Bid to 'rebalance' Human Rights Act

Bid to 'rebalance' Human Rights Act

www.google.com

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has signalled he is preparing to "rebalance" the Human Rights Act amid concerns it had become a "villains charter".

...

He suggested that the rights in the legislation - which enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights in British law - could be balanced with new "responsibilities" to obey the law and to be loyal to the country.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.shortnews.com...
www.mailonsunday.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

news.sky.com...

[edit on 8/12/2008 by CuriosityStrikes]

Seems they are suggesting that it gets revised so that criminals don't get such an easy ride... I hope they consider the rights of people wrongly arrested though. I also hope we don't loose more of our freedom in the process. Don't get me wrong I am so far unconvinced about the NWO conspiracies but things do seem to be going that way even if there is no deliberation involved.

Must admit though this is a daily mail report.

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I am always suspicious of the motives of the PTB.

And I am not inclined to accept the NWO ideas either, but I do accept that corporations and those who own them seem to posess much more power than they should, both with governments and over the population.

And, looking at the way almost all nations are going, I'll be watching this very closely. I expect they'll be looking at further ways to restrict our rights and remove our freedoms, expect more monitoring and national ID cards.

It's sad that we are doing the terrorists jobs for them. They don't need to bomb any country, all our governments are twitching to turn our countries into dictatorships already.

Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
Seems they are suggesting that it gets revised so that criminals don't get such an easy ride... I hope they consider the rights of people wrongly arrested though. I also hope we don't loose more of our freedom in the process.

You hope for too much.


All I can see in this is a group who wants torture victims to be silenced, because standing up to your government for torturing you isn't "patriotic" to them.

Well, violating human rights isn't patriotic either.

It's just a quest for those in power to gain more power over the people. Only this time, the government would hold the right to treat you as one might treat an animal, with disregard for your life or safety.

I know Jack Straw is talking about the European Human Rights Act (and I'll post something about that after I've read it) but the United Nations Human Rights Act (to which the European Act will be similar) has this to say:

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN

Interpretation: the law of one's residential country must be obeyed!

Further, it does not say that an alien criminal cannot be repatriated; only that a person has the right to request asylum:

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Assuming the Euro Human Rights Act has a similar clause then Jack Straw is doing as Labour has done all along - blame passing for their screw-ups and creating plausible deniability for not following the Human Rights Act.

I'll post back when I've read the Euro version (see below edit).

[edit on 8/12/08 by Rapacity]

Edited again to add the following quotes from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - European Court of Human Rights

Article 53 – Safeguard for existing human rights

Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a Party.

The Convention does not affect the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which Britain is also party (one of the first to sign it) so my above assumptions are correct.

[edit on 8/12/08 by Rapacity]

reply to post by johnsky


Uh! We do not torture people in the UK and patriotism btw is an American thing, its not British.

reply to post by Wotan


I'm not American.

And they don't torture people inside the US either, they just get someone else to do it for them.

Canada has done it, the UK has done it, Australia has done it... and the US is NOTORIOUS for it.


But I'll agree with you on something here... I don't like the idea of "patriotism" either.

btw, I'm a Canadian.

Originally posted by Rapacity

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Wow, reading that was enough for me.

First, I love how they assert "Everyone has duties to the community" and then start guilt-tripping you before they even finish the sentence.

Second, look at the perfect Orwellian double-think here: you need your "community" to be "free" to develop your personality? I don't think so. The most predictable characteristic trait for any related group of people is bound to be a nationality they have in common. I can only imagine the days when kids were raised without TVs and mass media...

I would say I feel particularly sorry for you Brits, but I still don't know what Uncle Sam has in store for us over here.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Worry not, everything tends to spread from East to West; and the implementations of LabOrwellian Britain will soon get to the states.

The most likely reason Jack Staw is looking at changing the European Convention on Human Rights is that the gov has recently been beaten at its own game by some of Britain's slave population uprising and using The European Courts to force the gov to change its acts. Think along the lines of innocent people's DNA and fingerprints being removed from the National Police Database.

Being a signatory, the U.K is bound by the European Courts' judgments; and I don't think the gov likes that.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - European Court of Human Rights

Article 46 – Binding force and execution of judgments

1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.
2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.

[edit on 8/12/08 by Rapacity]

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by protocol 1

Article 16 – Restrictions on political activity of aliens

Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.

This quote's important because it demonstrates lies the U.K gov has told us about not being able to stop fanatic immigrants from conducting political crusades in the U.K that spout opinions contrary to the U.K's stability.

How does it apply to the OP?

From what I read in the rest of declaration, there's nothing preventing the extradition of immigrant criminals, hate preachers and others who come to the U.K and willfully damage our society and destroy our peace i.e the text doesn't prevent a government from protecting its own citizens and interests.

I'm not reproducing articles 10, 11 and 14. If you click the above link you will be able to read them directly and in context.

I understand that legal rulings from past cases might affect interpretation but changing the Act will not alter those rulings nor their affect on the Acts' interpretation. Bear in mind, I'm not a lawyer and this is opinion.

Hmmmm... so many little ideas they are throwing around right now for public consumption. Sort of dovetails with this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Responsibility to obey the law? Right or wrong? However ridiculous or oppressive it may be? They sure have been laying down a lot of new laws over the last few years too.

Loyalty to the country? what? Like the government and all of it's corporate cronies, doing the bidding of the highest bidder for governmental favours etc?
Seriously, I feel no sense of loyalty to this country. It is simply the place I reside right now.
Loyalty to the state, right or wrong, is something that should be discouraged at all costs.