Human rights

[birdbath]

The whole point of creating the European Court of Human Rights after WWII was to stop individual states arbitrarily creating laws to persecute minorities and individuals.
May's proposal is dangerous and, like the threat to Bercow's eventual peerage, a sign of an increasing desire for authoritarianism.

[Toodles McGinty]

Some aspects must change after Brexit.


I am more concerned with the rights of victims compromised by
the EU and Schengen which has taken power away from British autonomy.

But we won't be in the EU and have nothing to do with Schengen, anyway. The EU has nothing to do with the Council of Europe, the ECHR is a body of the Council of Europe. Even after Brexit, we'll still be part of the CoE. So why do we need to change human rights laws after Brexit?

The two things are unrelated. It seems like an exercise in taking away rights. You can't actually believe that this government will enhance human rights after Brexit, surely? If the government were to implement those articles on your list, then fair enough. But they won't.

[Hamble]

But we won't be in the EU and have nothing to do with Schengen, anyway. The EU has nothing to do with the Council of Europe, the ECHR is a body of the Council of Europe. Even after Brexit, we'll still be part of the CoE. So why do we need to change human rights laws after Brexit?

The two things are unrelated. It seems like an exercise in taking away rights. You can't actually believe that this government will enhance human rights after Brexit, surely? If the government were to implement those articles on your list, then fair enough. But they won't.

We will.
Is not the right to remain for EU citizens a UK responsibility?

Schengen is the route non EU migrants take through Europe and visitors who overstay.

What about the victims?

[Toodles McGinty]

We will.
Is not the right to remain for EU citizens a UK responsibility?

Schengen is the route non EU migrants take through Europe and visitors who overstay.

What about the victims?

The right to remain in the UK for EU citizens, I assume, depends on whether or not we reach a deal with the EU. The government has already stated that those already here can stay. That has nothing to do with the Council of Europe. Why would we leave the CoE simply because we are leaving the EU? There are many countries in the CoE that aren't in the EU. And they also follow the ECHR. So why extricate ourselves from the ECHR?

I still don't see what Schengen has to do with us. Once we've left the EU, it'll have even less to do with us. And Schengen is nothing to do with the CoE. There are many routes to this country. Do you think the label 'Schengen' will change that? Hungary is part of the Schengen zone, but refuse point blank to accept immigrants.

Which 'victims' are you talking about? Do you think victims rights will improve outside of the ECHR? If so, how?

[silver fox]

Some aspects must change after Brexit.


I am more concerned with the rights of victims compromised by
the EU and Schengen which has taken power away from British autonomy.

Whenever immigration is mentioned you drag Schengen out of your anti EU locker, you know very well that we are not and never have been party to Schengen, even some who are party to Schengen are making their own decisions on immigration.

[Hamble]

Whenever immigration is mentioned you drag Schengen out of your anti EU locker, you know very well that we are not and never have been party to Schengen, even some who are party to Schengen are making their own decisions on immigration.

For a very good reason!

How did the illegal immigrants rescued in the English Channel and The Thames get there?

Quote
"
The migrant crisis has led to a widening political divide in Europe, especially between Italy, where most migrants first enter the EU, and Germany, the places where most migrants attempt to travel due to the passport-free Schengen area."

https://www.euronews.com/2018/07/09/...icked-out-rise

[Hamble]

The right to remain in the UK for EU citizens, I assume, depends on whether or not we reach a deal with the EU. The government has already stated that those already here can stay. That has nothing to do with the Council of Europe. Why would we leave the CoE simply because we are leaving the EU? There are many countries in the CoE that aren't in the EU. And they also follow the ECHR. So why extricate ourselves from the ECHR?

I still don't see what Schengen has to do with us. Once we've left the EU, it'll have even less to do with us. And Schengen is nothing to do with the CoE. There are many routes to this country. Do you think the label 'Schengen' will change that? Hungary is part of the Schengen zone, but refuse point blank to accept immigrants.

Which 'victims' are you talking about? Do you think victims rights will improve outside of the ECHR? If so, how?

You have only mentioned the law abiding.
What about the those EU and non EU people in prisons serving sentences committed since living in the UK?
After Brexit leave of stay after release should be terminated.

[Toodles McGinty]

You have only mentioned the law abiding.
What about the those EU and non EU people in prisons serving sentences committed since living in the UK?
After Brexit leave of stay after release should be terminated.

Fair enough, but the Schengen zone will still be there, whether we're in the EU or not. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it, especially as we won't be privy to any reforms within the EU. And that still doesn't make an iota of difference to our membership of the Council of Europe, so why change any laws? There are no laws regarding the Schengen Zone in the ECHR declarations. They basically cover those things that a civilised society should be entitled to limited working hours, workers rights, rights to fair trials, rights to representation, rights to a peaceful existence. None of which have to do with EU or non-EU criminals.

So why repeal any laws founded by the ECHR? We have plenty of our own laws. We can instigate additional laws regarding immigration. Even the devolved governments of the UK can have their own laws.

So why repeal the Human Rights Act?

[Hamble]

Fair enough, but the Schengen zone will still be there, whether we're in the EU or not. There is absolutely nothing we can do about it, especially as we won't be privy to any reforms within the EU. And that still doesn't make an iota of difference to our membership of the Council of Europe, so why change any laws? There are no laws regarding the Schengen Zone in the ECHR declarations. They basically cover those things that a civilised society should be entitled to limited working hours, workers rights, rights to fair trials, rights to representation, rights to a peaceful existence. None of which have to do with EU or non-EU criminals.

So why repeal any laws founded by the ECHR? We have plenty of our own laws. We can instigate additional laws regarding immigration. Even the devolved governments of the UK can have their own laws.

So why repeal the Human Rights Act?

...because it is a 'European' Human Rights Act which will need amending after Brexit.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...ghts-act-1998/

[Toodles McGinty]

...because it is a 'European' Human Rights Act which will need amending after Brexit.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...ghts-act-1998/

No it will not. I think I've already written this 3 times on this thread, the Council of Europe and the ECHR and the Human Rights Act has NOTHING to do with the EU, Schengen, Brexit or Remain. It is a body of the Council of Europe. Nowhere on that link does it mention the EU. It's nothing to do with membership of the EU, so why on earth would Brexit have anything to do with it. Europe is a continent, not a political union. We aren't leaving a sodding continent. We can't float off into the Atlantic.

It isn't a long read, really, to check out the details of the CoE or the ECHR. Scan it and tell me what on earth it has to do with Brexit, and therefore why would anything need changing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...f_Human_Rights

and most importantly, what it stands for:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...n_Human_Rights

[Toodles McGinty]

Also, here are three examples of the Human Rights Act in action, C&P from another source:

1, Snatch Land Rover case brought under the act by the families of some of the 37 soldiers who died in the sub-standard vehicles (labelled “mobile coffins” by relatives) in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence fatally failed to adequately equip those soldiers, essentially sending them into the line of fire without the proper protection – but it took a case brought mainly under the Human Rights Act to force the MoD to admit it had made mistakes and issue an apology to the soldiers’ families.

2, Then there’s the case of John Worboys – the “black-cab rapist” – where the police failed to adequately investigate the reports made by some of his earlier victims in 2003 and 2007. Worboys is believed to have gone on to sexually assault and rape many more women before eventually being convicted in 2009. It took a challenge by his victims under the Human Rights Act to uncover the true extent of police failures and get the justice they deserved.


3, Hillsborough. A single word that is synonymous with torturously prolonged tragedy and injustice. In 1989, police directed football fans into already-overcrowded terraces via a single tunnel and, in the ensuing panic, 96 people died, many asphyxiated in the crush of bodies trying to escape. One man at the game that afternoon lost both his teenage daughters. Denied justice for almost three decades, it was the Human Rights Act that helped the victims secure the inquest that found the police were not only responsible for causing the tragedy but that many lied about what had happened – blaming the very victims they had fatally failed to protect.

Windrush? Grenfell? Wonder why the powers that be want to change it?

[Styx]

So why repeal the Human Rights Act?

Why should we allow others the ultimate power to make decisions that affect the UK?

[Toodles McGinty]

Why should we allow others the ultimate power to make decisions that affect the UK?

Good grief.

Is it the word 'Europe' that causes a knee-jerk 'we're taking back control' reaction?

Humour me. Drop the E from ECHR, read the link, think about the items on my last post and explain to me why it is 'allowing others' any kind of 'power' at all.

It is an agreement to be decent human beings, not a regulation on bendy bananas. It is not left or right, leave or remain. European Union or British. None of those things.

Or perhaps those poor souls that died at Hillsborough didn't deserve justice? Because if t wasn't for the Human Rights Act, the Sun could have carried on with their abominable claims and those really at fault would have walked away Scot-free.

[seivad]

...because it is a 'European' Human Rights Act which will need amending after Brexit.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...ghts-act-1998/

You didn't read your link. It says:

"What’s the European Convention on Human Rights?

The European Convention on Human Rights protects the human rights of people in countries that belong to the Council of Europe. This includes the UK. The Council of Europe is different from the European Union.

[seivad]

Good grief.
Is it the word 'Europe' that causes a knee-jerk 'we're taking back control' reaction?

I saw a similar reaction from a Brexiteer commenting about trading on WTO terms after Brexit. He thought the UK should also leave the WTO because it's headquartered in Switzerland!