No U-turn on human rights
The Conservatives were never going to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA).
Some in the party might have thought that a manifesto pledge to replace the HRA with a UK Bill of Rights meant they would get rid of those pesky foreign laws which stopped Britain sending terror suspects packing. But if they did, they weren't listening.
"Although some have argued, and increasingly vociferously, that the solution for the UK in view of these problems is to withdraw from the Convention altogether on the grounds that it is an undesirable and unnecessary fetter of national sovereignty in decision making, I entirely disagree, as does the Conservative Party."
That was the Attorney General Dominic Grieve last November speaking as shadow justice secretary.
"Such a withdrawal would send a very damaging signal about how the UK viewed the place and promotion of human rights and liberties and would be an encouragement to every tin pot dictator such as Robert Mugabe, who violates them."
How does that fit with the manifesto promise to "replace the Human Rights Act"? Well, the point is that there are two different legal documents involved and some confusion over how they affect Britain.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a binding commitment on all members of the Council of Europe. Drafted in 1950 by a committee led by the Conservative politician, David Maxwell Fyfe, it is that document which ultimately prevents the UK from deporting people who face torture or death.
The human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson has pointed out that withdrawing from the ECHR "would probably require the United Kingdom to leave the EU as well". That was not Conservative policy.
The UK Human Rights Act is a separate and complementary piece of domestic legislation which incorporates most of the ECHR into UK law.
This has meant that British citizens could, as the Labour manifesto put it, "take action in British courts rather than having to wait years to seek redress in Strasbourg".
It does not change individuals rights under the European Convention - it emphasises and clarifies them.
The Conservative promise to "replace" the HRA might have been assumed to mean "scrap" the HRA.
But, in fact, the Conservative policy-makers have always made it clear that the alternative UK Bill of Rights would retain all the ECHR rights and add a few more - in the jargon it would be "Convention plus".
Hugh Tomlinson tells me that, well before the election, the Tories were suggesting it was their intention "to use, in many if not all cases, the same wording as current Convention rights".
Last night, the BBC was told that the coalition government would "establish a commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that takes full account of all our obligations under the European convention of human rights and protects and extends traditional British liberties".
No surprise to those who'd been following the story, but a far cry from what David Cameron was suggesting in 2006 when he described the Human Rights Act as "practically an invitation for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain".
In that speech he said it was "wrong to undermine public safety, and indeed public confidence in the concept of human rights, by allowing highly dangerous criminals and terrorists to trump the rights of the people of Britain to live in security and peace."
But he also said his new "British Bill of Rights... should protect the fundamental rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights in clearer and more precise terms".
Former Tory chairman Lord Tebbit spotted the problem straight away - that any British Bill of Rights could be overridden in Strasbourg as long as the UK remains signed up to the European convention.
When it comes to the intractable issue of what to do with terror suspects against whom there is not enough evidence to prosecute, but where security services and the home secretary are convinced they pose a risk to public safety, it is article three of the ECHR which may prevent deportation.
It prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.
The European Court of Human Rights has emphasised the fundamental nature of article three - that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms... irrespective of a victim's conduct." So it covers innocent old ladies and hardened criminals equally.
In a landmark case brought by the UK government in 1997, the Strasbourg court made it clear that states cannot deport or extradite individuals who might be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the recipient state.
Experts are clear that changing the wording and the name of the Human Rights Act in Britain would not and could not indemnify Britain against its obligations under the ECHR.
On the BBC Today programme this morning, Home Secretary Theresa May appeared to suggest to John Humphrys that it was the Liberal Democrats who had forced a change of thinking.
May: "We did say things, that we thought the HRA was not working in certain areas, prior to the election, and we are now discussing with our coalition partners what we will be doing in that area."
Humphrys: "You said you were going to get rid of it, you are not now going to get rid of it...?"
May: "No, we are currently discussing with our coalition partners what we will be doing in this area."
In an interview with The Times this morning, Nick Clegg said of the Human Rights Act: "Any government would tamper with it at its peril."
It was not the warning shot as portrayed by some since neither his party, nor their Conservative coalition partners, ever seriously planned to do so.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~59~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
The simple solution is to drop the requirement that a person who is deported HAS to return to his country of origin. When it is decided that, for whatever reason, an individual is no longer welcome here it does not matter where they go, as long as they get out of the UK and do not come back.
Don't confuse deportation with extradition, where another country asks that a suspected criminal be sent to them for trial.
Complain about this comment
Sticky wicket this one.
My human rights get shafted on medical grounds that bring me in conflict with law. But some would be bomber is allowed his on the grounds he may be tortured for being a really vile piece of work in modern society. A great amount of money will be spent on him and his comfortable life here.
WE need to look at this properly.
We need our Human rights enacted properly and not with variations of current laws re-balancing them. The right to life free from aggression the right to life free from pain or illness were the treatment is freely available with no regard for money or cost or law. The right to live our life.
on the subject of HR and world responsibility.
British rights is the corner stone of a dictatorship to peoples not a equal peoples. they can be set by the current regime and remove or alter just about every right to life we may have...
Complain about this comment
The HRA is OK as a standalone piece of legislation. The problem is in it's applications but the judicial system and government organisations. The former appears to be at the mercy of manipulation by professional criminals who use the HRA as a way of gaining the upper hand against their victims and the state in general - if the HRA was applied in a balanced way looking at the rights of victims then their may not be so many high profile issues in the media. The second group of abusers of the HRA are the government and the civil service - they have tended to use it as a sheild to hide their own failures and to protect their own agendas.
Perhaps the HRA needs tweaking to reflect the need for a level playing field and how certain rights are abrogated by individuals who decide to break the law in general ?
Complain about this comment
Why not begin the process to amend the Human Rights legislation in Europe if it doesn't work. Other countries could potentially face the same problems.
I'd start by recommending giving the convicted criminal/terrorist a lesser level of rights than the victim.
Complain about this comment
So Dave was just pandering to the extreme right when he talked about"replacing the HRA",a cynical ploy for votes from our very own,homegrown,fascists.I can imagine that a lot of them feel angry that they now know that Dave has lied to them to get their vote.Ha ha ha,silly little fascists got trumped,serves them right.Seriously though,this is not what I expected,maybe I've been too harsh on Dave and his curious collective,staying with the HRA means that no government can usurp our democracy entirely without serious breaches of the Act.It also means that the abuses of the Public Order Act cannot be so easily excused as they would be if we abolished the HRA.Good news at last from Dave and the curious collective.We are watching and waiting........
Complain about this comment
Mark, what you make clear is that this whole "scrap the Human Rights Act" pledge was essentially an election stunt to pander to the anti-Europe, hang-em-high brigade, a trick of badge-engineering. Thinking Tories must be quietly pleased they can now ditch the idea - the fig-leaf "commission" notwithstanding - and, as you suggest, blame it on those softy LibDems. Just a shame that you follow popular misconceptions by reducing the Convention to "sending terrorists back home". As the lawyers (of all parties) know very well, the Convention (and the HRA, which obliges British judges to apply it properly) has fundamentally changed British society in hundreds of ways - for the better, in my view. Today's delicate disengagement leaves human rights in the UK, and not just those of terrorists, safe for the time being.
Complain about this comment
Of course we cannot and should not leave the convention nor should we stop our courts from using the convention by virtue of the Human Rights Act. Nor do we want additional rights. We do not want to deport highly dangerous people to third countries where they can continue to cause mischief here. Surely we should prosecute these people for crimes they have committed and sentence them to life imprisonment if that is appropriate. We should seek to persuade foreign governments to adopt basic human rights such as prohibiting torture. Unfortunately one of our traditional allies has routinely tortured or procured others to torture.
Complain about this comment
I love your opening paragraph:
"SOME of the PARTY might have thought..... those PESKY FOREIGN laws. But if they did, they weren`t listening"
The Capitals are mine; How many suppositions per line are you allowed ?
Is that paragraph not called building a straw man ?
Please explain to me what is wrong with wanting rid of fanatics intent on creating, by violence, a "New Caliphate" in a country that was never even an "Old Caliphate".
In my younger days it was always explained to me "Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the obiedence of fools". Save for the lapse in singular gender attribution, that maxim ,at least to me, still makes sense.
No doubt the Human Rights law was (is) one of good intentions
We all know with what the pathway to Hell is paved.
Complain about this comment
Deportation of criminals seems to be the headline grabber for some reason. The truth is if you want universal protection that protects your own rights you have to protect all people's rights even those you don't agree with or who break the law. Otherwise you then get into the argument of what crimes constitute the point of no return.
As for deporting someone but not to the point of origin Megan - that might encourage the unfortunate recipient country (were it likely that there ever was one which is doubtful) to consider returning the favour to us. Do you really want that?
Complain about this comment
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Human rights are indivisible. If there are undesirable secondary effects from guaranteeing them, then those should be addressed specifically and separately.
Complain about this comment
The fact is that Cameron wanted to get rid of if because of the whole deportation issue, however he knows the only way to do so is to leave the EU, which despite rhetorice he won't do.
And what is the point in wasting taxpayers money looking at a bill that they are going to keep most of anyway? Or even all of and just add a few extra bits? Why not simply ammend the law? He is wasting time, money and credability on an issue that really can't be changed.
Even now the tories and Lib dems are now advocating the labour policy they derrided and saying they'll just ask other countries nicely not to torture the people we send back! Shocking!
Complain about this comment
Those claiming that they will be tortured in their own country if sent back could be allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds. But if they return to their own country for a holiday the UK government should not re-admit them.
I hope this comments falls in line with the moderators new stance towards the coalition and its very very good policies. I think our two leaders are super chaps.
Complain about this comment
Whilst it may be politically unacceptable to the Mail readers, it is vitally important that Article 3 (prohibition of torture) applies to all. If we say it can be ignored for certain types of criminals then the convention fails. It exists to protect us from the government, so saying that the government can ignore the protections at times it chose would allow it to torture at will (and indeed it can do so regarding other conventions as was seen in Northern Ireland)
Complain about this comment
No one seems to consider the idea that the original authors of the 1950
act might actually have known what they were talking about.
Terrorism and the fear of it is not a new thing. It did not begin
with 9/11 and the world did not change just because former President Bush
said it did.
Before anyone says "Nuclear Bomb" they had already been used in Japan at the end of the war, so the authors of the treaty were well aware of
this possibility. Likewise chemical warfar had already been used in WWI.
Another disturbing aspect is that some people are already assuming that
the accused have been convicted of a crime. They haven't. They are
suspects not criminals.
If a man is actually convicted he can be locked up, but handing over a
suspect so that a third party can torture and murder him on your behalf
would be a monstrous thing to do.
Complain about this comment
As has been pointed out elsewhere even if you repealed the ECHR in Europe, a strange thing to do since it was essentially a British Invention, you still can't legally deport people to countries where they might be subject to torture due to "The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" of which Britain is a signatory along with 155 other countries. I guess you could unsign that but that would define Britain as a country where torture is permissable.
You could simply ignore the law, the Labour government was accused of that with regard to Pakistan in 2009. David Davis said at the time, "The British agencies can no longer pretend that 'Hear no evil, see no evil' is applicable in the modern world,"
I'm always reminded when the argument that Human rights is is a terrorists charter of a bit in "A Man for All Seasons" which goes
"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
or if you prefer from a David Davis speech from 2009
"The battle against terrorism is not just a fight for life; it is a battle of ideas and ideals. It is a battle between good and evil, between civilisation and barbarism. In that fight, we should never allow our standards to drop to those of our enemies. We cannot defend our civilisation by giving up the values of that civilisation."
My own suggestion for returning people to Pakistan is that we pursuade Pakistan to allow a third party, say Amnesty, to monitor the people we return so we can legitimately say we're not returning them to torture.
Complain about this comment
As a human rights lawyer this is an excellent and long overdue explanation of what the HRA does and why it was always a nonsense for an party to claim that it could be abolished. The simple fact is that 99% of cases which are brought with a HR aspect fail. They are therefore of no interest to anyone with an agenda or an axe to grind. There are some legitimate concerns about the activism of the judidiary in this area but as the recent UNITE/BA disputes have shown the judiciary are hardly the most liberally inclined members of society.
The most important aspect of the HRA is actually in policy formation, in focusing an overenthusiastic and often ignorant legislature to consider the basic human liberties and freedoms of the nation before embarking upon whichever wrongheaded piece of "reform" they are about to initiate. Hence why the ministerial declaration of compatability on every Act is so important.
Complain about this comment
CommunityCriminal wrote.. "The right to life free from aggression the right to life free from pain...w"
There is absolutely no way any such policy could ever be implemented. It is simply impossible to guarantee this. Perhaps you meant to add "from a foreigner"?
If a uk citizen was accused (let alone only suspected without proof) of committing an act of terrorism, there is absolutely no way this country's government, or people would ever condone the use of torture or capital punishment against them. This is because we view it as morally wrong. The authorities would in fact do everything in it's power to prevent that person from being lynched or suffering at the hands of others who may try to take the law in to their own hands.
So why should someone else be treated differently just because they are from another country?
The ECHR and HRA do not exist purely to ensure that law abiding and 'good' citizens can sleep safe at night, it is a code of conduct for the way our nations treat every single human being on this planet, it sets out, and ensures action against what we see as fundamentally wrong and morally reprehensible behaviour.
You cannot claim an 'it's us or them' excuse, as soon as you do that you are in extremely dodgy territory, after all, most of the people who are committing the acts are thinking the same thing. To renege on basic human rights is to be no better, or worse, than the people you are worried about.
As for people saying we should just send them off anywhere so long as they aren't here, I really can't believe we have people like that in this country. Who on earth can justify a 'sod them so long as I'm ok' attitude. It really makes me worry for what will happen if we do get more community and public power from this government...
Complain about this comment
Simply repealing the Human Rights Act was always a pointless operation as the Strasbourg court would still remain a final court of appeal beyond the UK Supreme Court - even if a new Bill of Rights and Responsibilities was installed.
What instead is needed, in the short term, is vigorous defence of cases at Strasbourg and appeals whenever possible. That will require hiring lawyers with attitude who want to win and not relying on Foreign Office insiders.
Also declining to enact an NI Bill of Rights (a decision that will have to be made in weeks now that the consultation period is over) as no tenable case for one was made. (Even the NIO's Shaun Woodward culled 90% of the new rights it was advised by the 'experts' - the human rights industry - to introduce for.)
Any NI Bill of Rights would be a huge toe in the door for an extended new Bill throughout the UK.
In the long term, what is needed is a robust review of international instruments like the European and UN Conventions proposing key changes and modernisation. That would take a decade to achieve if opposition is overcome but, if not started, it will never happen.
The question of deporting terrorists or their backers to less than perfect Swedish-style states is however much more variable than Mark Easton suggests. We have for example deported to Jordan and could to many others if we steeled ourselves against the criticism of those who pretend the guilty are always convictable.
Complain about this comment
Alex There is absolutely no way any such policy could ever be implemented. It is simply impossible to guarantee this. Perhaps you meant to add "from a foreigner"?
Nope in my case its from my own countrymen.
UDHR should be the balance of all nations and all peoples. each consecutive water down by groups of nations merely bring about misunderstanding of the implementation of the act.
In the case of the terrorist the human trail should be followed back to origin and agreement with that country and halfway house/join control prisons put in place back in the country of origin.
The argument that a suicide bomber will be harmed/killed is very funny they were killing themselves anyway giving up all rights as they vapourise themselves in a crowded place.
Complain about this comment
Talking of deportations and extraditions human rights etc.
One of todays facebook status notes from my FB
"Jodie Joanna Emery is in the office of Prime Minister STEPHEN HARPER! We have occupied and put our flag in the window!" Sit in....
Seems someone is not happy about the USA grabbing Mark Emery from his native Canada. For those that don't know him hes a Big Bad seed terrorist in the USA he forced millions of Americans to by pot seeds..
All good stuff.
Complain about this comment
So, according to the ECHR which we have signed up to, we cannot use torture in the UK and we cannot repatriate a suspect (or convict) to a country where they may be tortured.
If however the target country was a signatory to the EHCR then we could deport.
Seems simple to me, if we wish to deport people to Pakistan for example then we have to get them to sign up.
You may ask 'why would Pakistan sign up to that ?', a good question to which my answer would be 'see this "EU gives $100m in aid to Pakistan" , no sign, no money' and that goes for the rest of the $485m pledged over the next five years.
Almost all of the regimes that routinely use torture are also recipients of EU aid money, before another cent is given, those regimes should be asked to sign up for and implement the EHCR.
Complain about this comment
" The human rights lawyer Hugh Tomlinson has pointed out that withdrawing from the ECHR "would probably require the United Kingdom to leave the EU as well". That was not Conservative policy."
That may be good law but is it good realpolitik? Why not suck it and see - by means of a carefully drafted derogation - and see (i) how many other countries join in because they too face terrorist/criminals praying in aid the ECHR and (ii) if the EU really feels like losing the UK's net contribution.
Another bit of realpolitik: what's the coalition game plan if there is a succesful terrorist plot involving illegal immigrants over the next 5 years? The ECHR provides no protection for politicans.
Complain about this comment
I also like this bit of the story...
"inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
Hmmm cant think of any instances of that in this country. Unless your ill and use or grow cannabis to treat yourself instead of dangerous pharmaceutical drugs that cause addictions and kill you have massive side effects that need further medication to counter.
Ive never randomly wet myself through out the day on cannabis I have on prescribed medication all rather degrading is it not? is that a human right or an excuse to punish me...
Complain about this comment
22. At 8:50pm on 19 May 2010, BobRocket wrote:
So, according to the ECHR which we have signed up to, we cannot use torture in the UK and we cannot repatriate a suspect (or convict) to a country where they may be tortured.
If however the target country was a signatory to the EHCR then we could deport.
Seems simple to me, if we wish to deport people to Pakistan for example then we have to get them to sign up.
You may ask 'why would Pakistan sign up to that ?', a good question to which my answer would be 'see this "EU gives $100m in aid to Pakistan" , no sign, no money' and that goes for the rest of the $485m pledged over the next five years.
Almost all of the regimes that routinely use torture are also recipients of EU aid money, before another cent is given, those regimes should be asked to sign up for and implement the EHCR.
Completely wrong,
As a signatory to "The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" we may not send anyone to a country where they are likely to be subject to torture regardless of what that country has signed up to.
Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of itizenship or how that control is exercised.
Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.
Article 3 prohibits parties from returning, extraditing or refouling any person to a state "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture".
The Committee against Torture has held that this danger must be assessed not just for the initial receiving state, but also to states to which the person may be subsequently expelled, returned or extradited.
Why make it so complicated, simply apply pressure on Pakistan to allow third party monitoring of anyone we deport there. other UN countries would doubtless help since they have a similar problem.
Complain about this comment
For the gullible: DC wanted to get rid of human rights act in the belief that "some are more equal than others."
Forget talk about terrorists - that's just an excuse.
The rich could get their rights by paying expensive lawyers etc. The rest of us would in effect be denied our rights being unable to afford this. One rule for the rich a lesser one for the poor.
Usual Tory attitude.
They can't accept the idea that we are all equal.
Complain about this comment
The completely illogical stance of those who advocate the removal of everyone's rights as stated in the articles of the Act shows how completely misinformed such individuals really are. Given their stated arguments are supporting the repeal of rights,especially of "criminals",and that the stated desire for an authoritarian regime is the prevailing theme among them,such people would find the kind of regimes they like in places like North Korea,China,Iran,Yemen,Somalia,Zimbabwe,Thailand,Burma,Sudan etc.etc.Perhaps they are the very sort who would have voted for Hitler,because he seemed like a strong leader,who would sort all this human rights nonsense out once and for all.
Complain about this comment
What most people here don't seem to appreciate is all these international agreements were written for another time, a time before international travel was so easy and people actually have access to Britain. Before the absurd concept of us being responsible for the rights of anyone who could scam their way over here was an abstarction, now its a reality. The way forward if we ever get a Government with any guts is clearly to repudiate all these international agreements. I doubt whether we would be ostracised, more likely to be emulated as almost all the western world struggles with the problem. Of course a few human rights lawyers wouls not get rich anymore from legal aid and one wonders if that is the reason some of them argue so passionatly for the under priviliged terrorist or two. As others have said our contribution to the EU would be missed so I doubt we would lose anything by ignoring these agreements as the French seem to routinely do.
Complain about this comment
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with human rights legislation. In fact the right to equality and humane treatment are the very least a civilised country should guarantee for its citizens, and, just like any other law, there will be areas where it appears to work against the wishes of some.
There is always a danger when lawyers are invited to tamper with law in order to sort out a perceived loophole that the changes will simply move the loophole or even make it bigger.
However there is one right that the collective of UK citizens should consider carefully and that is the right to expel anyone who has evidentially been proven to have acted against the UK interest. Where the offender goes, having been removed from the premises so to speak, is their problem. If courts have the right to deport as a sentence for anyone who is not indigenous to the Union, then we must consider carefully whether we wish to keep our enemies close or not at all.
Often, in life, choices are not as easy as a, b, or c.
Complain about this comment
What a relief to read an article about the Human Rights Act that actually gets the law and detials of the Act's origins (ie before the EEC was founded) more or less right! Thank you.
There is one thing worth adding. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not say that the judges can override UK law passed by the Crown in Parliament. All the judges may do is make a "declaration of incompatability" (section 4(4) of the Act).
This means that Parliament may, if it wishes, override the European Convention on Human Rights by passing legislation that is expressly inconsistant with the Convention. This is made clear by section 3(2)(b) of the HRA. It's worth setting out section 3 in full since it is that section which sets out how British judges must interpret British legislation.
"3 (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
3 (2) This section—
(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;
(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and
(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility. "
So there is no need for any change to the Act and it is disengenuous for the Conservatives to say so: if politics really demands that the Act be overridden in particular cases, the machinary is already there. Such a decision is and must be a political one.
Complain about this comment
#25 spotthelemon wrote:
'Why make it so complicated, simply apply pressure on Pakistan to allow third party monitoring of anyone we deport there. other UN countries would doubtless help since they have a similar problem.'
Whilst countries like Pakistan and India have signed the UN convention against torture (India have not ratified it yet) there appears to be little sanction against a signatory state continuing to use torture.
Attaching implementation and compliance to ECHR with aid payments would at least provide a mechanism for verifying and sanctioning non-compliant states.
(although if Pakistan did sign up to the EHCR presumably they would not be allowed to deport British citizens back to the UK due to the alleged complicity of the UK in extraordinary rendition)
Complain about this comment
I'm guessing that Pakistan wasn't exactly over the moon at the idea of getting these guys back, or they would have given assurances about no torture etc (we can then choose whether to believe them or not). So the answer is to get an agreement with Pakistan et al. about taking back those who we deem to be troublemakers.
Either that or we could get better at prosecuting them and not jump the gun to arrest before there was any admissible evidence.
Either way, it is not the HRA that is the problem,
Complain about this comment
#16 - spotthelemon
"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
Love that quote. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
#27 "Perhaps they are the very sort who would have voted for Hitler,because he seemed like a strong leader,who would sort all this human rights nonsense out once and for all."
The Final Solution, if you like;)
Complain about this comment
Surely the solution is quite simple.
Fix the law so that dangerous people can be treated as criminals, if someone is known to be a dangerous terrorist, then allow them to stay, but to be treated as any terrorist from within our own borders would be- in a jail, possibly solitary confinement.
But give them the option of returning home instead of staying in jail if they wish, that way they can either spend their life behind bars in solitary confinement, or they can choose to risk it and go home.
The real question is if these people really are dangerous, but can't be deported, why are they allowed to roam the streets freely when other criminals are behind bars?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Perhaps they are the very sort who would have voted for Hitler,because he seemed like a strong leader,who would sort all this human rights nonsense out once and for all."
40% of Germans voted for Hitler. Thats far more than voted Cameron. Suggest guillotineening murderers and sending repeat offenders to labour camps in the UK and I suspect you'll get about the same popular support. Its worth pointing out that Hitler came to power on the back of a massive recession and civil upheaval too.
Complain about this comment
31. At 08:38am on 20 May 2010, BobRocket wrote:
#25 spotthelemon wrote:
'Why make it so complicated, simply apply pressure on Pakistan to allow third party monitoring of anyone we deport there. other UN countries would doubtless help since they have a similar problem.'
Whilst countries like Pakistan and India have signed the UN convention against torture (India have not ratified it yet) there appears to be little sanction against a signatory state continuing to use torture.
Attaching implementation and compliance to ECHR with aid payments would at least provide a mechanism for verifying and sanctioning non-compliant states.
Your proposal is a non starter, it would be completely inappropriate for Pakistan to sign up to ECHR since its not amember of council of Europe nor can it be since it's not by any stretch of the imagination in Europe. It would also undermine work being done to get the Asian countries to ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the authority of the Asian Human Rights Commission and potentially wreck the chances of developing the Asian Human Rights Charter. If by some miracle such an approach was agreed to by other European Council members it would take years.
My approach could be implemnted in weeks, it utilises independant observers, who would work with Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), removing the possibility of charges of collusion with torture. If they break the agreement we have to stop sending people there again until we can get further guarantees but we're not saddled with them as some kind of European annexe in Asia.
Complain about this comment
With Human Rights comes Human Responsibilities. Human Rights are supposed to protect the vulnerable and ensure that people are treated with equality and fairness; essential for a civilised country. But it seems too often that they are used to protect people who want to actually bring harm against our society. If you fail to act with Human Responsibilies, then you shouldn't be allowed to hide behind Human Rights!
Complain about this comment
If we can't deport people back to their countries of origin, because they might face torture or death, then we should refuse entry to anyone and everyone from such countries.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I really cannot understand why the evidence against so-called "dangerous terrorists" is sufficiently strong to convince the Home Secretary and a judge, but is not sufficiently strong to convince a jury. Doesn't make sense.
Maybe, just maybe, such trials should qualify for 'judge but no jury', like when it's believed an impartial jury cannot be protected from outside pressure, or the case is just too technically difficult or complex for a jury to understand the evidence.
Complain about this comment
37.....Peter sym.....Thank you for the snippet of information on Hitler,but I already know a great deal about him and Germany as I am in the process of writing a book on European history.Germany in the thirties was(as I'm sure you know),in the same sort of chaos that we seem to be heading for in this and other European countries,the differences are as notable as the parallels are.The tendency among people to wish for a stern,authoritarian leader when there are economic and social problems not readily resolved by the populace,is something I notice as being just as prevalent in Britain today as in Germany of the thirties.Fascists always seek to exploit social unrest and economic failure,pretending that its the fault of foreigners or outsiders of some kind,whilst peddling the lie that they (fascists) are the only ones with a solution.Research the North American Union and their soon-to-be currency,the Amero.Fascism tries on many disguises,some of them are very convincing and the current global fascist hegemony is busy consolidating their positions as the soon-to-be Globe Corp.I posted a comment about this on the,Whats WHYS? page,(World Have Your Say),I hope that you enjoy reading that and I thank you for your interest,and your comment,sincerely yours,Aristotles23
Complain about this comment
#43 No offence intended... you'd be amazed (or not) how many people make Hitler comparisions without having a clue about the background.
I'm not sure about the global fascist hegemony but I do know that its impossible to get a factually correct comment about the huge amount of money made by a certain female lawyer taking up spurious human rights cases such as Shabina Begum past the moderators. You'll need google to find out the name of that lawyer as the BBC are too cowardly or biased to publish it.
Complain about this comment
the men in question should return to Pakistan, i doubt in all honesty that they will ever come to value this country as any foreigner migrating to our shores should, seek guarantees from the pakistani government for not torturing them, place them under house arrest in pakistan or whatever is deemed fit, and let pakistan foot the bill.
in any sense Britain should not allow any persons into its lands who are not prepared to swear loyalty to this beautiful, unique country (certainly not be spending tax payers money on!). migration shouldnt be just about a economic gain but those fleeing persecution then should have some gratitude/loyalty that they have been given the safe haven of the UK. Human rights should work both ways.
Complain about this comment
44.....Peter....Thank you,I think that maybe I know which well-known female lawyer you mean.Her husband was a big noise here a few years ago,and is still a household name.Or its the other one,small,short-haired,with a distinctly eastern-sounding name,I;m not 100% sure which one it is but I appreciate the heads-up on that aspect of the immigration controversy and will accordingly do some research. Once more,thank you...
Complain about this comment
In response to many comments........We do not return terrorist suspects/convicts to their point of origin for two reasons,the first is that we are forbidden by law to forcibly repatriate anyone who may be subject to ill-treatment or torture in their country of origin.The second and more pertinent reason is that,in a war,one takes prisoners,and in this war we do not give our enemies their guys back,ever.It is standard operating procedure to closely monitor subjects/assets and their movements,contacts,friends,mentors,supporters,fund-raisers benefactors etc.We cannot do this if we just deport them,if we do that,they return to their compatriots with intelligence on us,that will never do.Also releasing them to their home state will.without doubt,lead to them organising others to act against us using the intelligence they returned to their compatriots with.So we keep them where we can watch them,and the people they are in contact with.The "no return to torture" clause is very useful for these reasons,and we take full advantage of it.
Complain about this comment
Have just read about the Lebanese village where one mans right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers was ignored by "ordinary people" who beat and stabbed him to death before stripping him of his clothes and hanging him from a lamp-post.Two villagers are quoted as saying "If they(Lebanese Police)are going to arrest anyone,they will have to arrest us all,we did it together",I think that the Lebanese Police SHOULD arrest them all,the entire adult population of the village should be put on trial and the trial should be as public as possible.People in remote areas of countries with inadequate services,including police,must be made to realise that the world condemns such brutal,mob "justice" and that we will not tolerate the kind of behaviour that belongs in the history books.The Lebanese government needs to send a very clear message to the entire population,that this kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable,and that,anyone,who engages in such behaviour,incites or condones it,should be prosecuted with the full weight of the law.I am filled with loathing for the people of that village,to imagine what it must have been like for the man who was murdered by them in such a brutal and callous,sadistic manner,is horrifying.The population of that village must bear shame at such barbaric acts and as many as possible should pay the penalty for their horrendous crime.This is what happens when people ignore the rule of law,due process and the rights of ALL to a fair trial.It certainly gives perspective to the actions for which the British authorities are condemned as acting unjustly.it pains me to say it but there are many who comment on HYS that I suspect would condone such acts against suspected paedophiles,rapists,murderers,terrorists etc.Which is why we have habeous corpus,and trial by jury,due process and the burden of proof as central to our idea of justice.
Complain about this comment
The issues with the HRA are more mundane than deporting terrorists it's the use of the HRA to allow special groups to override/ignore laws that the majority still have to obey. e.g. issues where travellers use the HRA to bypass laws which the mejority have to obey. Criminals use the HRA to get preferential treatment in jail ordinary people resent this aspect of the HRA. The HRA needs amending to ensure existing laws cannot be broken by anyone. Also the HRA shouldn't be used to provide a means for illegal, to the majority, activities to continue. e.g. drug taking in jails.
Complain about this comment
49....Vladimir....I do not know where you got that"information" from,it sounds like a Daily Mail leader board,but basically you are wrong on all counts,the HRA cannot be used in the ways that you describe and I know for a fact from my work for numerous UK and world charities that travelers get nothing in the way of preferential treatment,the HRA cannot be used to obtain the right to use illegal drugs in prison or elsewhere.Please do some research instead of relying on right-wing propaganda to bolster your ill-informed views.BTW I am not right,left or centre,just a rational independently-minded human being with no axe to grind.Thank you for your time.
Complain about this comment
"Withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights may mean withdrawing from the European Union as well" - I think there are a huge number of people in Britain who would be very happy to withdraw from the EU; I know I would.
Complain about this comment
The reason that terroist wasn't deported was no evidence was presented. If he was such a dangerous member of alqueda why wasn't he charged?
Complain about this comment
My have been in the UK for over seven years and both my parents and five sibling who are all British Citizen and been in the UK over twenty years, yet the Home Office took me to Detention because l have overstayed my visa and not committed any crime and wanted to send me back to Africa.
Whiles they are freeing criminals and people who don't have any family in the UK. British citizen needs the same free movement for their families as the European Citizens.
Complain about this comment
They can't accept the idea that we are all equal**
That's because we are not all equal & you will see evidence of this in daily life/society!
We now have Human Rights Lawyers who are making vast amounts of money off knowingly protecting criminals & terrorists, they are even commenting on this forum :-)
when this situation is sorted out I recommend that they are tried for crimes against this country!
The sooner we get right out of europe & stop giving a platform to left-wingers with long term issues & an agenda (again commenting on this forum) to destroy this great country as we know it the better....lets hear them cry about their rights then....basic rule of life - if you infringe or take away anothers rights you automatically lose your own..the tories are playing it slowly due to the coalition but it wont be long before they re-introduce nationalistic right wing policies where the achiever comes first & Indigineous brits are priority over free-loaders...cue lots of silly left wing replies with accusations of Bigotry.
Complain about this comment
We could deport undesirables to Europe as they seem willing to endow just about anyone with "rights." The French seem only too willing to pass on every benefits-seeker on to us.
Complain about this comment
There is massive hypocrisy with our government in terms of human rights. They say they do not have the power to deport these suspected terrorists because they might be tortured.
Yet the government were going to extradite Gary McKinnon to the USA when the US freely admits it uses torture.
If we genuinely do have to abide by the human rights act why were we sending a british citizen to a country that tortures people?
Gary McKinnons extradition was only possible legally because the home secetary has the power to overule the judicery therefore it has the power to overule it to deport suspected terrorists.
I mean whats going on? We abide by an act to prevent deportation of people who should be deported but ignore it when deporting someone we shouldn't. Where is the sense in that?
Complain about this comment
54....55....56.....Don't you guys read anything except your own comments? If you did you might learn that the world is not as it has been painted for you by those with a purely agitatory agenda,fascists in other words,and NO I am NOT LEFT WING,RIGHT WING or LIBERAL,just a relatively sane,free-thinking,individual who does not need to read the Daily Mail,Telegraph or BNP newsletter to have an opinion.You guys are incorrigible,you would have voted for Hitler,without a doubt you would have been taken in by his propaganda and rhetoric,as you have been by David Irving or whoever you are parroting,read a decent historical or philosophical book for goodness sake,Plato,Tacitus,Aristotle or Cicero, maybe some Cristopher Hitchens or Noam Chomsky would do to start with,and try thinking for yourselves for a change,it really shows that you don't,most of the time.
Complain about this comment
I seem to remember that we have a number of rather remote overseas territories that we could send undeportable people to, such as St Helena, South Georgia or Pitcairn. That way, they would still be under our protection from torture etc, but would also be somewhere where they could not cause much trouble. My recollection of history lessons tells me that that's what we did with Napoleon.
Complain about this comment
So once again we see the Tories and their dishonesty. They have tried to confuse people instead of being honest.
Complain about this comment
It is the inability to deport foreign criminals and would be terrorists which most brings the Human Rights Act (and by extension the ECHR) into disrepute. I am sure the original founders would be dismayed by their creation if they had thought it would lead to this. As far as I am concerned, the ECHR should prevent any signatory nation from committing acts of torture or degrading treatment itself, it should not be extended to prevent deportation of foreign criminals.
A sovereign state is in existence to protect and support its citizens, not the supposed rights of visitors who would cause harm or injury to those same citizens. This must be sorted out - it is an outrage that violent criminals and would be terrorists are allowed to remain, because of their supposed rights!
Complain about this comment
How can it be right to allow a known terrorist to stay in the UK and not deported? What about the rights of all the men, women and children in this country who might be subject to harm from these people? Surely they have rights too? There is no common sense at all.
Complain about this comment
If you have done wrong then you dont belong, there should be no human rights for the people who violate others human rights,and if they are foreign send them back to suffer the consequences in there own country.whether they have done right or wrong in there own country its up to them to sort out any way they want,if its execution then so be it, theres one good thing they wont do wrong again.
Complain about this comment
When are the trendy liberal judges going to read the WHOLE of the Human Rights Act?
Article 2 reads " Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law" and article 5 protects everyone's "Security of Person". 60 million + people's article rights are put in jeopardy if the judges rule that the right of a few suspected terrorists under article 3 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
takes precedence. I'd like to see the Liberty action group support a class action by the public defending their rights under articles 2 and 5.
Complain about this comment
Can someone please explain to me how it can be legal to extradite people to the united states? For instance Gary Mckinnon was going to be extradited.
Yet the US freely admits it uses water torture, stress positions, sleep deprivation, solitary confinment and sensory depravation.
All these things come under the umbrella of the section of the ECHR cited in this article.
So how is it legal? And if it is legal to extradite people to the united states then it is therefore legal to extradite people to other countries that break the ECHR ie: pakistan, iran, russia, israel etc.
If it is not legal then how on earth are we getting away with it? And why is Mark Eaton seemingly oblivious to this blatent contradiction to everything in this article?
Complain about this comment
"57. At 4:56pm on 22 May 2010, aristotles23 wrote:
54....55....56.....Don't you guys read anything except your own comments? If you did you might learn that the world is not as it has been painted for you by those with a purely agitatory agenda,fascists in other words,and NO I am NOT LEFT WING,RIGHT WING or LIBERAL,just a relatively sane,free-thinking,individual who does not need to read the Daily Mail,Telegraph or BNP newsletter to have an opinion.You guys are incorrigible,you would have voted for Hitler,without a doubt you would have been taken in by his propaganda and rhetoric,as you have been by David Irving or whoever you are parroting,read a decent historical or philosophical book for goodness sake,Plato,Tacitus,Aristotle or Cicero, maybe some Cristopher Hitchens or Noam Chomsky would do to start with,and try thinking for yourselves for a change,it really shows that you don't,most of the time."
How strange, your comment does not remotely reflect what i said. And you are accusing me of not reading others posts? If you had read my comments in other blogs you'd know i was a avid fan of chomsky.
Also if you had read what i said you'd see i am not a fan of curbing human rights for anyone, in this instance i was simply pointing out a flagerant paradox in terms of legality in this case.
Complain about this comment
"Human Rights" sounds nice and warm and fluffy. The truth is that if everyone had the right to do whatever one wished, there would have to be no laws whatsoever. I could claim a right to shoot anyone who annoyed me as a fundamental human right. Laws work by curtailing freedoms. The simple fact is that human rights are a myth and we should grow up and be aware that what makes laws good is what is fair, necessary and proportional. As it stands now, Human Rights law actually creates situations of unfairness and improportionality in certain situations and should be scrapped. All laws should respect basic freedoms (perhaps codified in a written constitution) and then there would be no argument.
Complain about this comment
Despite all the favorable comments here for the HRA,one reads far too often about the way this is abused.The act is obviously much too vague when it comes to being able to protect our citizens and our borders.
Criminals and terrorists should absolutely not be able to protect themselves with this act,as they can now,this is an affront to all those in genuine need of protection by this act.
Complain about this comment
I was complaining to my missus, "We can't send these terrorists back to Pakistan because of Brussels."
She replied "Send them to Brussels then."
Complain about this comment
The devil must be laughing indeed. Yes, let's continue to protect the worst: murderers, torturers, rapists, let's keep them warm and safe. Any country that still has the death penalty must be savage and barbaric: China, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, UAE, Vietnam, Belarus, the United States. China and India alone represent 40% of the world's population.
Yep, they are all bloody barbaric. All nazi despotic regimes that routinely trample the most basic rights of their citizens. You'd have to be mad to consider living in any of these countries, compared to Broken Britain. I rest my case.
Peter_Sym: Hitler never received more than 36.8% of the vote, and on the vote where he did, Hindenburg (a weak conservative) received 53%. In my honest opinion the one thing that propelled Hitler to power was his liberal use of violence and intimidation. Not popular support. And I think he could be best described as a bloodthirsty psychopath, rather than a right-wing advocate.
Complain about this comment
this should be decided by the people
not by politicians and there families
who have 24 hour protection
human rights in england only support
the wrong people
and people supporting these people
should be charged with aiding and abetting them
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS