Human Rights inconvenient?

[worm]

Eh? I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about.

The UK's HRA has a basis for human rights that have nothing to do with nationality. They don't say "this right is available if you're British, but not if you're not", they say "this is the right of anyone when within this country".

They are rights for humans, not rights for the British.

[eFestivals]

Rights for humans according to British law. Ergo, they are rights according to British law.

Really? I hadn't realised that UK laws were passed by the UK Parliament and their jurisdiction was limited to the UK.

It's a good job that you're around to put me right, eh? Otherwise I might have thought that UK laws were being written exclusively for the Danish, with their jurisdiction being Brazil.

And heaven knows what I was doing in saying that the UK's HRA applies to humans in the UK and not just UK citizens. I was in real danger there of making as pointless a post as you've just managed.

[5co77ie]

I find the current attack on the HRA by the Tories strange. The act was taken directly from the European Convention on human rights, which was masterminded by a little known Conservative politician, called Sir Winston Churchill, and drafted under the guidance of another Tory, David Maxwell-Fyfe (later Lord Chancellor Kilmuir) in the face of considerable opposition from the Attlee Labour government. The act was regarded as the flagship of the Conservative party when it was signed in 1951.

The act was enshrined as holding those rights fundamental to the old British common law tradition -

the right to life

the prohibition of torture

freedon from slavery

the right to a fair hearing

Freedom from retrospective prosecution

the right to privacy

Freedom of conscience and religious expression

Freedom of speech

Family values

Many of these date back to the Long Parliament in 1640; and some to the Magna Carta, the Human Rights Act gives no new right that has not already been long recognised in common law, or to which parliament has not already long committed to UK law.

Seems very strange that so many people view this as a bad European owned legislation that should be done away with, although even if it was our own older Common Laws already have the same freedoms - unless of course Camoron and May want to do away with those too.

Can anyone pro the removal of HRA tell me why they think it's a good idea?

[worm]

Really? I hadn't realised that UK laws were passed by the UK Parliament and their jurisdiction was limited to the UK.

It's a good job that you're around to put me right, eh? Otherwise I might have thought that UK laws were being written exclusively for the Danish, with their jurisdiction being Brazil.

And heaven knows what I was doing in saying that the UK's HRA applies to humans in the UK and not just UK citizens. I was in real danger there of making as pointless a post as you've just managed.

[eFestivals]

Then you agree that you made an error by saying that we are talking about human rights as opposed to nationalistic rights. There are no universal rights. Only nationalistic rights.

The error is all yours, and yours alone.

There are no nationalistic rights within the UK's HRA.

If I'm wrong about that, then do please show me the clauses within it that give rights to specifically just UK nationals.

Otherwise, do shut the fuck up.

Edited October 5, 2011 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

Primal Scream are disgusted by Theresa May using 'Rocks'

http://www.24dash.com/news/central_government/2011-10-05-Primal-Scream-disgusted-by-sick-association-to-Theresa-May?

[worm]

If I'm wrong about that,

[abdoujaparov]

Yes, you're wrong about that.

The UK is a sovereignty. Whatever it decides is a human right is its own national law because it has no levy in other nations. It doesn't matter whether it borrows or conforms to an international organisation, it's still national law. It is not universal. So you're wrong.

Edited October 5, 2011 by abdoujaparov

[eFestivals]

Yes, you're wrong about that.

The UK is a sovereignty. Whatever it decides is a human right is its own national law because it has no levy in other nations. It doesn't matter whether it borrows or conforms to an international organisation, it's still national law. It is not universal. So you're wrong.

To be wrong, I'd have to have said something along the lines you're going on about. I've made nor implied any reference to whether or not it's a "national law". Wrong, as ever, are you.

I have talked about a completely different thing.

"(note that we're talking about 'human beings' and not 'British' - we're talking about human rights and not nationalistic rights)"

"The UK's HRA has a basis for human rights that have nothing to do with nationality. They don't say "this right is available if you're British, but not if you're not", they say "this is the right of anyone when within this country". They are rights for humans, not rights for the British."

"And heaven knows what I was doing in saying that the UK's HRA applies to humans in the UK and not just UK citizens"

"There are no nationalistic rights within the UK's HRA."

Is there anything else you'd like to display your stupidity with today?

Edited October 5, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

except that all the Human Rights Acts does is make the European Convention on Humand Rights diectly justiciable in UK courts (meaning you dont have to go to the European Court of Human Rights to seek redress). The rights are as defined in the European Convention (not the HRA), which is an international document and internationally enforceable, by the European Council. So, in a sense, the UK gave up some of its sovereignty when it signed the ECHR, given that breaches are enforced extra-territorially.

[eFestivals]

It is very much a matter of human rights as pertains to a nation and not human rights as pertains to humanity.

It's human rights applied to people without regard to their nation.

It is "human rights as pertains to humanity", and not "not human rights as pertains to humanity".

What it is is human rights that apply to all of humanity within a specific territory.