the provision by ECGD of support to an exporter who is involved in a project which operates forced labour practices outside UK territory


Subsequent to this the campaign's application for a judicial review of the ECGD's decision was refused on the basis that it was not arguable in law

So you got to ask, what use is Human Rights legislation if it can't stop a state body actively funding companies that use child or forced labour


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2011)

seems to me this is part and parcel of a longstanding tory tradition, which is to encourage investment in the uk on the basis that workers in the country have fuck all rights and can therefore be more readily exploited without fear of much resistance; i remember seeing a dti document from the early 90s which made this point quite explicitly. while human rights and anti-trade union legislation might not be obviously closely associated, getting rid of the hra seems to me to further this agenda.


----------



## magneze (Aug 21, 2011)

Hopefully someone will ask Cameron which Human Rights he is specifically against. Fair trial? Life? Maybe he loves teh slavery and wants to get rid of the one banning that?

How is this even linked to the riots anyway?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 21, 2011)

Weird policy direction for Cameron. It leaves him wide open to people raising the spectre of the old authoritarian image of the tories and as the dust settles on the riots leaves him wide open to accusations of scare mongering

After all crime rates have been falling for years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/04/public-perception-crime-higher

He is now vaulnrable from the left on human rights and from the right on police numbers in terms of law and order issues.

Policies that motivate his grassroots are not going to win him elections. They will however drive disgruntled ex labour and Lib Dem voters back to Milliband.

Still I am actually quite chuffed that every Times, Guardian and Telegraph reader going to the shops today seen a big banner headline on the Express that the Cameron is anti human rights. Its the kind of headline that plays well right after a riot but sticks in the mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2011)

not really: when i'm going to buy my telegraph i don't look at what the express front page says. i don't suppose i'm alone in that.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Under our present system of governance, what *we* may or may not want doesn't really matter. What's the worst we can do if we disapprove? We can vote out one shower of neo-liberal and replace them with another that has slightly different branding, Same shit, different arseholes.



Even in Strasbourg. Same shit, different language.

But then politics, for me, has long ago stopped being about ideologies... and become about the individuals involved. That is a different conversation, however.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Actually though, looking at ECHR non-compliance statistics, one definitely gets the idea that the people with the strongest motivation to want to get rid of the HRA are secret and/or political police and immigration depts. So it's mainly expulsions and extraditions (e.g. to places like the US or Syria where people are likely to have their human rights violated by torture etc), domestic mistreatment of dissidents and a desire to take a tough PR posture on immigrants and asylum seekers.
> 
> see e.g. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1543945



Except that a mechanism already exists for the rendition. And it's far easier.

Tougher police powers under governmental jurisdiction, now that could be used for many many more things.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> If that's what you want to call them  No, just referring to this government specifically, rather than the more general political class.



If you are looking for motivation.... I think survival, right now, is Dave's primary concern.

These riots can kill him.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 21, 2011)

binka said:


> i want someone to ask him to be specific about which sections/clauses he hates the most





> *Human Rights Act*
> 
> The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. These rights not only impact matters of life and death, they also affect the rights you have in your everyday life: what you can say and do, your beliefs, your right to a fair trial and other similar basic entitlements.
> Most rights have limits to ensure that they do not unfairly damage other people's rights. However, certain rights – such as the right not to be tortured – can never be limited by a court or anybody else.
> ...




Take your pick.​


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 21, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Yeah, like I say, I suspect it's clearing the way for the destruction of the remnants of trade unionism and employment rights. I imagine it will also make it easier to clamp down on protest - various police anti-protest powers have been challenged, sometimes successfully, under the HRA.
> 
> A few weeks ago I would have said we were drifting towards a more authoritarian future. Now I think the word 'drift' would be optimistic. 'Being driven' would be more like it.
> 
> The aristo-finance axis have got it in for us and no mistake.



The spin has begun. First out of the pen is the Daily Fail with 'Human rights for Paedos' scaremongering. (50 minutes ago).

Predictably, there is not one mention of the rights of children not to be placed in danger. The interpretation of the law, and the twisting of it by unscruplous lawyers is not mentioned.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 21, 2011)

It reminds me of the Neocons using 9-11 as an excuse to push through their agenda of invading Iraq. The tories have used the banker's bailout as an excuse to slash public sector jobs and services and are now using the riots as an excuse to get rid of Human Rights legislation and Health and Safety, all of which have been part of their ideology for donkey's years.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 21, 2011)

Folk were saying the same thing about Blair.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 21, 2011)

I Think people are not against human rights on the big things.
but like when health and safety or equalties is abused by unthinking twats or used to make a quick buck by dubious lawyers


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 21, 2011)

I think you have to be clear what Tories mean by "people" in this context. It's a slightly different definition than you will find in a dictionary, and can be summed up as human beings who have either assets of over a million pounds or an income of over £100,000pa.


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2011)

According to a poll in the Independent,  Camerons 'hard line' has seen the Condems vote go up, though as others note it may be a temporary..


----------



## ferrelhadley (Aug 21, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights



> The development of a regional system of Human Rights protection operating across Europe can be seen as a direct response to twin concerns. First, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the convention, drawing on the inspiration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be seen as part of a wider response of the Allied Powers in delivering a human rights agenda through which it was believed that the most serious human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War (most notably, the Holocaust) could be avoided in the future. Second, the Convention was a response to the growth of Communism in Eastern Europe and designed to protect the member states of the Council of Europe from communist subversion. This, in part, explains the constant references to values and principles that are "necessary in a democratic society" throughout the Convention, despite the fact that such principles are not in any way defined within the convention itself.[5]
> The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after World War II in response to a call issued by Europeans from all walks of life who had gathered at the Hague Congress (1948). When over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member nations of the Council of Europe came together in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly, drafting a "charter of human rights" and creating a Court to enforce it was high on their agenda. British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, guided the drafting of the Convention. As a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, he had seen first-hand how international justice could be effectively applied. With his help, French former minister and Resistance fighter Pierre-Henri Teitgen submitted a report[6] to the Assembly proposing a list of rights to be protected, selecting a number from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just agreed to in New York, and defining how the enforcing judicial mechanism might operate. After extensive debates,[7] the Assembly sent its final proposal[8] to the Council's Committee of Ministers, which convened a group of experts to draft the Convention itself.
> *The Convention was designed to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political democracy", from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom,* France and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe. The Convention was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 in Rome. It was ratified and entered into force on 3 September 1953. It is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and the Council of Europe. Until recently, the Convention was also overseen by a European Commission on Human Rights.



Loving Camerons work here. Attacking what is one of Britains finest post war moments. His attack relies on no one pointing this out. But already Ming the Aged has had a pop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14606104

God hes missing Coulson.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 21, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Equally you could say Dave wouldn't bother getting rid of it unless it was standing in the way of The Programme.



What is standing in the way of what aspects of this programme?

Awful lot of reliance on the law on this site btw.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 22, 2011)

Nigel Farage (UKIP) and Sunny Hundal (Pickled Politics) on Sky TV talking about Human Rights: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/13558

Farage (UKIP): 'The trouble with Human rights ... is that no-one knows what's right and what's wrong ... it's actually become a criminal charter ... with immigrants claiming they have the right to a family life because they have a pet cat''


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 22, 2011)

christ I wish he'd died in that plane crash


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> christ I wish he'd died in that plane crash



Or at least had his head literally stuffed up his arse in the crash, to match his metaphorical position.


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 22, 2011)

Though it has led to some dubious ideas as to what constitutes a breach of your human rights.Mostly through ignorance of both parties
or having to define what degrading treatment is for example.It is a good idea and should be the basis of law IMHO.
   No one wants to see some criminal clogging up the court with a dubious law suit.If that even happens outside of tabloid land?
Or some yob claiming human rights abuse as soon as he is nicked.Then again we don't want authorities being able to ride over people with
impunity.Its a sound bite which sounds good till you dig into it.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Aug 22, 2011)

It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of the cases in which defendants/lawyers are alleged to be misusing the human rights act, who paid the legal fees, how many cases there are, etc.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2011)

treelover said:


> According to a poll in the Independent, Camerons 'hard line' has seen the Condems vote go up, though as others note it may be a temporary..


labour back on a 9 pt lead on tomorrow's yougov - looks like a blip.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2011)

Luther Blissett said:


> Nigel Farage (UKIP) and Sunny Hundal (Pickled Politics) on Sky TV talking about Human Rights: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/13558
> 
> Farage (UKIP): 'The trouble with Human rights ... is that no-one knows what's right and what's wrong ... it's actually become a criminal charter ... with immigrants claiming they have the right to a family life because they have a pet cat''



Farage claims that an immigrant managed to avoid deportation because he was able to argue that it would infringe his right to a family life because he had a pet cat. In actual fact, that was the media spin on the case in question. In reality, joint ownership of the pet cat was "one detail among many" that the Bolivian immigrant in question was involved in a loving, committed relationship with his British girlfriend and that they were therefore entitled to convention protection - the cat was a peripheral detail in other words. Sections of the media and scum like farage deliberately lie and morons soak it up. This is how bigotry spreads.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2011)

p.s. funny how the right have been drawing on communitarian critiques of human rights (as well as the welfare state) for the 30 years or so. It just goes to show that neo-liberalism, far from being imposed as a unified and coherent ideology, is in fact one of many governmental rationalities that intersects with all manner of other discordant discourses (nationalism, religious evangelicalism,  and so on).


----------



## purves grundy (Aug 23, 2011)

By fuck, what a depressing thread


----------



## campanula (Aug 23, 2011)

I am finding the oleaginous fuckwittery which falls from Cameron's lips to be scarcely worth consideration - the man is an opportunistic power whore who would clearly quote any old crapulous tripe if he believed it would garner even one smidgeon of support or credibility from the mythical middle englander. It is often ill-considered kneejerk foaming - the usual rabid right wing fear of subversion or dissent. Mostly, Cameron relies on the usual PR witterings which are emotive, glib and generally unworkable when a more detailed scrutiny ensues.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

treelover said:


> According to a poll in the Independent, Camerons 'hard line' has seen the Condems vote go up, though as others note it may be a temporary..


I think the chance of that happening is exactly what motivated him to take the 'hard line'; as for here, the motivation is simple. The sort of unthinking, hang 'em and flog 'em tory neanderthals who get a stiffy over the thought of abolition of 'lefty' legislation like the HRA (and ECHR) are precisely the sort of Tories who distrust Cameron the most, and instinctively support him with least fervour. They see him as too modern, too metropolitan and too socially liberal by half. he's simply using the riots to play to that gallery, because he knows they'll be the first to cause him problems if things get worse for the Tories


----------



## AnandLeo (Aug 23, 2012)

Scottish Archbishop of Catholic church has spoken about subversion of human rights. The Archbishop’s cap fits me like a diadem of thorns.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2012)

AnandLeo said:


> Scottish Archbishop of Catholic church has spoken about subversion of human rights. The Archbishop’s cap fits me like a diadem of thorns.


 
You're comparing yourself to Jesus?

As for the "archbishop", the one who's been bleating about human rights. It wasn't an archbishop, it was Cardinal Keith O'Brien, and he's a homophobic woman-loathing fuckwit, so most rational people expect the fruitcake to vomit out such Vatican-inspired rubbish.


----------

