^so much this.
I'm baffled by the hysteria and scare mongering surrounding this. I think stupid people think just because it's called the Human Rights Act it is automatically a good thing.
As far as I can work out the aim of this is twofold:
1) to give us back the ability to deport dangerous convicted criminals.
2) to deny people in prison the vote, which is part and parcel of the penalty of a custodial sentence.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 16:55,
Reply)
I'm a bit puzzled by the reactions i've seen all day to this as well
though I shouldn't be surprised given the hysteria we had during the election, and in general at the moment
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Wed 13 May 2015, 17:24,
Reply)
How's about this?
The proposal states that the bill should "limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases. [...] There will be a threshold below which Convention rights will not be engaged, ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases."
That is, the government will decide when you can exercise your human rights.
Speaking of hysteria and scare-mongering, by the way, I think that's quite an apt description of the pro-BBR stance: www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bella-sankey/human-rights-act-british-bill-of-rights_b_7257376.html.
(
Hol[]y - WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, Wed 13 May 2015, 17:26,
Reply)
No.
"ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases." The judiciary is not the government.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 17:33,
Reply)
Okay, the government will put the Bill of Rights in place
which will allow the judiciary to decide when you can exercise your human rights. How is that any better? And how will the threshold be set?
(
Hol[]y - WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, Wed 13 May 2015, 17:55,
Reply)
Well, that's how all laws work.
The government puts them in place via statute, and the the judiciary, independently of the government, interprets and applies them. How is any legal threshold ever set? Define the burden of proof thresholds 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and 'on the balance of probabilities'. They're effectively just subjective abstracts, often, but not always, that subjectivity is moderated by a jury in an attempt at objectivity, but they work pretty well nevertheless.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 18:08,
Reply)
The point I'm making is that
having a system in which individuals (or small groups of individuals) decide when you can even access your basic human rights is more open to abuse than a system in which you can always access them.
(
Hol[]y - WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, Wed 13 May 2015, 19:12,
Reply)
It's not about access.
It's about application of the law. The law has always been made and administered by a small group of individuals. What exactly do you mean "access"? It's about what you can and cannot expect the law to allow you to do. I've never "accessed" my human rights, mainly because I've never committed a serious crime, and the only state bullying I've experienced has been lawful (HMRC) or fairly inconsequential, but infuriating (old bill). I resent the tax man more than old bill.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 21:26,
Reply)
I'm very happy you haven't been on the end of much state bullying!
Having an in-state body deciding whether state bullying has occurred is not as good an idea as having an external body decide. Do you disagree with that?
And I realise (acronyms alert!) replacing the HRA with a BBR will not remove us from the ECHR, but as you say yourself below it will bring our signature into question.
(
Hol[]y - WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, Wed 13 May 2015, 22:39,
Reply)
I hope you are constantly bullied by the state.
I kid, I kid. There is a very good separation between state (i.e. government of the day) and judiciary. You may have noticed that governments constantly (Labour and Tory) take issue with the judiciary. The whole legal aid thing has meant that currently lawyers aren't keen on the the Tories, and not without good reason. But always retain a healthy scepticism when people who earn their bread from the tax payers start whinging about potential loss of income or job security. I had loads of shit teachers as a kid. How often do you hear of a teacher being sacked for being shit? Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Don't worry about the HRA, we're not going to see a fascististic police state appear in the next five years.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 23:43,
Reply)
What is the benefit in denying prisoners the vote?
Or put it another way: What is the harm in allowing it?
I've yet to see a coherent argument for this particular policy, let alone one that justifies throwing out the entire Human Rights Act.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Wed 13 May 2015, 18:31,
Reply)
I don't see any benefit/harm.
I think it is part of the punishment. It is frankly nothing in comparison to being literally incarcerated. It's mainly a symbolic withdrawal of a freedom. On a more practical and pragmatic level, it would massively distort a constituency's size and make up, and people forced into a particular prison can rarely claim to have to been part of the community or have any connection to the constituency in which their prison lies. Why should they therefore have a say in who represents that constituency?
The problem with the HRA, is you can't just throw bits of it out. Ideally we wouldn't throw the entire thing out, just tweak it. But that isn't really how statutes work: it's all or nothing, hence the idea or replacing it with a Bill of Rights.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 18:47,
Reply)
The distortion can easily be rectified though
by the use of a postal ballot in the prisoner's home constituency. Yes it's more expensive, but in comparison to the cost of locking someone up in the first place it's small beer.
As for it being a part of the punishment, that ultimately boils down to a "We do it like this because we've always done it like this" argument. It's not really an argument based on any reasoning or principle, merely an unwillingness to change. It's not like punishments haven't changed over the years - we used to lock people up in stocks after all.
If the punishment aspect of the disenfranchisement is small in comparison to the deprivation of liberty (and let's face it, it is), then I fail to see why we don't just accept the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and change the punishment accordingly.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Wed 13 May 2015, 19:07,
Reply)
Many prisoners don't have homes.
How do you therefore define their home constituency? Maybe we should just stop locking people up just because we always have done.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 20:32,
Reply)
This isn't really a problem though
Persons of No Fixed Abode already have a procedure to enrol on the Electoral Register. There's no reason to change that.
As for your final sentence, maybe so and I'd support that. There's plenty of evidence that suggests that locking people up is counterproductive with regard to preventing reoffending. However that's unlikely to be acted upon in the near future due to such ideas being deemed politically unpalateable.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Wed 13 May 2015, 23:34,
Reply)
OK mate.
I'll send Mark Bridger and Ian Huntley round to babysit your daughters next time you fancy a curry. Or maybe just fuck those full life tariffs and move them into the bail hostel in your neighbourhood, rather than their "home constituencies". As long as your delusional ideologies remain intact, that's the main thing. Never mind realities, practicalities and the dark side of human nature. Enjoy your dopiaza.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Wed 13 May 2015, 23:52,
Reply)
Are those two locked up for punishment or public protection?
A weak Straw Man argument coupled with an Ad Hominem. I think this conversation has reached its conclusion.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Thu 14 May 2015, 0:24,
Reply)
Niether are in a mental hospital prison, therefore they're in there for punishment.
They will get out if they live long enough. Votes for Broadmoor! is there always a clear dichotomy between protection of the public and punishment? Is rehabilitation always possible? Is the world as black and white as your ideologies?
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Thu 14 May 2015, 1:44,
Reply)
Why on earth are you advocating their rights so hard though?
Surely being banged up for crimes looses some rights to contribute to society in an election.
You haven't offered any argument other than some pointless 'why can't they have a vote' argument, which seems against a brick wall. They've committed crimes and cost the tax payer shit loads of money prosecuting them and housing them in a prison. They can vote and do normal things like a law abiding citizen of society when they've served their time. Until then they can feel frustrated and fucked off in their cells contributing nothing.
(
Harpago ¯\(°_o)/¯, Thu 14 May 2015, 1:10,
Reply)
here's a thing,
the case before the ECHR in 2009 was actually about prisoners not being able to vote in the European Parliament elections, not in UK elections. European election, European rules, makes sense to me.
Anyway the point about people forfeiting their rights when they commit crimes is really rather sinister. I used to believe that myself, back in the day, but it is vitally important that convicted criminals are still human beings and the law still applies to them. The Tories seem to want to make rights conditional on good behaviour generally, and i find that a deeply disturbing direction to head in.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Thu 14 May 2015, 8:39,
Reply)
even if that makes them more likely to do it again?
(
tickle I was away, Thu 14 May 2015, 16:20,
Reply)
they'd probably vote Labour
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 13 May 2015, 19:40,
Reply)