The point is a valid one, although I think the record of the last Tory government was far, far better than the current incumbents – that surely is indisputable. The idea that the next Tory government might be worse is not supported by any strong evidence. I mean, if they banned gay marriage, retained control orders and denied prisoners the vote, while repealing all Labour’s authoritarian legislation, that wouldn’t make them worse, would it?

We still need clarity on who we think these rights apply to – prisoners’ rights? Sorry, human rights per the EHCR are liberties, not entitlements. Once you have been convicted of a crime your convention rights (e.g. freedom of movement) are gone.

Well said Bishop Hill. The Human Rights Act, in places, has little to do with human rights and, despite its noble aims and grand titles, it often affords ‘rights’ to wrong people in the wrong circumstances e.g. murderers who want pornography delivered to their jail cells or want to have children via IVF while still behind bars.

Trying to portray the Conservatives’ opposition to the Human Rights Act as an indication that they are against human rights in general is wholly disingenuous and actually quite insulting.

“I mean, if they banned gay marriage, retained control orders and denied prisoners the vote, while repealing all Labour’s authoritarian legislation, that wouldn’t make them worse, would it?”

BULLSHIT

IT is just another type of authortarianism. One directed at different groups of society. Ie gay bashing, single mothers, people who the Tory party think scrounge off the state.

But not the Tory people who scrounge off the state like farmers and landowners, and Tory politicians with their expense accounts. It is just another type of authoritarianism. One directed at different groups of society. Ie gay bashing, single mothers, people who the Tory party think scrounge off the state.

But not the Tory people who scrounge off the state like farmers and landowners, and Tory politicians with their expense accounts. Michael Howard is about as Liberal as Vlad the Impailer, and Cameron’s party will be no different.

Meet the new boss, just like the old boss.

Meet the new boss, just like the old boss.

“Trying to portray the Conservatives’ opposition to the Human Rights Act as an indication that they are against human rights in general is wholly disingenuous and actually quite insulting.”

It is not insulting to me, and nobody give a flying toss what tory trolls have to say.

…it often affords ‘rights’ to wrong people in the wrong circumstances e.g. murderers who want pornography delivered to their jail cells…

If I had a penny for every time I’ve seen this little gem, I’d be about a fiver better off. I particularly love it when people manage to confuse common law, the Human Rights Act, the European Court of Human Rights and political correctness, which is pretty much every single time the issue of human rights are raised.

The point about pornography in jails is not true – the person who told you it was probably knew that, but told you anyway because he or she thought you’d accept it at face value. Quite why people keep returning to news sources that lie to them for profit again and again I don’t know, but they must get something out of it.

Sally

Chill out. I don’t disagree that, for example, gays should have a right to marry. I think this falls under freedom of contract/freedom of association and has nothing to do with government. If the Tories rebanned gay marriage that would undoubtedly be authoritarian, but I think you guys on the left have to recognise that Labour has been bad on a civil liberties front on a scale that the Tories never even dreamed of when they were in power.

Flying Rodent

Agreed that this was chucked out by the courts.

This kind of mistake does rather support my earlier contention that there is a lack of clarity over who these rights apply to, a situation that is made worse by Sunder’s arguing for prisoners’ rights. What prisoners’ rights?

Indeed, solely in terms of civil liberties, I rank the main parties in the following order:

1) Liberal Democrats

2) Conservatives

Hell) Labour

LfaT:

[the HRA] often affords ‘rights’ to wrong people in the wrong circumstances e.g. murderers who want pornography delivered to their jail cells

Myth.

or want to have children via IVF while still behind bars.

True. But this seems a fair decision by the Grand Chamber, if you care to read the judgement. In particular: “there is no evidence that, when fixing the Policy the Secretary of State sought to weigh the relevant competing individual and public interests or assess the proportionality of the restriction. Further, since the Policy was not embodied in primary legislation, the various competing interests were never weighed, nor were issues of proportionality ever assessed, by Parliament (see the above-cited judgments in Hirst, § 79, and Evans, §§ 86-89).”

In other words, our Beloved Leaders must attempt to justify their decisions ahead of time else they may be found wanting a few years down the line. This is a Good Thing.

Bishop Hill:

We still need clarity on who we think these rights apply to – prisoners’ rights? Sorry, human rights per the EHCR are liberties, not entitlements. Once you have been convicted of a crime your convention rights (e.g. freedom of movement) are gone.

This isn’t wholly true, see for example Hirst v UK.

Meet the new boss, just like the old boss.

No….Meet the new boss , ‘same’ as the old boss

Sally do you get nothing right ?

What prisoners’ rights?

All the rights they have by virtue of being a person, that haven’t been infringed by necessary and proportional measures.

We had a Labour-type post something a few weeks back that said prisoners (or criminals caught red-handed) should not be allowed to take legal action against captors who assault them. Surely this is wrong?

The right to vote is another case in point.

Slightly O/T, since it doesn’t relate to human rights, but…

If you want an example of how crass and stupid this debate is, you could do worse than look at the story in today’s Scottish papers on HMP Corntonvale, a women’s prison largely filled with drug addicted prostitutes and shoplifters that’s had an appalling problem with inmate suicides recently. Here’s the Glasgow Herald’s take on the matter…

A new report by the chief inspector of prisons has called for the Scottish Prisons Service to appoint senior staff to safeguard conditions for female prisoners under the age of 21 after he uncovered deep divisions between the quality of conditions for convicted young men and women at three jails…

That’s how almost every other paper reported the story – young offenders being lumped in with the general population at a very overcrowded and run-down facility that is legendary for drug abuse, self-harm and suicide.

But wait, how did the Daily Mail cover the story?

Young offenders in Scotland’s women’s prison are in line for more home comforts because they miss out on table tennis, satellite TV and electronic games… “I’ve seen footage of a large room of videotapes of the latest films,” said Margaret Wilson of Justice for Victims, who said inmates were being allowed to rule the prison. “They also have a hairdressing salon. What more do they want?”

Yes, those prisoners – always demanding more luxuries by, er, waiting years until the inspector of prisons issues a report saying conditions in the prison are making the situation worse, not better.

…or want to have children via IVF while still behind bars.

True.

Or not – LFaT was complaining about the Human Rights Act. The fact that this judgement came from the ECHR in Strasbourg rather than a British court usually means that previous actions brought under the HRA failed. Does that make LFaT’s complaint a myth or a misconception?

The human rights act was imposed on this country mostly in secret it has never been accepted and would be removed tomorrow if the British people had any say in it . By simply importing the whole thing Parliamentary scrutiny and democratic participation was avoided and an international and universalist based set of laws imposed on communitarian country . It is itself an assault on the rights of British Subjects who did not need this foreign imposition ..

The Liberal Party never have the slightest objection to using the state to constrain behaviour provided it is Conservatives whose behaviour is affected .

The human rights act was imposed on this country mostly in secret… It is itself an assault on the rights of British Subjects who did not need this foreign imposition etc. etc. etc….

Well, it was in the Labour Party’s 1997 manifesto and they won by a landslide.

Maybe the British people would remove it tomorrow, but I suspect that might have more to do with hysterical right-wingers who lie to them through their teeth every time the HRA is mentioned. I can’t think of an issue that has been subjected to such obvious bad faith, mendacity and outright dishonesty.

Given that the Act was the official policy of the party which won the 1997 election by a massive margin, was subject to Parliamentary scrutiny before it was passed by a very large majority and that the European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by the Churchill administration in the fifties… Not to mention that, even if the act didn’t exist, citizens could take their case to the court in Strasbourg…

Well, I don’t really see what you’re talking about, unless you mean that allowing judges to force the government to rethink its policies is an inherently foreign and evil idea.

Maybe you could clarify.

Flying Rodent @ 12, you’re correct – my mistake. I’m not entirely sure what LfaT is complaining about. I agree with you @ 14.

Apologies for not being clear earlier. My point about the treatment of those in jail was a reference to the distorted concept of human rights in general rather than specific cases brought under the Human Rights Act and other supposedly ‘human rights’ legislation and institutions including the ECHR.

Saying that the Conservatives are ‘against’ human rights comes right back to the question of what human rights actually mean and in what circumstances we apply them. For example, I could quite reasonably argue that putting someone in jail is by definition a breach of their ‘rights’ to walk around, see their family, have children etc but obviously society has decided that in the case of someone breaking a law they deserve to have some rights restricted. Getting rid of the HRA, as I said at the beginning, does not mean that Conservatives don’t take human rights issues seriously. It means that they believe the HRA is not achieving its original purposes – something which has not even been remotely questioned in this thread, I notice.

And the Conservatives can’t be against gay marriage because it does not exists. Civil partnerships are not the same thing as marriage in legal terms. The clue is in the title. Cameron is totally supportive of civil partnerships and would never repeal them.

Given that the Act was the official policy of the party which won the 1997 election by a massive margin, was subject to Parliamentary scrutiny before it was passed by a very large majority and that the European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by the Churchill administration in the fifties… Not to mention that, even if the act didn’t exist, citizens could take their case to the court in Strasbourg…</i.

No-one reads the manifesto least of all Labour voters who are voting on perceived economic interest for the most part socially conservative and nationalist and opposed to this criminals charter . Our system is not an elected dictatorship and there is a special onus on the political class when they impose measure that cannot be undone .This has been time and again ignored by the political elite who want their snouts in the Euro trough and a seat at the “Big Table”. The fact that Churchill and British Lawyers were involved in the Euro project in the 50s shows how little we needed it ,also how long the project went on without any reference to the British people. Churchill would not have supported our Parliament and courts being usurped by foreign post democratic class of bureaucrats.

Since you mention Churchill , he is very good on betrayal by the
ruling class

“They ,( That’s us), should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history.”

And Europe

“We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us and say, ‘Shall we speak for thee?’, we should reply, ‘Nay Sir, for we dwell among our own people’.”

That of course is no longer true . Human Rights is in any case a Liberal concept .Conservatives assume we have every right that is not prescribed and do not need to be told , like children , we own our own lives . If our laws are inadequate then we can change them , after the people of this country have decided that is what they want.

oops

Given that the Act was the official policy of the party which won the 1997 election by a massive margin, was subject to Parliamentary scrutiny before it was passed by a very large majority and that the European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by the Churchill administration in the fifties… Not to mention that, even if the act didn’t exist, citizens could take their case to the court in Strasbourg…

No-one reads the manifesto least of all Labour voters who are voting on perceived economic interest for the most part socially conservative and nationalist and opposed to this criminals charter . There is a special onus on the political class when they impose measure that cannot be undone , this has been time and again ignored by the political elite who want their snouts in the Euro trough and a seat at the “Big Table”. The fact that Churchill and British Lawyers were involved in the Euro project in the 50s shows how little we needed it ,also how long the project went on without any reference to the British people. Churchill would not have supported our Parliament and courts being usurped by foreign post democratic class of bureaucrats.

Since you mention Churchill , he is very good on betrayal by the
ruling class

“They ,( That’s us), should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history.”

And Europe

“We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us and say, ‘Shall we speak for thee?’, we should reply, ‘Nay Sir, for we dwell among our own people’.”

That of course is no longer true . Human Rights is in any case a Liberal concept .Conservatives assume we have every right that is not prescribed and do not need to be told , like children , we own our own lives . If our laws are inadequate then we can change them , after the people of this country have decided that is what they want.

UK Liberty

Thanks for the link to the Hirst decision. I’m working through it, but one point I’ve noticed already is that, according to the court, I’m wrong: all convention rights, except the right to liberty are guaranteed to prisoners (at least in principle). (Paragraph 70).

Don’t think we’re ever going to get agreement between right and left on this though…

My point about the treatment of those in jail was a reference to the distorted concept of human rights in general rather than specific cases brought under the Human Rights Act and other supposedly ‘human rights’ legislation and institutions including the ECHR.

Sorry, LFaT, I’m having difficulty reading this any other way than “I don’t mean those elementary errors I made – I meant my totally factual, yet unproven, belief that human rights legislation sucks up to prisoners and the undeserving so badly that it deserves scare-quotes.” You seem to be appealling to everybody knows the HRA is rubbish, but your case looks pretty weak.

Getting rid of the HRA, as I said at the beginning, does not mean that Conservatives don’t take human rights issues seriously.

It says they don’t take them seriously enough to allow them to be enforcable in British courts, if there’s a vote or two in it. Such mechanisms as the HRA or the putative “Bill of Rights” are often windy, but unless they’re backed up by law they are nothing more than a man in a suit flapping his gums.

It means that they believe the HRA is not achieving its original purposes – something which has not even been remotely questioned in this thread, I notice.

You may think so – I think it means that the Tories couldn’t give a damn whether it’s achieving its original purposes, but are perfectly happy to put the boot into it if it will grub up a few thousand votes from people whose only news sources are run by right-wing liars.

As for the HRA achieving its aims – I don’t think it is, but not in the way you mean. I’d have made even more of an effort to overturn Leonard Cheshire than DCA/MoJ has done for a start – it was a case in which a private company hired by the government to care for the elderly was found to be immune to the legislation.

British judges have made good and bad calls using the HRA, just like they do with other forms of legislation. The difference is that the HRA that is pimped to credulous reactionaries by deceitful right wingers, and others aren’t.

No-one reads the manifesto least of all Labour voters who are voting on perceived economic interest for the most part socially conservative and nationalist and opposed to this criminals charter blah blah blah…

I see. You’re saying that the laws proposed in manifestos are illegitimate because nobody reads manifestos. Therefore, the party proposing it can win by a massive majority yet still impose that law against the will of the people.

This is not a winning argument for anyone even pretending to believe in democracy, you know, especially when you finish with If our laws are inadequate then we can change them , after the people of this country have decided that is what they want. Unless, you know, they’re voted for by Labour supporters.

I don’t understand why you would continue with this stuff. The rest of your post makes no attempt at an argument at all, and just throws about some really quite silly generalisations and assertions.

.
As I said , there is a special onus on the political class to deal fairly and directly with the electorate when they are proposing to pass powers out of their hands . This is because of the inherent danger of a democratically elected administration passing such laws as to stay in power perpetually. This is why we have had a to do about a promised referendum ?
This applies to the entire EU project which in fact is the power /threat forcing the HRA upon us , otherwise it would simply be removed by a Conservative administration after the next election or by the Labour Party under pressure from its growing unpopularity . As it is we are unable to get out of it without dismantling the EU itself which is the well know ratchet effect. This is why there is a proposition to replace it with our own version as a negotiating pawn in regaining control of our country .
As this many headed Hydra EEC EU Common Market ,was supported if at all as trade cartel and deliberately hollowed out Parliament to remain unknown , the manner in which parliament is by passed has been little understood until recently. The democratic deficit is of course , was why it was necessary to avoid the promised referendum on Lisbon.
With no mandate behind it the entire project has no legitimacy .You do not dismantle a country by sleight of hand (the well known ruse of slipping something into the manifesto) and this applies more to the powerful legal attack on the country than to the relatively weak Parliament (soi disant) .All these issues will have have a chance to be aired at the coming Euro election at which the Party who lead us down this path will be humiliated. Crucially this does not mean we can divest ourselves of the hated HRA.

Now for the hard of understanding lets spell it out . The HRA rests on the power of the EU . The EU has no legitimacy or mandtre to order us around in this sphere . No-one in this country cares what French Germans Italians think about our “Human Rights “ and the idea we are asking Herr Schmidt and co. what we can do or not do here is something that persists on a big lie basis only . I do not consider myslef subject to the wishes of Germans and I represent the vast majority
That is why it is an abuse of my rights and your pathetic belief that anything technically legitimised in a democracy ,cannot be such an abuse …well words fail me

( I quoted Chruchill to show your refrence to him was anachronistic )

there is a special onus on the political class to deal fairly and directly with the electorate when they are proposing to pass powers out of their hands .

But no powers have been passed out of their hands – all the HRA means is that British people can appeal to the courts on human rights grounds rather than having to take an expensive and lengthy case to the European Court of Human Rights. It means cases are heard promptly by British judges, not an international panel. IIRC, the ECHR has been hearing cases since before England won the world cup and Michael Caine nicked all that money in Turin in those minis – that’s unchanged by the HRA.

The HRA rests on the power of the EU

I hate to be the messenger here, but the HRA rests on its passage into law by the Parliament of the UK with a massive popular mandate. I realise that it is confusing that a British law would require judges to have regard to a European mechanism – one that, I noted before, was largely drafted in Britain by Britons specifically to match up with British common law – but that doesn’t mean that the HRA has been imposed by foreigners. Any attempt to pretend that it has been makes you look very, very silly.

Crucially this does not mean we can divest ourselves of the hated HRA.

We can divest ourselves of the “hated” HRA at any point – it’s British legislation. As I said, we’d then revert back to the default position that all human rights cases would have to be held at Strasbourg instead. We can also derogate from provisions – see terrorist detention etc. back in the early 2000s – or we can leave the EU entirely.

That doesn’t change the fact that what you’ve spilled above is completely ignorant of British law and is instead a shoddy regurgitation of the basic Eurosceptic case. Fascinating as it is, it’s unrelated to the issues you think you’re talking about.

BTW, this is pretty much the textbook example of people of right-wingers conflating the HRA, the ECHR (both meanings), political correctness and the EU into an impenetrable miasma of arse-about-face logic.

That letter looks highly selective and tactical, even verging on the cynical.

I’m just writing a piece for COML about the 133 parents who have been imprisoned because of their children “playing truant”. The stats shows it hasn’t worked (truancy up by a third), but the law is still in place and the Govt have started (for some reason) measuring something else.

How do these Prisoners’ Rights fit into the litmus test?

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7868061.stm

I’m quite sympathetic to Newmania on this one in that it’s trivially obvious that most people won’t read most of a party’s manifesto, and because political choice in this country is so small, the only choice a voter really has is whether to stick with the bastard who got in last time or elect a different bastard instead.

In that situation, you simply can’t take a majority (even a huge majority, thanks to the way FPTP works) as the assent of a majority of citizens to a particular policy – and there are certain policies that it seems like the consent of the majority – if not a supermajority – should be required to enact. One of those is fundamental constitutional change. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that our relationship with Europe as it is now is not a fundamental change to how UK law operates compared to before our entry to the EU.

I’m not arguing that we should be in or out of Europe, nor am I arguing that the European project as a whole is good or bad, but it does seem like British citizens should have more of a say over European integration than they’ve been allowed so far.

Newmania,

The human rights act was imposed on this country mostly in secret it … . By simply importing the whole thing Parliamentary scrutiny and democratic participation was avoided …

I don’t know why you persist in propagating these obvious falsehoods and continue to fail to distinguish between the Convention and HRA, but I wish you wouldn’t.

Bishop Hill, my friends on the ‘Right’ think I sit on the Left, and my friends on the ‘Left’ think I sit on the Right. But all I want is what seems ethical and reasonable – I don’t care otherwise where I sit.

Now, I can’t see how, absent luck, we can arrive at a reasonable decision without using reason. Yet there have been a number of apparently arbitrary, unjustified, and blanket decisions that have been found to violate one or more Convention rights. And I think here is a point that must be noted about many of the judgements: that our leaders are required to justify their decisions. S & Marper is an apposite example.

Hirst doesn’t say we can’t prohibit any prisoner from voting, or indeed prohibit them from doing anything. What it says (and other judgements say) is that any interference with Convention right must be necessary and proportionate – and our leaders are going to have a hell of a time proving their case without any evidence that it is. Why is it necessary and proportionate to prohibit all prisoners from voting?

BTW, can anyone point to a 101 showing just which parts of the HRA the Tories are planning to abolish. The last time I looked it was “Reform” in order to remove the obstacles to extraditing prisoners. Times may have moved, though.

M.

How liberal is the Fabian society meant to be? They have a close relationship with the government that’s been in power for near 12 years. On first inspection, I don’t see many concerns over ID cards, control orders, or the use of enabling legislation. Are the Fabians actually interested in liberalism, or just in demonstrating the Tories aren’t liberal?

ukliberty

I agree that we want ethical and rational decision making. I don’t know though about your assertion that the ECHR was written to fit in with English common law. In the Hirst case you linked to above, the judges expressly considered the English approach to these matters, going right back to Edward III – namely that convicted criminals lost their civil rights. They then overturned this on the grounds that it conflicted with convention rights. So to this extent the convention has taken on a life of its own that has nothing to do with English law.

Among the reasons they gave for their decision were
i)that other countries do allow prisoners the vote (??!!)
ii)that the law was indiscriminate (??!!)
iii)that the law was not proportionate (??!!)

Reasonable people can differ on these findings, I would say. The problem that we now have is that the only way we can democratically change these arguably eccentric findings is to repeal the HRA and withdraw from the convention. I think it is dishonest to accuse those who want to do so of being illiberal. They may just feel that the ECHR is not holy writ (whether written by a Briton or not).

I’ve said this before, but trying to entrench certain views in law by signing treaties with foreign powers is an attempt to undermine one of the fundamentals of the British Constitution – namely that no government may bind its successors. The ECHR is no exception.

The HRA rests on the power of the EU

Wrong. So it follows that:

or we can leave the EU entirely

Would have no effect.

The European Convention on Human Rights is an instrument of the Council of Europe, and entirely separate institution from the EU.

Well I enjoy your preening no end but you are lying as to your motives , which are anti Nationa State , and continue from there . Who knows perhaps you think Nation States produce genocide , thats where it all began hence the attempt to remove autonomy .
The real story is that the extent to which British law was undermined by Strasbourg was denied and unnoticed for years carried on elsewhere and developed into a behemoth which , of course , has ambitions to replace National law completely. This incremental process was concealed from the British often by the Conservative Party. It is a feature of the progress of the European plan to assemble all the pieces in separate places before revealing their total effect. When the total effect is finally latched into place then they say , as you do , what ! Its only teeny little step …. this was all here before and you agreed it anyway , see here in page 58 of the Labour manifesto.( As you typically have ) The entire European structure rests technically on British Parliament which has exceeded the spirit of its authority by passing power out of the electors you keep repeating that ‘it did’ this as if it mattered. It shoudl not have , that is the point

We can also derogate from provisions – see terrorist detention etc. back in the early 2000s – or we can leave the EU entirely.

So there in amongst the usual prolix smarmy obfuscation is ., finally , the point . There are certain limited ways in which we can negotiate the imposition of foreign laws but should we wish to govern our own country we must leave the EU outright . I will admit my impression was that we had very little scope for unilaterally renouncing the whole thing in view of the Charter to which we are signed by membership but then confusion has always been a weapon. What we want of course is t whatwe voted for , A Common market trade and limited cooperation elsewhere without subjecting British citizens to the rule of foreigners . This has not been what the political class have always wanted and now we find we actually have to consult the views of Poles , French as to how we treat criminals .How many Britiosn do you imagine as a percentage supprt this …5% and yet you call it legitimate

Essentially what we face is the threat of trade embargo unless we accept foreign rule . That threat is in my view illusory and perhaps fortunately the EU appears to be collapsing . If it did , then so would the HRA whatever you may invent abouts its fictional separation

Bishop Hill, it was Flying Rodent who mentioned common law.

I’m not sure the reasoning you give for Hirst is a fair or adequate summary. And there is an alternative method to withdrawing from the Convention if there is an adverse judgement (aside from the Government simply ignoring it, as with Hirst and S & Marper) – make some effort to justify the interference, don’t make it a blanket and indefinite ban, put it to the legislature and then the statute book.

Matt W @ 28, the Tories’ plan seems rather vague at the moment – like Labour’s Bill of Obligations and Privileges Rights and Responsibilities. Lots of soothing words and handwaving but nothing substantial.

I agree that it seems to stem from being prohibited from deporting particular people under Article 3, prohibition of torture, as well as the various myths and other things people find objectionable.

It seems to me that we would remain prohibited because this Article is absolute – unlike the other rights, there is no balance of one right against another, there is no margin of appreciation, and so on, and if I understand correctly no domestic law could trump it. But none of the main parties are suggesting withdrawal from the Convention.

It’s hilarious reading about how the Right believes in the nation state. This would be the same bunch who sign away peoples freedoms through GAT and free trade agreements. (remember who took us into Europe in the first place without a referendum?)

The Right would like to be governed by private business man and corporations, and the whole privatization, deregulated model they have been creating for the last 30 years is to destroy democracy and return us to the 19 th century. Put everything in the hands of a few rich business men and then deregulate, ie allow them to run everything without the input of the people.

The only people who should have rights in their view are property owners and landowners.

Sally if you do not draw a distinction between buying a BMW and surrendering to Germany then life must be interesting. I should imagine a daily jog through tangerine people and marmalade skies is quite invigorating

On first inspection, I don’t see many concerns over ID cards, control orders, or the use of enabling legislation. Are the Fabians actually interested in liberalism, or just in demonstrating the Tories aren’t liberal?

Except, they had a debate yesterday asking how liberal Labour was.

“Sally if you do not draw a distinction between buying a BMW and surrendering to Germany then life must be interesting.”

Actually, there were quite a lot of people on the Right, (many Tory landowners and aristocrats )who would have been quite happy to surrender to the Germans in the 1930′s. I believe the old Queen Mother would have been quite prepared to stay on as a sort of Vichy run Royal family under control from Berlin.

Of course, that has all been covered up since the war. A lot of govt documents have been sent to the Royal archives at Windsor where they are not subject to any 50,100 year ruling like Govt papers and as a result will never see light of day.

and what was the conclusion, Sunny?

Before you get into nutty conspiracies you are right although such people usually deluded themselves that an accomodation would be possible without a capitulation. It was not just aristos but a relatively main stream political thinking .Once battle was joined though , the country came first , and there were not the many outright traitors that worked or the Soviet Union in the ongoing “cold “stage of the war .

…and Newmania still doesn’t seem to realise that the ECHR has absoultely nothing to do with the EU. Nothing. At all.
If you’re going to have an opinion on something, try to understand it first…

As I have written before, no party can claim to be ‘the party of liberty’. It was a Liberal Democrat MEP that acted as the raporteur for the European Arrest Warrent; it was Labour that introduced control orders; it was the Conservatives who compromised the absolute right to silence. Each of these things has an impact on liberty.

If we discuss things sensibly, we can probably find the areas where we agree. If we resort to inaccurate claims about what the other stands for, we will get no where.

There are many Conservatives do want all people to be equal before the law – and they want to ensure that there is no arbitrary action by the state that infringes the liberty of anyone.

This childish name-calling helps no-one and demeans the debate.

AGH – this is so simple. Conservatives do not believe in human rights because they are rights given by the state to the individual. Conservatives believe in the rule of LAW. It’s against the law to torture or conduct surveillance on someone, and the government is bound by the law not to do these things.

The HRA comes from a European view of the world, which is inspired by the absolutist monarchies on that continent. Here in Britain we have always had the rule of law, ever since Magna Carta.

FOR liberty, AGAINST human rights!

CommiusRex – since membership of the Council of Europe and signing up to the ECHR is a requirement for membership of the EU, I don’t agree that the ECHR has “absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Nothing. At all.”

That the ECHR is a Treaty that is separate to and distinct from the other Treaties that contribute to the EU is correct. That the Council of Europe that agreed the ECHR is a different Council of Europe to the European Council that forms part of the EU is also correct.

I agree that in some of his posts, Newmania appears to confuse the two – but then, give the common use of some terms to refer to their own institutions, it is rather confusing isn’t it?

“Here in Britain we have always had the rule of law, ever since Magna Carta.”

That is such a crock of shit.

“Except, they had a debate yesterday asking how liberal Labour was.”

And before then? Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems the Fabian’s interest in liberty is found in the fact that the wind seems to be changing and it is blowing a bit of a chill on current government policy. The Fabians are just trying to help the establishment left re-orientate itself so that it doesn’t seem so weak and callous on civil liberties. It seems to be about positioning. Of course, that is exactly what much of the Tory party is doing too, but that is my point.

Newmania -

…you are lying as to your motives , which are anti Nationa State , and continue from there . Who knows perhaps you think Nation States produce genocide , thats where it all began hence the attempt to remove autonomy .

What are you rattling about? This is the worst attempt at telepathy I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a few. That said, this paranoid guff is useful in one sense – it speaks volumes about your worldview.

The rest of your comment is a freeform, extended tirade on the evils of the EU, with the Human Rights Act appearing as an afterthought at the end. That’s a bit odd, if you’re trying to make a point to me about the Act itself.

If somebody else wants to pick up your theory of a fifty-year plot to oppress The Honest Hard-Working People Of Blighty they’re welcome to it, but they should note that your armoury is bursting with assertions and conjecture but low on actual, you know, facts.

I can understand why you like to keep your arguments up in the ether, where generalisations soar and broad, sweeping statements take wing, but I’ll take case law over lofty rhetoric every time.

UKLiberty

I don’t know though about your assertion that the ECHR was written to fit in with English common law.

No, fair enough – I was trying to communicate the point that the drafters wanted to leave A LOT of wriggle room. I used that phrase because in Scotland, most cases that have been called “Human Rights Outrages” tend to have swung on common law.

Conservative

FOR liberty, AGAINST human rights!

Tell that to a judge, see what you get. Your point that conservatives favour the magical ponies of liberty is duly noted, but I’d be more confident in court with some actual, solid legal protections to fall back on if it was my arse on the line.

So.

We know that the Labour Party have an authoritarian agenda.

We know that the Tories have an authoritarian agenda.

A vote for the Lib Dems is not going to be effective (even if they rediscover their belief in freedom of speech).

So where does that leave democracy? If I want some of my freedom back who do I vote for?

Answer? I won’t.

I’ll just moan on the blogosphere where I’ll find some people who’ll at least understand my pain.

If we take the example of Dennis Nilson’s claim to a right to pornography that resulted in some very strong headlines – what is not widely known is that the claim was dismissed at the permission stage.

Similar results can be seen in other cases where the Daily Mail has screamed abuse at the ECHR and the Convention rights. Silly claims are frequently brought and dismissed in this way … the headlines rarely, it appears, give credit to the result.

Some silly claims are dismissed. Others get through or the government backs down. Prisoners’ “human right” to methadone were accepted by the government, for example.

‘…ever since Magna Carta’

Did she die in vain?!

I agree that in some of his posts, Newmania appears to confuse the two – but then, give the common use of some terms to refer to their own institutions, it is rather confusing isn’t it?

I have absolutely no confusion in my own mind as to the relationship and at an early stage pointed to the suggestion of a UK European rights act to be used as bargaining chip. I took for granted that we understood why there was bargaining to be done . I do not accept in any case that the institutional understand of the European project is correct. It is a broad and disparate movement with roughly similar objectives and its history predates all its current institutional formations . Without the economic weight of the EU there is no way the Human Rights act would survive

The problem with Liberal Conspiracy is that they are so pleased with themselves for noticing that two institutions that say Europe at the beginning are not the same one they have forgotten to ask what the objectives of each are and whether they are mutually dependent .

The interesting thing is that we enjoyed all these2Human rights” as British subjects anyway and yet do not accept this foreign act. No mystery , France would probably run the country pretty well . We would not accept that either. It is a battle between a Communitarian view of Nation and a Liberal universality “Individual “ philosophy. If you understand this then you have understood much about both the HRA and this country.

THuis is why that Causbonish twerp Flying Rodent is so determined to keep attention on irrelevant detail. Its not amillion miles from arguing that Mussolini got the trains running on time ( which he did not ).

UK Human rights act I mean… ahem

I don’t understand this popular meme that “a vote for the lib dems is wasted”. Compared to what, exactly? Can you really spot the difference between blue and red these days?

Second, voting LD might not win them this election, but maybe it’ll show that there is support enough for them to win the next election, or the one after, or the one after. Better, I think, to vote the way that you really feel, even if it doesn’t win you a seat “this time”, because it shows everyone that the two main parties don’t have the stranglehold on representation that they think they have.

“That is such a crock of shit.”

An incisive and fascinating contribution. We have all learnt something today.

44. Sally , the belief in rule by law predates Magna Carta. When William won the Battle of Hastings he was asked to rule according to the Laws of Edward the Confessor. He agree to do so and the Anglo Saxon restance crumpled. A main reason why William wanted to conquer England was the wealth of the country which was largely a result of freedom and the rules which enabled trade to flourish. The control of the Mint by the monarchs meant there was confidence in the coinage because it ad not been debased. I believe only English and Byzantium coinage were accepted throughout Europe.

Much of the Magna Carta is codifying property rights such as fish weirs , flour mills , the freedoms of the City of London etc which enabled trade to flourish. At one stage the Magna Carta had to read out aloud in each English village or town, every year to ensure people knew their rights under law. Trade enabled a middle class to develop. The English and Welsh archers of the Hundred Years War considered themselves free to a degree way beyond that of any French person of non- noble birth. The archers of England and wales were freemen, who volunteered and were paid a daily rate depending upon their amount of equipment they used. So compared to the rest of Europe , the English have had a degree of free expression and have lived under a rule of law far in excess of anyone in Europe since the time of Edward the Confessor. In addition, there was far greater mobility between the classes in Britain than anywhere else in Europe.

The creation of Parliament in 1275 was not the first form of chamber for advising the King on the running of the country; In Anglo Saxon time the Witan existed . By the mid 15 century, English lawyers were stating that the powers of the English and French monarchs were different. In France , the monarch was absolute whereas In England they were limited by Parliament- read David Starkey.

The rule of law is a meaningless pile of shit if the only people making the laws are a small elite of Barons and Monarchs. As woman did not get the vote until the 1920’s and most men not until The Great reform act, all this drivel about ‘governing ourselves for a thousand years’ is drivel.

The only reason you Tories are so obsessed about that period is that you would love to return to an age when only a small, rich group of landowners made the laws. Feudalism is the Tory way.

56. Sally just compare the conditions in England with Continental Europe since the time of Edward the Confessor. In general in England there was more free speech, greater rule by law, Parliament had more influence on the Monarch than any other similar body and greater movement
up the class and economic system, than anywhere else in Europe. Perhaps in N Italy, from the end of the 14 to late 15 C there was a massive increase in the middle classes.

The English and Welsh archers considered themselves far freer than any non-noble in France.
There was one outlaw who was pardoned because he was such a good archer. He became a part of the King’s bodyguard, was injured in battle and was knighted before he died. That sort of upward social mobility was unknown in France in the Middle Ages. As Mao said ” Political power comes from the barrel of gun”. While in The Middle Ages in England it was wielded by the archers. Many archers were yoeman farmers( someone who owned 40-120 acres of land) and were wealthier than some knights ( owned more than 100 acres).

Does this make England perfect – no. Would I prefer to live 600 years ago -no. However, in The Middle Ages I would have preferred to have live in England as a freeman than anywhere else in Europe as I would have had more opportunities to improve the quality of life.

I think the point is that, of course, there was and still is class division and inequalities in power. But the mechanisms of government made it just that little bit more difficult for the English ruling class to persecute the rest. Within that small space, a fairly unique form of liberty was allowed to develop that was much longer in coming in many parts of continental Europe.

@UKLiberty

>I don’t know though about your assertion that the ECHR was written to fit in with English common law.

>No, fair enough – I was trying to communicate the point that the drafters wanted to leave A LOT of wriggle room. I used that phrase because in Scotland, most cases that have been called “Human Rights Outrages” tend to have swung on common law.

I’d be willing to say that the ECHR was “heavily informed” by the English legal tradition, while drawing on other European traditions (French, German). I’d make a similar comment about the UN founding documents, but including the other leading WW2 Allied nations, since both were (more or less) put in place in a process lead by the victors of WW2. I’d also add a rider that they sought to be “self-critical”.

Like you, I can’t comment on “Common Law or not”.

@ukliberty

>Matt W @ 28, the Tories’ plan seems rather vague at the moment – like Labour’s Bill of Obligations and Privileges Rights and Responsibilities. Lots of soothing words and handwaving but nothing substantial.

>I agree that it seems to stem from being prohibited from deporting particular people under Article 3, prohibition of torture, as well as the various myths and other things people find objectionable.

Which would [probably undermine the possibility for such a specific attack as we have here.

I have a Conservative cenrtally-connected person queuing up to do a guest post, perhaps this is it.