Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Posted ImageWelcome to Golden Sunrise. We hope you enjoy your visit.
Golden Sunrise is a Golden Sun fan forum. Along with Golden Sun discussion, Golden Sunrise members enjoy particularly debate, forum games, role-playing, and various forms of creativity from writing to visual art to music.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can post in the City Gates section. If you join our community, you'll be able to makes posts in the other sections and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
(UK) Human Rights Act vs British Bill of Rights?
Topic Started: May 12 2015, 06:10 PM (516 Views)
cipher
Member Avatar
Fancy Chicken

I just read online that the newly formed UK government wants to abolish the old Human Rights Act and adopt a British Bill of Rights in its place.

What are the implications of this? I was wondering if our British members new what was up.
e r r or
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tichondrian
Member Avatar
Tide Warden

I dunno, my only two cents would be if the Bill of Rights offers more rights and protections that would not necessarily be a bad thing, but the Conservatives, the Tories are generally awful.
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
One for all, and all for me。
Avatar by Yurax-Mae. Signature by Neshirys
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Artisan
Member Avatar


The draft hasn't been published yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Silva
Member Avatar
Fiercer than the Dark

I would be quite pessimistic about any changes to human rights law that do not directly and emphatically -increase- the rights of the public. The Conservatives will not be interested in any such thing, of course. These kinds of changes only go in one direction from that political worldview, and that is to decrease the rights of the public, enforce so-called security while actually beefing up surveillance on innocent people, and the general introduction of guilty-till-otherwise-proven policies. All in the name of freedom.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miva
Member Avatar


Grumble, grumble, grumble... bloody conservatives. Why do they have to try so hard to make everything worse. I just have to hope they don't manage to make it go through.

Had to listen to Theresa May (the UK Home Secretary) on the radio this morning going on about how we need less tolerance to protect "British values" such as .... tolerance. No word of a lie, she's insane.

I'm pretty upset that we got a conservative majority government, 5 years of these kinds of news stories. Things are just going to continue to get worse.
Posted ImagePosted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iridana
Member Avatar
Phoenix
The heck is this?! This is honestly the first I've heard about it. Nice to see Cameron has finally given up all pretenses... -_-

To answer your question cipher, I have o idea what this means. Given how much dislike there seems to be for the European Court of Human Rights here though (because the media keeps harping on about all the abuses of the damn system), it may well be a [policy aimed at all the xenophobes in the country.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catman
Member Avatar
Loneliest Stardust Crusader

I knew about this one already. As far as me and some of my college dudes could tell, this is what protects people from being forcefully (Big company with huge influence vs random person) and unfairly (Big company can push whatever they like, random person cannot escape it) deported from the country by big companies with armies of lawyers.
WHY ARE WE STILL HERE...Posted Image...JUST TO SUFFER?!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WitchRolina
Member Avatar
Missing the Unified Aesthetic

Yeah... without having more information, I can't really comment on this - especially given that I'm a foreigner in this thread. If I knew what the old and new plans were, maybe I'd have something, but until both are provided I can't really say what I think it the best.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miva
Member Avatar


The Human Rights Act was put in place in 1998, it incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights in British law. The European Convention on Human Rights came about in Europe after the second world war to try and insure something like that never happened again.

It includes:
-Right to life,
-right not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment,
-right not to be held as a slave,
-right to liberty and security of the person,
-right to a fair trial,
-right not be retrospectively convicted for a crime,
-right to a private and family life,
-right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
-right to freedom of expression,
-right to freedom of assembly and association,
-right to marriage,
-right to an effective remedy,
-right not to be discriminated against,
-the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property,
-the right to an education,
-the duty of governments to provide free and fair elections

The conservative want the new bill to ‘break the formal link between British Courts and the European Court of Human Rights’. Meaning people who want to bring human rights cases under the ECHR would have to go to a court in Strasbourg to be heard. Which will be more difficult and time consuming.

The conservatives want to do this because (and fair warning the article I'm reading is left wing):
Quote:
 
The ECHR has told the government it can’t do various things – such as deport prisoners to countries where torture is routinely used – because such moves breaches human rights.

The Human Rights Act is also subject to a lot of negative reporting in the right-wing press, with regular inaccurate or partial stories about cases brought under the Act.

The Act is also wrongly associated with the European Union by some of its critics, largely because of poor reporting on the issue.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/what-is-the-human-rights-act-and-why-does-michael-gove-want-to-scrap-it-10240527.html
I think the main petition going around is this one: https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-mp-we-call-on-the-government-and-the-prime-minister-to-provide-a-national-referendum-on-the-planned-abolition-of-the-human-rights-act

Edited by Miva, May 13 2015, 12:33 PM.
Posted ImagePosted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iridana
Member Avatar
Phoenix
So I was right, it is related to the ECHR -_- You know something's wrong when a court set up to protect basic rights like that is seen as a bad thing...
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nikki
Member Avatar
Omniheurist
The arguments Cameron is using are populist, and that is already a problem.

But supposing it was true that by violating some Human Rights the level of UK security improved, I still think it's a bad idea. Human Rights are human rights, it your plan solves the problem but violates them, then look for a different solution. Otherwise we are sacrificing our ends to our means.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miva
Member Avatar


Agreed.
Posted ImagePosted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Member of the Golden Sun United Nations, helping fansites help each other since 2016
CLAN POINTS
Venus
33 Points
Mars
14 Points
Jupiter
12 Points
Mercury
0 Points
Last season winner is Venus

Affiliates

Golden Sunrise GSAR ToK Golden Sun Universe GSHC GSL Aeiou TLW GSUN