Sunday, August 7, 2011

An utter waste of time

Seems there's going to be a new (all expenses paid) independent commission to discuss a new UK Bill of Rights as people are not too happy with the European Court of Human Rights interfering in our system using the Human Rights Act as justification for its meddling (thanks Labour).
BBC.
An independent commission has started to seek views from the public on the need for a UK Bill of Rights.
The Commission on a UK Bill of Rights was set up by the government in March to explore a range of issues around human rights law.
It came amid a row over a 2005 European Court of Human Rights' ruling that the UK was unlawfully operating a blanket ban preventing prisoners from voting.
MPs voted overwhelmingly to defy the ruling and maintain the ban.
The free vote took place in parliament in February.
Prime Minister David Cameron famously said that the prospect of lifting the ban made him feel "physically ill".
The controversy was one of many in which the application of human rights law infuriated parts of the press and the country.
Sounds great so far, though here's the main problem, the source of all the complaints will have to remain in place and be the building block of any new Bill of Rights...
However, the Commission's terms of reference make it clear that a British Bill of Rights will build on the UK's obligations under the European Convention and ensure that the convention's rights continue to be enshrined in British law.
In other words they are wasting our time and money doing something which isn't going to work anyway.
The only way a UK bill of Rights will work is if we remove the Human Rights Actand go from earlier Bills of Rights which suit our people and not an amorphous EU whole. That's not to say I don't think people, even criminals have rights, just that some rights aren't actually a right at all. With rights there equally should come responsibilities, if you break the law, you lose certain rights including the right to roam free and commit further crimes and also the right to respect for family life and privacy along with any opportunity to vote too. A complex system of equal rights for all simply will not work if the villain has exactly the same rights as the victim. The only rights a villain should have are the right to a fair trial, the right to appeal and the right to be housed and fed securely and safely at her majesties pleasure. That's all the basic rights they need, the law abiding rest of us get the full package.
Cameron was supposed to be getting rid of the HRA, naturally enough he hasn't, he really even tried for a British Bill of Rights, he got told by Ken Clarke that such a bill would have to lie on top of EU law anyway and not supersede it. No-one in government it seems is prepared to do anything about injustices within the HRA system, no one in government it seems is willing to leave the EU, the ECHR and scrap the hideous legislation foisted upon us by the previous government such as the HRA and the abysmal Equalities Act.
Seems they'd rather ignore abuse than do something about it and then they wonder why we hold them in contempt.

5 annotations:

Captain Haddock said...

I always say "follow the money" ..

Who dreamed up this Commission .. ?

The government ..

Who will appoint the head of this Commission .. ?

The government ..

Who will pre-dictate the findings of this Commission .. ?

The government ..

Who will be paying for this Commission & its expenses .. ?

The government (via the taxpayer) ..


Just another stunt by a failed PR man, struggling to remain afloat ..

tris said...

The trouble is lawyers who want money, and who are allowed by law to tout for it.

They've had this human rights law, which was written by the English, in most of the continent since the end of the war. But they also have laws that stop lawyers fiddling it to THEIR advantage.

Why has no one in Westminster the wit to see that... or are too many of them lawyers themselves?

Unless the legal profession is pulled up sharp it won't matter whether you call it European, UK or English, it will always be ridiculous.

But it wouldn't be a good idea not to have a set of rights. The corrupt government, royal family, police, legal system and press would soon take advantage of that. And I've been to countries where they have no human rights.

Yes, I agree with the good captain. It's Cameron thinking that if he changes the name and puts a different coloured wrapper on it, he can sell it to the terminally stupid...

Chalcedon said...

We already have a Bil of Rights. What these Bastard polticians need to do is see that all its components are implemented. It is that simple.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

Agree with what you say, QM. Cap'n H is also quite correct.

As you say we have a Bill of Rights, one we can refer to once we have left the hell that is the EU!

tris said...

The Bill of Rights is in English Law only. And as it dates back to the 1600s you might find that some of your rights viz a viz the state, are rather different from that which is expected today.