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)