Human rights are a JOKE we was better off before they were introduced

I agree totally with the comments above, this act should be overhauled, mainly to allow us to deport criminals from other countries whose clever lawyers prevent justice from being carried out. Its a bad law in its present form.

It should be changed so the victims are protected and the criminals punished! I'm sick of hearing a peadophile is being protected because of his Human Rights or a terrorist is allowed to stay in the UK because of his Human Rights- deporting them would put "their lives in danger"!!! And foreigners not being deported when they have committed a crime.

Why should the innocent people of the UK be put at risk because of foreign criminals and peadophile's Human Rights?

Repeal this act as it protects criminals, costs the taxpayer a fortune in unnecessary legal fees. By all means modify this bill so that it protects law abiding citizens, but the current legislation is used to hurt those citizens it should protect

The so-called Human Rights Act is a farce. It is a criminals' charter and should be scrapped, or should NOT apply to anyone convicted of a crime or to anyone who is not a British citizen.

in my opion if any person is convicted of a serious crime or is a terrorist or is a illegal imigrant then they should not have the option of using the human rights act

Dump the HRB asap. It is a risk to the vast majority to the UK public who have a human right not to be blown to pieces. It is being used wrongly by defenders of of criminals and terrorists.

Dump the HRA as it is a charter for money grabbing lawyers. Look who had it introduced! It is a charter for criminals and penalises the victim. Once someone is charged with any offence against another person they should lose all thier own Human Rights. This act needs to be repealed and a new Civil Liberties Act put in place with no link to judges in any EU court.

i agree, it so annoys me when you here of certain criminals ie murderers, rapist, peadophiles etc being treated better than honest people because of there so called humanrights to get special privelages etc.....they should have lost there human rights as soon they committed the offence and what about the victims, what about there human rights and the poor soles who had there lifes taken away from them thanks to these criminals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
time for a big reform it has gone too far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This Law seems to have been completely abused by foreign nationals as well as unscrupulous Brits too claim compensations

I agree that terrorists or illegal imigrants should not have the option of using the human rights act

But I think that it has cost the tax payer so much money and it is very likely that even by changing the Act there will still be people who manipulate it and it will still end up costing the tax payer money. Scrap it. Maybe go back to the system or bill we had before, for the time being.

The human rights act is only helping the criminals and people who are coming into this country with nothing to offer.

Britain has become a standing joke abroad as a very soft country where you can get away with anything.

The everyday British citizen is scared to say or do anything for fear of upsetting anyone, the human rights act instead of helping normal british citizens has only helped the unscrupulous.

It's never been a better time to be a criminal or illegal inmmigrant or a sponger than now. Britain has bowed to the rest of the world and has become a dustbin for dumping in, instead of the once proud and strong nation it once was.

We should Not be forced to protect those that enter this country illegally.

Therefore EU convention of Human Rights should be scraped it is one of the most dangerous laws which infringe upon liberty,and is threatening traditional British cultre and it's way of life.

all these comments are so true, the average joe blog in the street knows his rights and what he can do but when you get all these illegals imigrants saying that they cannot go back to their country as they will get killed or suchlike is a joke and when they arrive in this country without passports they cannot be sent back home as do not know where they came from it really needs to be sorted out as we cannot support all these people who just take take all the time and do not put nothing back into society...

Maybe change it to the Criminal Rights Act as they seem to be the only ones benefiting from it!!

Scrap it or start using it for the people of this world who need it. Once you break the law you should get a basic rights act (not to be tortured, etc.) but no more pampering to criminals needs!

I think if you commit murder or rape you are worse than an animal and therefore wave your rights as a human.

I feel the HRA enshrines some very good principles but fails mainly due to the way it is applied. Scrap it and replace it with a 'Social Rights Act' which gives similar protections to members of our society. If you choose (by being convicted of a crime) to set yourself outside of society, then you should enjoy none of it's priviledges - correcting the responsibilty/rights balance. I am not advocating the mistreatment of criminals but there are many things that can be done to help society by those who attempt to damage it. How about chain-gangs of low risk prisoners doing a lot of the work that we get stung on our council tax bills for?

This useless Act which protects the guilty and the antisocial should be replaced with legislation giving people stronger rights to protect their property, to protect their privacy. If this is done could any proposed Act be published so the public can read it first to avoid the problem we have now whereby there are some good ideas in the HRA but as has been said before here it is applied wrongly. Too easy for the unscrupulous to wriggle out of punishment. My view is that if someone breaks the law they put themselves outside any consideration whatsover. Make punishment count.

The Human Rights Act is used as a scapegoat by the lazy and the ignorant to avoid doing their jobs properly.

There's nothing wrong with the HRA that a bit of education wouldn't put right.

Keep it.

I really don't understand this argument. The HRA stops us deporting people when that would lead to torture and death. If we think that's an acceptable way to deal with people, then we would need to sentence them, in court, to torture and death. Having done that, deporting them would be one way of carrying out the sentence.

Except that we don't sentence people to torture and death because we are civilised here.

The human rights act protects the criminals and it badly lets down the victims of crime, it should never have been signed in the first place. The victims should be put first and not the other way round, the sooner we get rid off it the better.

The fabric of society has been eroded by the protection of the individual

Yes scrap the human rights act, it`s about time the gravy train was derailed, but i cannot see it happening, this is just a P.R stunt

Scrap this act completely. It is a charter for the lawless to avoid deportation and for others to screw large sums of money out of the system by claiming their human rights have been violated. Unfortunately, the courts have their hands tied by this idiotic legislation. Instead, introduce a law applicable to Great Britain to protect peoples rights, but frame it in such a way that will allow judges to apply common sense to prevent people milking the system - eg, £66,000 for toothache.

And those who have committed crimes and are imprisoned have opted out of civilised society and therefore should not have the same rights as the law-abiding.

I find it utterly reprehensible that an immigrant from Europe wanted for murder in his own country who entered on a false passport and has lived here for ten years claiming disability allowance under a false name, (WHO CHECKED HIM OUT AT THE DSS?), cannot be deported because he would be punished for his crimes in his own country according to their laws. We may not agree with the laws of other countries but that does not justify our government denying them the right to exact the lawful penalties that that country lives by. How strange that a British citizen who "inadvertantly" hacked in to the United States security computer can so readily be deported at the request of the US government to face what could be a 60 year jail term for an offence that was committed in Britain and would probably carry a maximun sentence of about three years if tried and convicted over here. I use the three year sentence by deduction that murderers in Britain usually serve about seven years before being released on licence usually with a new identity if their crime was particularly vile. Apparently it against their human rights to just turn them loose so that the general public know who they are and can protect themselves accordingly. Human Rights!! Human Wrongs.

Impossible, so not worth debating

This needs to be scrapped or completely re-written. Why are the criminals looked after and protected more then the innocent victims. It is a joke.

Is this the same human rights act that allows you to post this very idea?
Is this the same human rights act that allows you to vote?
Is this the same human rights act that stops discrimination and hate speech?

Are you proposing some kind of anarchy?

This law must be amended or scrapped. It is not being used for the reasons it was created and it makes a mockery of our justice system.

If you actually read the act, you will see it contains nothing but the basic rights that you would expect in any society and shares most of it's clauses with international law the UK has already signed up to.

The original poster on this topic has in no way made a case for repealing the HRA. He makes sweeping generalizations whilst not coming up with any specific examples and that is terribly dangerous.

It shouldn't be scrapped as it's clearly a good act for the most part but it seriously needs amending to remove the more ridiculous parts. If someone commits a serious crime in this country (murder, rape, terrorist acts, for instance) they give up their human rights and should be deported back to their country of origin or another country who will accept them. I do not agree with deporting law abiding asylum seekers to a country where torture and death awaits them but there should be a line drawn somewhere with regards serious law breakers.

Which of these would you remove:

*Right to life
*Prohibition of torture
*Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
*Right to liberty and security
*Right to a fair trial
*No punishment without law
*Right to respect for private and family life
*Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
*Freedom of expression
*Freedom of assembly and association
*Right to marry
*Prohibition of discrimination
*Restrictions on political activity of aliens
*Limitation on use of restrictions on rights
*Protection of property
*Right to education
*Right to free elections
*Abolition of the death penalty
*Death penalty in time of war

Scrap it - no. Overhaul it - yes. Sever the links with Brussels with regard to the Human Rights Act - yes.

I think too many of the commenters here believe what they read in the Daily Mail. It makes a good story when the HRA is misused when in actuality it provides all of us with protection against oppression, exploitation and bigotry.

I am a fan of the social contract, which means i support the concept that civil rights are not natural rights, nor permanently fixed, and that English Law (read: Common Law) has spent 800 years morphing itself to the expectations of that social contract and thus has the greatest claim to validity as an instrument of justice. To me this sits at odds with the idea of an inalienable right enacted by statute (more appropriate to a Civil Law system) and not ultimately subject to English legal interpretation (as currently the case with the ECHR).

 I am concerned that people have seen one news report about the shocking treatment of troops abroad that are no longer taken into account by the human rights act and have elected to throw the baby out with the bath water in surrendering their own human rights by calling for a complete scrap of this oh, so important piece of documentation. We must remember that those rights are their to protect every human life on the planet. If we are, as is so openly discussed today by governments and business interests, moving with unbelelievable momentum toward a global society where interaction between peoples and nations must be paramount to ensure that we don't turn our beatiful world into a planetary bloodbath, we can not and should not ever entertain such backward notions.
 
 THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT IS IN PLACE TO SAFEGUARD FAIR TREATMENT OF ALL PEOPLE ON OUR EARTH. If an individual commits a crime it should stand to reason that the individual in question should stand a fair and open trail conducted in complete legality and transparency and punished as in accordance with law in relation to said crime. We should not be so quick to assume that the law which protects our rights to be a peace loving people in a fair and open society will always be respected.
 PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE EXAMINE YOUR MOTIVES AND EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENTS'. THIS COULD BE THE LAST CHANCE WE GET AS A PEOPLE TO GET IT RIGHT.
 A thought, it's too late for me... But what if to ensure good strong and inclusive community values we had a return to a period, between, say, the ages of 18 and 25 of a kind of 'national' service. It appears that we are going to lose half of a million public sector workers, I imagime that this would include lots of police, fire service, council services etc. I think that this implimentation may even bring about real change in the way young and disaffected people view themselves, instilling real confidence in there own abilities to function in the community and play a more consructive role. This 'national' service idea is niether original nor is it unique to our island, niether it does it have to be universal, as there will obviously be the proportion of society in other areas.
 If we can bring people, not by force but by gentle realisation, into a more fluid state of being we would all realise the harm we do not just to others when we throw up walls, for what ever reason we do not see that it's also our selves that we condemn. It is my belief that the commoner population has been allowed to agitate itself by means of media manipulation and less crimination of psychologically harmful genres of movies, video games, t.v, media coverage, applied alienation and the manipulative elements in science. Consequently the average human living their life is addicted to one thing or the other lessening their ability to look beyond our own interpretation of the experience.
 We can have number crunching till the cows come home. On paper anything can be made to appear profitable and I have heard a lot of very intelligent people make what at first glance seem to be very in-depth and knowledgable assumptions about where we can go on this momentous occasion. Please, thanks to voters in the north west we have a facist m.e.p. WOW.

The level of ignorance shown in this thread is quite astonishing, and it's difficult to believe that many of the commentators have even read the act.

To make it easy for you, here it is: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3

Without the Human Rights Act there would just be a pile more cases going for judgement at the European Court of Human Rights, which would be more expensive and more bureaucratic, unless you want to opt out of that too. The Human Rights Act (and human rights law more broadly) protects and extends our freedoms and makes it easier for all of us to stand up for our rights.

Some people find other people's human rights an inconvenience, so for those types I have a counter-proposal. Anyone who doesn't like the Human Rights Act and the protections it gives them should be able to opt-out of it individually if they really want to, leaving the rest of us to enjoy our rights and freedoms in peace!

Criminals with solid convictions should lose all their rights.

What a load of dailymail ! The liberals would never repeal this law, mind you the ConDem pact probably will.

So, what you're saying is that your wish is to scrap an Act that protects YOU from oppression, that ensures YOUR ability to comment freely on this very webpage withour recrimination, that gurantees YOUR right to a fair trial, merely because you begrudge your fellow human beings receiving the very same entitlements.

And as to the idea that the Act should be disapplied where a person has a criminal record; human beings who have been convicted of a criminal offence are still human beings. It is not the business of the state to deny anyone the fundamental and absolute rights that they were born with.

It's quite ironic that a web site about "Your Freedom" and "Restoring Civil Liberties" should have a suggestion to remove the act at the very core of those rights.

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved."
Benjamin Franklin

It should REMAIN

HRA 1998 was a vehicle for Cherie Blair and her Chambers to make as much money as possible to feather their nests - think about it.
Every lawyer in the land groaned when it was posted as they realised it would open a Pandora's box that encouraged greed, inequality and isolated victims of crime whilst offering perpetrators of crime a mechanism to profit from their actions. We should also opt out of the European Convention On Human Rights and pass a Reserve Powers Act that guarantees the supremacy of Parliament against foreign treaties and domestic judicial activism.

Human rights are a very important principle. Don't throw them away just because the act may be flawed.

We should reform it so it doesn't protect criminals rather than completely repealing it.

The Human Rights Act is largely good

Rather than scrap it, we should fully adopt the The European Convention on Human Rights without the sneaky get out clauses in our current version. By all means close a few loopholes whereby the act is misused or abused All those wanting to scrap it would soon change their tune if they thought their human rights were being infringed.

I think people should actually read the act... if anything, we should sign, ratify, and dopt all further protocols, and directly adopt the ECHR in full

"Once someone is charged with any offence against another person they should lose all thier own Human Rights."

Yeah, that sort of comment is just what we need with a bill that's aimed at protecting people's freedom. What good is freedom, if you lose it the moment you're merely charged with something by the Government?

The Human Rights Act merely brings the European Convention on Human Rights into the realm of UK courts; scrapping the law would just make it more expensive for individuals to defend themselves in courts.

What has scrapping the HRA got to do with protecting freedoms? It's the HRA/ECHR that has challenged many of the dubious laws that people wish to be repealed on this site.

Don't scrap it, rewrite it then replace it.

The Human Rights Act needs a serious overall. The fact that terrorists and criminals cannot be deported to certain home countries is ridiculous. Terrorists plan to kill and injure hundreds of UK citizens, and the idea that we have to keep them here risks public safety and costs the taxpayer huge amounts each year.

Those who are convicted of crimes such as rape, murder, terrorist planning etc (basically those seeking to harm others) should lose their human rights. Perhaps it will make those people think twice before conducting such crimes?

It is time to end all Human Rights Laws and return to our own Bill of Rights Laws which have have been in place since 1689, Human Rights Laws have destroyed the British Society and have been nothing more than an excuse to undermine Justice. the sooner we are given back our oun Destiny and ended our involvement with the EU, the better our Country will be.

I suggest commentators should read the declaration of human rights before they condemn it.

Ask yourself if you found yourself under arrest for something you hadn't done, would you be happy to forgo all your rights?

Also what of these rights would you be prepared to concede as not applying to you?

Should be HUMAN RESPONSIBILITIES AND RIGHTS ACTS

If you Meet your REPSONSIBILITIES then you are entitled to your RIGHTS

Completely and utterly disagree with this idea. The HRA protects the most vulnerable in our society- most of the UK have never been in a situation to require defence of their basic rights, and because of that there seems to be a disgraceful apathy towards those that need the most protection.
I should note to those who are arguing that foreign criminals are not being deported to their country of origin due to being in danger of punishment- that only comes into effect if they are in danger of torure or death. By sending someone to their exectution, we would ulimately be condoning such action ourselves.
Its worth bearing in mind that even the most well drafted of legislations can be misused,and that it's ultimately up to the courts to be able to assertain whether or not those using the HRA as a defence are presenting legitimate claims or not.
On another note, if we scrap the HRA, we are still covered by international law to provide basic Human Rights by the ECHR and the UNCHR. Although the HRA is UK specific, it is not the only bill we have agreed to adhere by when it somes to protecting the rights of the individual.

The common law protected our rights in the UK well enough before the inferior EU version arrived which has succeeded (at OUR vast expense) in preventing us from deporting illegal immigrants, and foreign criminals for their crimes here. Less well known is the fact that it has been cross referenced into other legislation so as to prevent action being taken by citizens against government departments even where there is serious negligence or maladministration. The European Convention as it has been applied in the UK is asinine, inappropriate and must go.

I agree with most of the above. Didn't our new prime minister promise to repeal the awful Human rights act and replace it with a British bill of rights? Mr Cameron/Mr Clegg get on with it.

Human Rights protects the wrong people, it needs to go NOW

I think the Daily Mail needs to be scrapped.

The human rights act is designed to protect the rights of ALL humans, not just those that meet the Daily Mail's approval. It is not perfect but on the whole it works well. I understand that some of you believe that it is right for us to send people we do not like abroad in the knowledge that this will result in them being tortured and killed. I happen to disagree. Either this country is in favour of torture or against it, and sending somebody to be tortured elsewhere is no different from doing it outselves.

I would not object to a British Rights act of some kind, but it must use the Human Rights act as a basis. It may want to extend rights in some areas to protect traditional British freedoms that may not be universally respected in the rest of Europe, it may want to give more guidance over how it applies when two people's rights are in conflict, but it should not dilute any of the fundamental rights granted by the Human Rights act.

The Human Rights Act gives us...
•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

Is this REALLY what you want to get rid of??!?
Personally I don't, maybe it should be applied better but do away with? Come on do you realise YOUR freedom will be taken away if that happens.

Dear me, the Dail Mail is out in force here.

my_name_is_not_here said it better than i could ever of

stop reading the daily mail, stop reading your ignorant paper of hate speech and read a paper that is more in touch with reality

I agree with the principle of the human rights act and it's intention but the act is deeply flawed and needs to be scrapped and replaced! All to often the act is used againts it's intended use and benefits those in society who who trapse over the rights of the general population! Does a right to a family life really mean that a non British national convicted of a crime can't be deported because he has a cat and if he was deported it contravenes his human rights, what about the rights of the victim? My second problem with the act is it's vagueness this allows the judges to interpret the law as they see fit it's not there job to decide the law it's there job to enforce it and at the moment there are to many judges making too many crazy decisions effecting the public for the worse

I whole heartly agree with all the above comments and think it is about time the government started to listen to the public on this matter. Criminals should loose their Human Rights as soon as they commit a crime, after all their not considering the rights of the people that they are hurting while commiting these crimes. Bring back Hard Labour in prisons we need some sort of deterent to stop these yobs etc

Human Rights Act has been abused so much by those who wish to undermine the state that it needs to be overhauled or even scrapped.

Human right for prisoners is beyond a joke when recently someone was awarded around £66,000 because they didn't get their tooth filled quickly enough & on appeal it was reduced to £44,000. What idiots in the legal system allowed this to be pushed this through ?
The whole subject needs a total overhaul just like everything created in the nanny state we live in

A full and concise rewrite of the 1998, Human rights act, with particular attention to implementing these rights to ALL citizens of the UK, without bias or favour. Too often the act favours the criminal and is used incorrectly on the wrong kind of people, eg Article 5 c is used to stop protests of nationalists but not extremists. In particular Articles 8 and 9 are not used when they should be, selective use of these rights is illegal and cannot be passed from one group to another for political ends. A many above state as I do, A full and realistic overhaul is required, its out of date and does not fit in with today's needs.

Yea - I think the comment from a previous poster bears repeating

The Human Rights Act gives us...
•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

Holy crap there are a lot of thick people on this thread.

I am geniunely terrified by some of the people commenting on this...

This law is nothing less than an excuse to undermine our own laws which with a few modifications are good enough.

The only people who gain from this law are criminals, illegal immigrants and their lawyers.

Scrap it and be done.

Scrap this and all laws that originated in europe - Most of our current laws would go. The rights of the british people were enshrined at Runnymede a good few years ago, signed up to by King John. They should be the basis of any chanes to our laws not some set of nancies from brussels.

I am concerned that, as usual, too many people form their views following a good read of the Daily Mail and such similar media. For me, the first line of the Act sums up why it is so important:

'Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.'

The Act is there to protect not just the 'immigrants' and the 'criminals' but ordinary people like you and me. Please take the time to read the act and understand it before posting such uninformed, daily mail reading views.

Repeal this act immediately ... it's not that it's a bad law it's fine in principle but not in practice. It works perfectly well in other countries but they don't have our stupid, out-of-touch, judges or our smart-alec lawyers who will twist any law if you pay them enough.

@ Vicstress

There is more to life than the Daily Mail, I suggest you try Noddy. There life is considered harsh and criminals are locked up with no remisson. The HRA is not good for this country as it does contradict what we already had. We already have laws that protect the rights and life of the individual. People died fighting to preserve them and we certainly do not need this criminals charter.

Why does anyone who disagrees with this idea immediately start frothing that only "Daily Mail readers" would propose such a thing? I suggest to these people that they take a long hard look at the pros and cons of this legislation.
Believing this is a good law just because it has a nice name is lazy thinking of the highest order.
Do your homework.

I would urge people to read the Human Rights Act and to educate themselves about what they are. Please don't rely on newspaper stories for information on this important issue.

agree with this post.
human rights were made after a very tragic event in the world that's why they are so tight and stop countries to evolve in their won laws.
We all know what's right and what's wrong we don't need laws that make it impossible to extradite illegal emigrants that are taking the place of young people wanting to find work, and people associated with terrorists.
All international laws are a way of controlling if I am to be controlled then be it, but by the government that I voted.
we reached the welfare society now is the next step to utopian, but not by closing ourself to the world but show the world how a fair and equal society is done
     

All the people who seem to think that repealing the HRA would result in extermination camps, slavery, and the destruction of 'rights' of every kind are over-reacting foolishly. The Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, people. Britain before 1998 was not conspicuous for its human rights abuses (it's become a damn sight more conspicuous for them since). The HRA incorporates European law into our own, and allows it to subsequently have the weight of precedent. Indigenous laws are also required to be interpreted in a way which is compatible with this alien imposition.

I don't think there is anyone who would say that all the things which the HRA supposedly defends are bad or wrong. The point is the HRA is a bad mechanism for defending them. It is obviously open to abuse, but far more importantly, it (perhaps accidentally... *perhaps*) has contributed to the destruction of the basic foundation-stone of British liberty, which is our national sovereignty: unless we live by and abide by laws which are our own, arising out of British traditions and the democratic will of the British people, rather than being forced by proxy to abide by the laws of other countries, we can't be said to be a free sovereign nation at all. Anyone who truly belives in rights and liberties needs to accept that the Human Rights Act should be repealed.

It would be a massive loss to lose this act. It is just being used as a scapegoat along with the excuse "health and safety". This act is very important and needs to be kept.

And what is this bizarre obsession with the Daily Mail, for heaven's sake?! It seems to be everybody's favourite bogeyman!

<shakes head> How can a human rights act protect the wrong people? Its should regardless of its content protect everyone, and apparently we are the only country with smart lawyers who get around these clauses other European Law schools must be poor by comparison. Anyway more to the point, scrapping an act simply because of a few Daily Mail headlines is ridiculous. Criminals should lose their rights should they? Well thats half the country without rights then as the majority of us break some law and we all know ignorance is no defense. Or are we to just target the ones the CPS prosecuted and those wrongly convicted like Barry George. Seriously I worry about the contempt people have for their fellow man. There are rights that should be absolute and denied nobody. So if you have comments be specific about which rights you feel should be changed and why.

Its utterly amazing, i have never heard one person in the usa, shouting off about scrapping their constitution, which basically the human rights act, is a copy of. Of course, in the usa, citizens know, and understand their constitution, they know its what brought them freedome from opression. In the uk, a few stories in the daily mail (with no basis on fact) making rediculous claims about drug dealers who cant be prosecuted because of the human rights act, and other criminals being protected by the act, while victims arrent, has lead to a kind of mass hysteria, by people that dont even understand what the human rights act is, yet the same people, would probably think the americans were very forward thinking people, when they brought in their constitution. Which does give us citizens a lot more rights than the human rights act gives, it gives them the right of silence after arrest, makes search and seizure, without probabl cause illegal, gives the true right to free speach, and not the british right to free speach, as long as you dont say anything that could be deemed to be incitement, insulting, or many other things.

I suppose really british people, lean more towards,arrest and sentencing, without trial, from what i have read here,definietly without defence.

This suggestion does not allow protection for innocent people!

The poster chooses not to acknowledge the benefits of the Human Rights Act which they have enjoyed.

Turn the clock back and scrap the HRA. It has made life worse for all, except for criminals, perverts, and bogus asylum seekers.

RobertFWSmith: Please check your history. The 1998 Act is merely the repatriation of the European Convention for Human Rights which was enacted on the 4 Nov 1950. This gave redress through the (Strassburg)Court of Human Rights (NB nothing to do with the Brussels based EU!!). When the Council of Europe accepted the Convention a Member of the Attlee government told me gleefully that the Convention was a great tribute to British Justice which 'they' had successfully "forced down the throat" of reluctant Europeans!
I SUSPECT that the real reason for the Human Rights Act being brought directly into British law was that the Treasury and the (then) Lord Chancellors Department were embarrassed by the frequency with which the British government lost cases in Strassburg.
Three cheers for the Act and the Convention which has done magnificent work. If it has occasionally been misused, that is no different than any other legislation (f.i.: see debate here on s44 Terrorism Act!)

Another stupid idea from this previous govenment.
How much money have tony B-lairs Lawyer friends made out of this farce.

Are you actually serious? Have you any idea how lucky we are not to suffer the same human rights abuses as people in other parts of the world? Your suggestion is a disgrace to your country, to the many people who fought and died for these rights and the many people who are unfortunate enough not to have them at all. If you want to find out what happens to a country when they have no enforcement of human rights just google some articles on North Korea.

Stop reading the Sun, it is not news. It is propaganda.

 

Great idea. Bring back common sense to this country by scrapping this stupid law

@francisd: my history's fine, thanks. I am, of course, aware of the distinction between the ECHR and the EU. The point is that the Human Rights Act incorporates the Strasbourg court's case law and precedent into British law on an at least equal basis, and in practice it seems to be regarded as having priority (the problem with the HRA is as much about inappropriate judicial activism as the Act itself). It is wrong that the law of the land, which is rooted in centuries of wisdom and precedent, should be over-ruled by an alien court with no authority or legitimacy: as I mentioned above, *in principle* the things in the European Convention are great, and no-one is arguing otherwise - but in practice, insanity results.

Repealing the HRA would have no negative consequences whatsoever (anyone who thinks otherwise is over-reacting, or at worst completely paranoid) and would strike a valuable blow for liberty and national sovereignty. Likewise, as you say, repeal of the Terrorism Act would protect us from abuses of it by the authorities, while doing nothing to make us less safe from terrorism!

Every ra-tag and bobtail has more human rights than the law abiding, tax paying honest people of this country

The act as drafted provides no protection without cost to the victims and potential victims of foreign criminals and terrorists. Surely as drafted it infringes the human rights of every law abiding citizen?

RandomComment ... you ask is this the act that allows you to vote etc
******
No, it isn't.
Before the EU took over we had Habeas Corpus, Magna Carta and The British Bill of Rights.
These were the gardians of our freedoms and liberties, they served us well for hundreds of years.
We do not need the European Human Rights Act, anymore than we need the European Union. We had democracy while many of the EU countries were under dictatorships.

RobertFWSmith: I don't think we are going to agree. Where you see centuries of wisdom, I see a history of struggle and compromise between oppressed and oppressor illustrating that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and authority must always be questioned.
The Courts have a vital role in this, sometime on the side of freedom (you know Mansfield on Slavery 1772?), sadly, more frequently on the other (e.g Taff Vale). On Liberty, I would deny that you can have too much judicial activism, but you can have the reverse. Consider Denning LJ role in race relations: he held effective equality back for years because of reserving race cases to his court and then imposing a deliberately restrictive reading of the law; he thus created the need for ever more legislation. The only beneficiaries were actual or intending discriminators: not meritorious characters - I trust you agree.
If I could trust the present administration I would argue that the rights in the Universal Declaration of HR which are not in the HRAct should be brought into the Act, and consideration should be given to bringing some at least, of the basic rights in the Lisbon (and earlier) treaties into UK jurisdiction. Currently there is an opt out.

The Human Rights Act completey absolves people of taking responsibility for their own actions and is completey misused in this country. Infact, it was so badly drafted it was probably invoked just to give Cherry Blair a good career!

It favours criminals over the law abiding and is a complete joke.

francisd - we obviously agree a little bit, but not much. I, too, see the history of the English common law legal tradition as one of "struggle and compromise", but I cannot look at it so pessimistically as you. And you aren't addressing what for me is the key point - that the HRA question is not really about protecting people from human rights abuses. That happens, or doesn't happen, anyway (in my opinion this country has become more oppressive, more illiberal, less tolerant and less democratic since 1998 - the HRA has hardly protected us from that. Not very well, anyway). It's about whether this country is responsible for its own laws, or not; whether, as a result, the British people are free and sovereign, or not.

Incidentally, I certainly recognise the very valuable contribution the courts make towards restraining arbitrary government. Of course all authority should be questioned. That includes that of judges, and especially of European courts! British judges don't, or shouldn't, need the Human Rights Act to slap down governments which attack fundamental rights through legislation. British law is, and always has been, good enough for that. Why use an Act which subordinates that same British law to an alien jurisdiction? That's why Dominic Grieve's idea of a British Bill of Rights was so good. It would've preserved all the rights in the Human Rights Act, but prevented Strasbourg case law from having precedence over ours, and disentangled our legal system from the Continental one.

I've reluctantly rated this a 5 but would NOT vote for repeal of the Act.

The Act needs to be extended to encompass all people, all businesses and all organisations whether public or private.

In it's current form, the Act makes us the laughing stock of Europe and promotes only scorn from the United Nations for failing to provide real and proper Human Rights legislation in terms of their Universal Human Rights Declaration AND the European Convention on Human Rights - to which the UK is a signatory to both, yet has shamefully failed to fully or properly enact.

Please rectify our shame and give us a Human Rights Act that allows us to stand free and proud in this ever-shrinking World.

An astonishing degree of ignorance shown in respect of the HRA.In many respects the politicians are quite happy for this to occur because they will always want to fiddle with the law. The rights shown in earlier posts clearly set out the basic rights most of which are qualified rights. The problem is in part made worse than it really is because of often inaccurate reports carried by an over exitable press. How often have you seen criticism of the HRA with full and frank reporting of the reasons for the decision? How often are decisions being made based on an authorities interpretation of the Act rather than any legal ruling on the interpretation? It seems to me that in many cases such bodies are afraid to test thier intepretation of the HRA to court precisely because thay are aware that they are attempting to justify nonsensical rulings.

yet another wonderful idea from blair/straw ect,they didnt get much right really,bin it and start again

We need a human rights act because we don't have a constitution. It's naive to believe that future govts will act in the interests of freedom not political expediency.

The Labour nanny state took far too much notice of bovine Daily Mail readers and White Van Man.

Human rights are our most basic freedoms

This Human Rights Act is making the UK a laughing stock - it protects criminals, illegal immigrants and is a money spinner for lawyers. Cherie Blair obviously brought this in, and was promoted by her cronies and the no win no fee merchants, to boost their bank balances.

Nowhere else in Europe to they take as much notice of these insane laws as does this country

I agree repeal this act

the basis of the act is right and fair, the way in which it's used is the problem - review & amend.

Human rights are crucial for a civilised society, so the act should definitely not be repealed!

The Human Rights Act guarantees:
    * the right to life
    * freedom from torture and degrading treatment
    * freedom from slavery and forced labour
    * the right to liberty
    * the right to a fair trial
    * the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
    * the right to respect for private and family life
    * freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
    * freedom of expression
    * freedom of assembly and association
    * the right to marry and to start a family
    * the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
    * the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
    * the right to an education
    * the right to participate in free elections
    * the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

I disagree fundamentally with the way in which this new initiative to revise national legislation appears to target the legislation on human rights in favour of an expansion of ‘civil liberties’. Indeed, the government seems to be confused about the differences between these two forms of freedoms. Let me be clear about one thing - human rights are not up for grabs. They provide fundamental and enforceable protection against excesses of the State, and no diminution of the law that preserves these rights can be permitted.

Human rights are emphatically NOT identical to civil liberties. This Government consultation documentation gives the impression that it wishes to abolish the HRA - in fact it may actually not be able to do so. As the formal transposition of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into English law, the Act declares that once a right has been granted, it cannot be taken away.

We - and therefore the governemnt - are stuck with it. So we need to be much more clearly aware of the differences between human rights and civil liberties. Failing to appreciate them will inevitably result in violations of European law that will bring the government before the European Court of Justice. The government needs to be far better informed about the available scope of its future policies, and I have provided a quick guide to what the State may and may not do to its subjects on the pretext of ‘civil liberties’below.

Human Rights - protecting the individual.

Human rights apply to all individuals, regardless of their social condition. They are outside the remit of the State. Some regimes are less inclined to endorse the full range of rights that are recognised internationally. But not all rights are equal - there are both absolute and relative (or conditional) rights, and these are treated differently under national codes of civil liberties.
  
Absolute rights include the prohibition of enforced medication. Some Codes prohibit all such treatment, others permit the State or its servants some flexibility in how far they may go. The circumstances in which absolute rights may be restricted are extremely limited. Some Courts, as in Britain, hold that there is a threshold at which such treatment becomes unacceptable, so actions that may be regarded as violations of an absolute right in one State may still be considered to be permissible in others.

Conditional (or relative) rights are subject to restriction if their implementation would have an adverse effect on the absolute rights of another. In such cases, States may exercise discretion in order to achieve consensus on what is permissible in order to protect the rights of the competing interests of the participants..

Civil liberties - modifying human rights for the mutual benefit of the community.

Codes of civil liberties constitute a formal contract between the State, local communities and individuals. The terms of this contract specify the freedoms and constraints under which the people and State agree to live and collaborate in order to enjoy the benefits of the community as a whole. But within this contractual framework, the absolute rights of the individual must always take precedent over the actions and interests of other individuals, and of the State itself, and the restriction of a right under a civil liberty code is only permissible in the case of a conditional right.

Civil liberty legislation must provide full protection of the absolute rights of the individual, whilst at the same time they must set out clearly the circumstances under which conditional rights may be modified or regulated by the State, for the efficient maintenance and managementof civil order. Like all contracts, the terms of this agreement are negotiable by mutual consent at any time - for example, civil liberties may be severely restricted in times of public disturbance or war, or during a dangerously virulent epidemic, and relaxed again once hostilities or the risk of cross-infection have ceased.

The government’s apparent aim to repeal the Human Rights Act is therefore itself challengeable in law. The superiority of those absolute rights that are vested in all individuals must be respected when compiling codes of civil liberties. The protection that the Human Rights Act affords the public from the excesses of the State must be both preserved and improved. If, for example, the Depratment of Health’s highly questionable interpretation of what constitutes medical assault permits the addition of ‘fluoride’ to our public water supplies to continue, then the public utilities of the nation may become vulnerable to the addition of a range of other chemical substances to the public - statins have already been suggested - on the pretext, whether justified or not, that it is ’in the public interest’, even when it is not in the interest, or with the consent, of the public.

See, for example - The application of human rights legislation to the practice of water fluoridation. http://www.ukcaf.org/[…]/human_rights_and_fluoridation.pdf

For hundreds of years the UK justice system has respected its citizens' rights according to what was later recorded as the Geneva Convention of Human Rights, and we did fine for half a century after that. The Human Rights Act is thus a needless piece of legislation that makes my job as a police officer excessively bureaucratic, ultimately to the detriment of the public. It is an affront to justice that we cannot deport known terrorists or that I need to consider whether or not releasing a wanted criminal's photo into the media makes an impact on their right to respect for private life. Where's the government's common sense?

There is nothing wrong with the HRA, just the way it is reported by the right wing press.

The suggester has been reading the Daily Mail too much.

Again with the Daily Mail!! It's like a broken record. "Everything is absolutely fine, the human rights act is why we even have civilization, it's all the right wing press's fault..." Of all the kinds of lazy thinking you regularly see, this is one of the most puzzling - and annoying.

If the HRA has been criticized in the Daily Mail, might that be, just possibly, because it has important things wrong with it?!

The HRA has been misused by criminals, terrorists and immigrants, all of whom seem to easily get tax-payer funded legal aid to pursue their cases which usually lead to either huge compensation or the right to remain in this country.

It needs to be repealed immediately.

We are protected from the actions of other individuals and corporations by law.

Rights exist to protect us from the government and it's agents. Therefore only people the government and it's agents are acting against are in need or rights.

So naturally rights benefit mostly "criminals" because a criminal is basically someone the government is acting against.

If rights didn't make the work of the police and the state harder, then they wouldn't be doing their job.

Without them we could all find ourselves treated as criminals.

Innocent people have had their lives terminated just because a judge or jury doesn't believe them. Innocent people have been made to turn out as if they're guilty. You are murdering if you introduce capital punishment. Why do people in estates kill.? They often have a legitimate reason to. I believe murder in some instances is right but you can't jail me and terminate my life and then kill your own sworn enemy like Hussein and enjoy parties in the park. Hussein himself had a mum and a dad and relatives who loved him, he tried to control his country knowing it.'s language and customs and it's INS and out. Bush got us into this war without understanding the people there. They can't get the shit together here. But they thought they could there were people are put in a hole and their heads blown off and our beautiful boys are dying. Maybe Hussein killed a number of terrorists and then some idiot from an international court said'he committed a crime against humanity'. Like he knows the full history of each case. If they're saying they're there to keep the peace now , it will never ever happen, because there will always be someone to sabotage it. Going into war was a mistake and the gov can't lose faith. Cut the losses and get out they're mad. Nobody anyway likes interference no matter what, I can envisage the civilians stopping to think of our soldiers in gratitude, I say sarcastically in case it is not taken as such. We're all getting a good night's sleep apart from the soldie rs families.

I meant the gov can't lose face.

All men are created equal and should be treated thus.
Treat others as you wish to be treated.

Why can this not be codified in to law? I'm not even religious, I just think it makes sense.

I'm somewhat in favour, but only if done cautiously as to not give another Terrorism-style right to police to abuse.

Scrapping the Human Rights Act is a terrible idea. Read it carefully and seriously consider which of those rights you don't want to have.

It has all been covered above. It should be repealed immediately.

It is funny how some people do not want to see the injustices brought about by this law. It should be repealed straight away

This is against British common sense. It should be the first law to be repealed

The HRA should be retained and reinforced by a Constitution which limits severely the powers of the State and its minions. This is a lousy idea.

How many of the people commenting on this thread have actually taken the time to read the Human Rights Act? Repealing this law is a knee-jerk reaction to the biased and skewed views of certain parts of the British media.

Please, take the time to read and understand what the Human Rights Act is all about - it has nothing to do with "protecting the guilty" and everything to do with allowing all of us, especially the poorest and most vulnerable of us, the right to what most of us would see as a "normal" life: free from fear, pain and injustice.

Human righs should be strengthened. In the UK they are virtually non-existent. We are the laughing stock of the free world.

The law is a brilliant idea because it does protect the innocent and those who cannot protect themselves.

What should changes is that if a criminal is clearly guilty he should not have the right to play this get out of jail free card.

There should be more control and policing on who can use this to their benefit, Common sense and logic would clearly help this become what it was meant to be.

Remove the fatcats and beaurocrats from control and put in play judges that have experienced everyday life and reality so they can see when a criminal is playing it as a get out of jail free card.

Human rights are absolutely necessary; one of, if not <i>the</i> most important standard by which a government is judged. Ignore the tabloid scaremongering, and keep the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Act is an incredibly important piece of legislature. It worries me to see so many people so opposed to it.

Whilst I support the notions of a revision approach to the Human Rights Act, it's ridiculous to suggest "scrapping" it. It needs to address transnational companies, it's far too statist based.

I find it slightly ironic that the submitter of this motion was only able to do so because of the decleration of Human Rights.

Agree. The HRA is yet another bit of stupid Labour meddling based on a failure to understand the nature of the problem.

The HRA of 1998 incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law, and has in effect become a kind of constitutional law.

Now, the Convention itself is a fine thing, but it was not written as statute or constitutional law to be interpreted directly by courts. The HRA also imported a huge set of precedents from the European Court of Human Rights, which has over the years gold-plated the provisions of the treaty. That is why it has produced absurdities such as preventing the Government deporting foreign terrorists.

The balance to be struck between different rights is fundamentally a political issue, and should be decided by our elected representatives. (This is generally recognized in US constitutional law, which has a much longer history of operating with a *written* constitution).

IF we need a written constitution or modern bill of rights in the UK (and that is a big IF) we should write one from scratch with that purpose in mind. The ECHR does not fit the bill.

We should repeal the HRA, and derogate from those judgments of the ECHR that are incompatible with national security.

The HRA is a very important piece of legislation, and should not be scrapped under any circumstances.

I have previously stated elsewhere, and therefore will not repeat in length; the issue for me is not scrapping it totally, but amending it so it is not open to abuse by criminals, terrorists, bogus asylum seekers etc.

Above all the Act should have a COMMON SENSE TEST at the heart of it, to stop frivolous applications or to enable vile criminals to abuse the safeguards that other people rely on.

Victims rights should come ahead of convicted criminals, and technical infringements by the authorities, well not deliberate, should not result in compensation, or their wrong doing going unpunished.

The Human Rights Act states that all humans have some fundamental rights.

Your human rights are:

    * the right to life
    * freedom from torture and degrading treatment
    * freedom from slavery and forced labour
    * the right to liberty
    * the right to a fair trial
    * the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
    * the right to respect for private and family life
    * freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
    * freedom of expression
    * freedom of assembly and association
    * the right to marry and to start a family
    * the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
    * the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
    * the right to an education
    * the right to participate in free elections
    * the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

Which right would you like to give up? Any right that you want another human to lose is one that you yourself will lose, as they apply equally to everybody.

Thank You NCantor (posting above) for bringing some sense to an incredibly ignorant debate.

Never seen so much myth and nonsense peddled as truth.

People should shut up about the human rights act and go and live in Burma for a year - especially tabloid news editors, and doubly especially the Daily Mail Editor.

Wouldn't be a peep from them after that

I wonder how many people the human rights act has affected personally who have posted on here?

I couldn't agree more. These laws mainly benefit lawyers (Cherie Blair springs to mind) and criminal types. The whole area needs drastic review to ensure that ordinary people are protected against unsavoury elements NOT the other way round!

How many people have fallen for the murdoch propagander - you deserve whatever you get - leave the rest of us alone

This is a joke, the human rights are fundamental and essential, to remove them for the few, to make it worse for the many is idiotic

We must retain our hard won freedoms and liberties.
The Human Rights act appears to be a good and worthy thing.
However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from which acts such as this are derived, has a significant flaw, which is not often identified.
The problem is that all of the categories are lumped together in a list, as though they all have equal merit or importance.
It is a bit like a shopping list. Provided that you buy every item on the list you would have fulfilled the requirement of shopping.
However, there is in fact a hierarchy, although lawyers and HR websites will deny it! You would not in practice put a bottle of lemonade on top of a lettuce within your shopping trolley, there is a hierarchy in practice, even if not apparent from your list.
Difficult to explain in just a couple of paragraphs. More info is here:
http://sola-virtus.blogspot.com/[…]/paradox-of-human-rights.html
It is a paradox, and there is a solution, thankfully.

The Act doesn't need to be revoked, merely reviewed. Might I suggest the following clause, which could simply be inserted at the appropriate points...

"except for criminals, terrorists, bogus asylum seekers, paedophiles, drug users, gypsies, muslims, hippies, catholics, commies, riff raff, weirdos, gingers, the Welsh, people who live on council estates, anyone else we may have forgotten, oh and Jonathan Ross"

Should just about do it, don't you think?

*ahem*

The Act doesn't need to be revoked, merely reviewed. Might I suggest the following clause, which could simply be inserted at the appropriate points...

"except for criminals, terrorists, bogus asylum seekers, paedophiles, drug users, gypsies, muslims, hippies, catholics, commies, riff raff, weirdos, gingers, the Welsh, people who live on council estates, anyone else we may have forgotten, oh and Jonathan Ross"

Should just about do it, don't you think?

*ahem*

This HRC was drafted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. I have found few cases of this law protecting innocent victims of crime or oppression. The majority of beneficiaries are crooks, illeagal immigrants, terrorists and paedophiles. But if anyone thinks this law is for the dustbin they are living in fantasy land - too many politicians (and their family members)are lawyers.

This HRC was drafted by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers. I have found few cases of this law protecting innocent victims of crime or oppression. The majority of beneficiaries are crooks, illeagal immigrants, terrorists and paedophiles. But if anyone thinks this law is for the dustbin they are living in fantasy land - too many politicians (and their family members)are lawyers. I love "johnny B"s comments above although I am Welsh.

As others have said on here but I think it bears repeating it is not the act itself that is wrong it is the way it is applied. The rights stated in the act are there to protect all of us. I agree if you commit a serious crime you lose some of the rights but not all of them. Criminals need to be reformed not trained to commit even worse crimes. We need to look very closely at how this act is being applied and we need to stress that there are NO rights without responsibilities that go hand in hand with them.

The HRA is great in principal. The trouble is it is based on the heavily flawed ECHR. A document drawn up at the start of the Cold War and written so as to be acceptable to Eastern Bloc as well as Western nations. It is hence very wishy washy in a number of important areas and far too easily open to widely varying interpretations.

For instnace Atricle 10 begins:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

This is promising. It seems to guarantee Freedom of Expression - by far the most important right after the Right to Life. However it continues:
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

In other words the state can prevent the Freedom of Expression on any flimsy pretext it chooses. There is no right Freedom of Expression other than what the current government chooses to allow.

Having said all, the biggest reason people dislike the HRA, isn't it's contents par-say, it is the instructions the Labour Home and Justice Secretaries gave to Judges on how to interpret it. Remember Judges are legally bound to follow the instructions they are given be Whitehall.

Scrapping it would be a bad idea though. Giving fresh direction to the courts on it's interpretation would be a good thing. Going further and creating an updated British Bill of Rights, partially based on the existing 1688 Bill and the US Bill of Rights (Particularly the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments - we most certainly do not want the 2nd!) would be even better.

Britain will never be able to call itself a modern democratic country until it has something at least as strongly worded as the 1st Amendment (both clauses), that Parliament can not restrict without a qualified majority of the electorate granting permission in a referendum.

>Above all the Act should have a COMMON SENSE TEST at the heart of it

Rights are not rights if they can be overridden on grounds of expediency. It's in difficult cases, when government feels that expediency should trump the rule of law, that the protection of rights is necessary.

I will always be trouble makers, not the compliant herd that need rights.

At very least a major overhaul is required to rebalance people's rights, roll back intrusive laws and reduce the cost of policing human rights in minute detail!

ps We most certainly need something equivalent to the US First Amendment to stop future Governments interfering in our private lives and freedoms:

"... no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How come the UK still doesn't have these protections for civil liberties 220 years after the US adopted them?!!

Most human rights that the majority of us would agree with are enshrined in genuine UK law. The Human Right Act is a criminals charter.

I agree with this.

Scrapping this act has to done along with withdrawl from the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR)or it changes nothing and the criminals will continue to have the right "not to slop out" "to hardcore porn" "To drugs" and no end of other stupidity this law has brought. Human rights in the UK started centuries ago, ie 1215 Magna Carter, we do not need Europe telling us what to do when we have saved them from tyrants twice in the last 100 years and most of them have only had democracy since 1945 or since the fall of the Berlin wall. Leaving the ECHR will also enable us to leave the EU and restore much of the freedom the UK lost since 1972.

The comments posted here demonstrate a complete and utter ignorance of the HRA. I don't know where these people have got these ideas from - tabloid press? The problem with these sorts of public consultations is that most people do not have the evidence, expertise or knowledge to comment sensibly on matters of governance.

I agree with your observations. However the Human Rights Act is just one example of a tendency away from a legal system based on underlying principle and intent to one based on "black letter law". Black letter law is prescriptive and requires acceptance of the notion that you can legislate for human behaviour in all its manifestations. Once you accept that this is impossible the flaw in the concept of a Human Rights Act becomes apparent no matter how well meaning the intent.

Protection of the innocent should be embodied in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. This when backed up with the concept of perjury, perverting the course of justice and trial by jury seem to me to be as good a protection of the innocent as any black letter law could be.

Perhaps the problem is that these principles do not provide as much protection for those who prosper by pushing at the imits of the system as they would like.

The only folks who want to scrap it are the ones who have never read it. I strongly suggest that everyone reads it before rating this suggestion. Don't think "I know all about it, I read about it in the paper", go and read it then decide.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1

For those about to support this, first decide which human right you would like to remove from this list:

Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law

Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced
 publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national
security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to
the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

OK fatjon. I've just followed your link and read it.

I must say it reads like a list of laws a government needs to pass in order to deprive you of your Human Rights and not get a slap on the wrist from the ECHR.

I refer back to my earlier post. All attempts to draw up prescriptive black letter law to codify all forms of human behaviour are condemned to fail.

At the least the US constitution is prepared to make statement of principle " We hold it self evident that all men are created equal" (Something like that anyway)

It should be obvious that all men and women are not created equal but how powerful is that as a statement to which everyone is commited from which the innocent, poor or simple can derive so much protection and comfort.

The HRA reads "No Government can kill you unless there is a law that says they can." Great help.

How would the US Constitution sound if it said. " All men are created equal unless a Government passes a law based on lawful evidence that they are not". Get the idea.

No. Sorry. Bureaucrats charter I'm afraid.

Bob, I agree it needs some work, especially the examples you mention and a few others. I would rather see "no government can kill its or anyone else citizens" but on balance I would rather see a codified statement of fundamantal values than leave it to governments to do as they please. We have all seen the results of that. I think it needs to strengthening, especially in the areas which give caveats and get out clauses to governments to breach natural rights if it suits them. But to do away with it entirely is just not the answer unless it is simply to bring in a new act without all the get out clauses. I certainly agree that something much more akin to the US constitution would be better. Let us not confuse repealing the human righst act with repealing the rights it asserts.

It needs to be re written, as some people 'gypsies and travellers , hide behind it and is not appropriately.

It has probably been said before on this thread, but it's worth saying again:

The HRA is a British law, passed by Parliament.
The European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR)was written by British lawyers, most of whom were members of the Conservative party.
The ECHR, and the Court in Strasbourg are NOT part of the EU.

That's the background.

Pace fatjon and Bob, It's actually a better idea to codify something in statute rather than leave it to the courts to establish precedent. That's why we elect Parliament. When Parliament annoys us sufficiently, we riot and they think again. Poll tax anyone?

The US Constitution...marvellous document, written in the kind of language to make the spirit soar. BUT: it has caused a catastrophic civil war, polarised public discourse, damaged the freedom of Congress to legislate and doesn't begin to address some of the horrors of American constitutional law, such as States' rights, the electoral college, and the Santa Clara decision.

"For those about to support this, first decide which human right you would like to remove from this list:"

OK

"Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

it was already illegal to kill someone in this country. Aren't there some bits about killing people who riot or insurgents being ok that you missed out?

Change it to "Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law." and i'll be happy with it... but not with the ifs and buts.

Any bit of paper that says "it's ok to kill someone if...." is just toilet paper imho.

Johnb55 "Pace fatjon and Bob, It's actually a better idea to codify something in statute rather than leave it to the courts to establish precedent. That's why we elect Parliament. When Parliament annoys us sufficiently, we riot and they think again. Poll tax anyone?"

Riot? Bad idea.

"2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

Was there anything that said you could be killed if you rioted before? Also, we haven't had capital (state murder) punishment for donkeys years. Why allow for it in the HRA?

"The Human Rights Act gives us...
•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

Is this REALLY what you want to get rid of??!?"

Which one of these rights did I not have prior to the HRA? Just writing shit down doesn't make it so just because a glorified accountant wrote it. These rights are ours from the day we're born. THey're natural laws. You think that when the HRA became law all murder, torture and unfairness stopped? Maybe in your world.

I have the right to LIVE. I don't need the Government of self serving bureaucrats to allow me to have that right. I'll defend that right as I see fit as i will the right of my family to live. Shame we didn't bestow those rights onto the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians that died in the search for weapons of mass confusion.

Next time you see someone getting mugged at knifepoint start lecturing the mugger about the victim's right to life and a family ...

Actions, not words. You can write whatever you like, doesn't make it so. Its about time this country ceased its addiction to legislation and law and started making it the place they want to live in with their own hands instead of hiding from the imaginary horrors of the Daily Mail.

I don't believe the person who wrote this has read the Human Rights Act. You should have to prove you know something about the law you want repealed before you can submit an idea to this site otherwise the whole concept is a waste of time.

I do not believe the poster even reads these acts. Criminals go free because of a large variety of factors some of which involve a police force that is either over-worked or cannot be bothered.

Limiting human rights for every law-abiding citizen is no way to catch a criminal, I can assure you.

I agree completely with repealing this act that Blair wedded the UK to. This was totally unecessary, the UK invented human rights. The biggest exploiters of this law have been illegal immigrants. We don't need laws forcing us to bow to every alien who arrives here, trying to claim asylem etc.

The spirit of the act is fine, but as with many of our laws the interpretaion leaves a lot to be desired.
It may come as a surprise, but Britain was one of the country's who originally concieved the European convention on Human Rights. Since this time all new laws in Britain have been 'HR' compliant. In many cases Britain led the way. One example of this is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which has always outlined the rights and treatment to persons held in police custody. This did not require an additional Human Rights Act as the principles were already incorporated into the body of the legislation. Perhaps we should have a charter setting out the main principles (much like the original charter signed in 1204 (Magna Carta)), but go back to embedding those principles into each piece of new legislation.

Has the author of this proposal who says it should be completely rewritten actually read it? The text of the Convention is here.
  http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.SecI

There is little evidence that anyone here who is objecting to it has actually read it!

A law created with the best principles in mind.

In this country, however, it has been bent and twisted to such an extent that it has lost its original meaning.

It just needs to be scrapped.

Ridiculous idea. Mostly ridiculous comments.
Human Rights protect your freedoms. Would you want those freedoms to be curtailed (which they would be) just because you choose to view a piece of legislation based on some isolated and unforunate cases blown out of proportion by the tabloid press?

If so, then I suggest you go and live in one of the many countries that do not value human rights for a while and then you might rethink your bigotry and short-sightedness (before gorging yourself daily with the further rantings of the dispicable and fickle right-wing press).

If the guys with nothing better to do than interfere with our country say we can't get rid of this act, then we should demand it is amended to protect law abiding citizen and not be used as a get out of jail free card for criminals. Or as a right to remain for those who are a danger to us or spout their vile hatred of anyone else who has the nerve to object to their ludicrous demands.....If they don't like it here, they always go home.....

I too agree that the Human Rights Act hasn't done anything for this country other than make it weak. As a democratic and fair country in the first place, we already adhered to the act before it was brought in officially. Now it just seems that, as others have said, it protects people who have broken the law. I'm thinking of the all too common case of the robber who is given all kinds of perks and luxurys in order to defend his human rights, and find myself shouting to the skies WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON HE ROBBED? What about their human rights? Protect the right to walk down the road without fear... that's gone out the window.

Scrap it.

I agree, scrap it completely, it is not fit for purpose.

Look to have proper human rights, that protect the law abiding, and not simply "criminal rights" that trashes the rights of the innocent.

I know people find this difficult to understand but you obtain human rights by virtue of being a human being. The only way you can remove someone's human rights is by removing their humanity.

Is that really what you are suggesting?

Under the last government there were several cases where the courts found that actions which the government/law enforcement agencies wished to take against offenders were illegal as they contravened the Human Rights Act 1998.

Whilst it is important that the human rights of individuals are protected it is wrong that such protection should apply to those individuals who, by their own deliberate acts, have abused the human rights of the general population.

The ECHR allows national governments to include derogations in their human rights legislation which protect the interests of the population as a whole and other countries have taken steps to do so which this country has not taken. It is time that was rectified.

Britain is a democracy and should set its own laws on how the country is run.

This Act must go. It has been pointed out that it has become a license for criminals to evade their deserts and for lawyers to make money.

For those who have seen fit to post long lists and pose the question, "Don't you want these rights protected?" or similar, I will pose a question of my own.

Which of the enumerated rights were infringed in YOUR case under British law before the Act?
(And I don't read the Daily Mail!)

This should be one of the first steps in Britain's secession from the European Union.

"Which of the enumerated rights were infringed in YOUR case under British law before the Act?"

Stephen Downing - Served 27 years for murder. Downing had his conviction quashed after it emerged he had been interviewed without legal representation and his signed confession had been written by a police officer.

Derek Bentley - Hanged as an accessory to murder, his conviction was overturned because the trial judge had misdirected the jury on points of law.

Danny McCann, Sean Savage and Mairéad Farrell - Assassinated by the SAS.

Richard O'brien - Died police custody, an inquest later recorded a verdict of unlawful killing.

Would you like me to go on?

This Law is a JOKE. Scrap it and re-wright it so that it protects the genuinely needy rather that act as a shield for the real criminals and opportunist.

With the way Labour treated our human rights over the last 13 years I'm happy we had the EU and the HRA to help maintain the little privacy we still enjoy. Even that would have been stripped if it wasn't for the HRA.

Think the DNA Database:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/02/dna_dbase_stalling/
Illegal according to the HRA

Think Section 44:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/[…]/
Illegal according to the HRA

Whilst not the HRA, it is the EU and the ePrivacy directive that played a part in preventing Phorm from monitoring every website you vist and email you read:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/14/eu_phorm_formal/

Neither EU and HRA are perfect, but they provide a safety net around governments like the previous one when they stamp all over our civil rights.

(BTW - I'm a Euro skeptic)

Most parts of The Human Rights Act are vitally important to maintain a civilised and decent society worldwide.
I think that a lot of it is overlooked when it suits people, but to simply say "Criminals should have no Human Rights" makes us no better than the criminal themselves.
But before everyone gets up in arms about my opinion, please hear me out:
I AGREE that it needs revising, some of the articles are long winded and unnecessary.
I AGREE that certain crimes should make appeals on the grounds of a breach of the HRA redundant.

There are some extremely important articles there, though, and if the HRA were to be re-written, these would have to stay. I am thinking particularly of Article 19, which basically covers the right of anyone to be allowed to voice an opinion without fear of consequence.
The Big Brother state is getting out of hand, and as this website exists to encourage debate and promote the freedom of the British people, it would be a great leap back in time if we no longer subscribed to the HRA and it's values.

Camerron's Ambassador says gay people can be freely live in his country. British Supreme Court decides that a gay illegal immigrant can not be sent to his country because of his Human Rights.
Unbelievable ??
Should be abolished straight away. It only helps criminals and their lawyers.

The final deciding law in this country should be the one passed by the parliamnet of the people of this country and not by any external body.

Replace it with a more sensible British Law.

ok ok who's actually met an illegal immigrant here?

people exploit every law in this country, thats how adversial justice works.

next time you go to court refrain from issuing a defence if thats the way you want our law to go.

oh wait I see your playing the smelly foreigner card again what a suprise, Human Rights protection wont stop if you repeal this act you know?

Thats right the EU has a whole series of Fundamental Freedoms that you can complain about once the Lisbon Treaty takes frution.... mwahahahahaahahahaha

p.s whilst im in the spirit of annoying people

if you dont like immigrants why dont you sell your holiday home in spain to those who are in the 20% of the unemployed in the country can get on the property ladder and not have to look at the ugly wall paper in your holiday villa on their way to the job centre?

HERE HERE!!! Lets scrap the Human rights act. I'm fed up of hearing how criminals and illegal immigrants are having their human rights breached.
I am a law abiding, good citizen and have no problem with getting rid of the Human rights Act.....what does that tell you???

I posted this on another similar link
"Repeal the right to life? I don't think so. But there are certain sections/elements that could/can be repealed. Part of the problem I feel is that the Act has been and is being interpreted incorrectly by the judiciary. I believe a fair comment would be to repeal the element that gives travellers/gypsies the right to have land provided for them by local authorities ergo tax payers - when these people live outside of the tax laws and of society in general."

No, no. no and NO again. The HRA is a cornerstone of our society and of all civilised values. Are you lot out there disagreeing with the right to life, right to liberty, right to a fair hearing, right to family life, freedom of association etc etc? Do you condone torture in any circumstances? If you answer 'yes' to any of this, then I would say you are not upholding civilised values. This is what the HRA is for.

That said, it is obvious that there are situations when one person's human rights conflict with another and it is these conflicts that cause the problems. In particular I agree with the premise that a CONVICTED (i.e. not just suspected and after a fair trial) terrorist does forfeit some of their human rights (because of the gross disrespect shown to those of others) and in particular should not be protected from deportation. Though the issue of torture presents a complex moral dilemma and I don't believe that anyone should ever be sent back to that.

It's upsetting and worrying to read some of the comments on this page.

The Human Rights Act seems to me one of the greatest achievements of mankind. We should celebrate the fact that we have set in place such a law that could protect hundreds, thousands, millions of people from torture, persecution, discrimination and intimidation in the future.

Imagine if you were wrongly accused of a crime. Wouldn't you want the Human Rights Act to exist then?

If any change should be made to the act it should be something to prevent the UK having to harbour potentially huge numbers of convicted criminals who cannot be deported to their own countries because of the Act.

But if these criminals really would be tortured on their return, then we SHOULD keep them in the UK. Torture is wrong, whoever it's being done to.

It's just a fact that sometimes doing the right thing can be inconvenient. And yes, hosting convicted criminals who cannot be deported for fear of torture IS inconvenient. But it's the right thing to do.

Anyone who deprives another of their human rights should automatically lose any access to Human Rights legislation. Restore the rights of the innocent.

This has been stated - ad nauseum - but it seems to be lost on some.

You obtain human rights by virtue of being a human being. You can only remove someone's human rights by removing their humanity.

The Human Rights Act should be reviewed and amended but not repealed. Whilst I have read the many stories of alleged abuses of the legislation, at its core is the principle of universality, meaning it applys to everyone, regardless of character or past endevours.

Just a few points, even if the legislation is repealed, everyone could still take their case the the European Court under the ECHR. The primary purpose of the legislation was to provide a mechanism whereby people can speadily take their cases before national courts, instead of the most expensive Strasbourg courts. Secondly, if we erode the civil liberties of our nation, as from what I can read, many of you propose, we are simply becoming victims of terrorists. They aim to eorde our way of life, our morality and our sense of society, by repealling legislation which seeks to protect our fundamental rights we will be turning our country into the scared totilitarian state they seek to create.

Actually, I think the act is used for the better in many cases.

However, the cases in which it does good do not make good newspaper headlines, which is why I am sure many of us are brainwashed into believing it is only used to protect terrorists and murderers, which is an awful assumption to make.

The HRA is the most powerfull act that has brought humanity around the entire globe. without it we would not even be having this debate today.

The very thought of repealing this act is an injustice to those who depend on the act and that goes for all those who appose the act because this act is the reason why Great Britain is GREAT!!

The Human Righst Act did not create human rights, the European Convention on Human Rights did. If we repealed the Act, the Convention would still be there, and we can't leave the Convention without leaving Europe, which neither the Coalition government nor Labour are willing to do.

All the Human Rights Act does is allow British judges to hear human rights cases in British courts, so people don't have to go to Strasbourg and have their cases heard by French, German, Lithuanian etc. judges instead. Replealing the Act wouldn't change the law, it would just change which judges interpret and enforce the law. So if you really love Europe that much, go ahead.