So will the tories repeal the Human Rights Act?

[1ofTheseDays]

The Human Rights Act is too easily abused and the Conservatives-in their manifesto, promised to replace it with a "British Bill of Rights" that would still protect fundamental liberties but would be harder to use inappropriately.

 

But it seems the plan may be put on the back-burner, aparently a "victim of the coalition" with the Libdems

 

How long before the inevitable disquiet from Tory backbenchers when another equaly inevitable example of the HRA being abused arises?

[Longcol]

The Human Rights Act is too easily abused

 

How long before the inevitable disquiet from Tory backbenchers when another equaly inevitable example of the HRA being abused arises?

 

Is Fat Nick planning to use it again :hihi:

 

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2494

[andyofborg]

its nothing to do with the libdems

 

a replacement for the hra must be compatible with the european convention of human rights which is pretty much means that the replacement will be the hra

 

the issue isn't the hra, but people who use it as an excuse to do or not do something

[mj.scuba]

It won't happen while they are in coalition with the LDs.

[HeadingNorth]

It won't happen while they are in coalition with the LDs.

 

It won't happen at all, no matter who is in power. It would be illegal for a Government to revoke the Act, so it is permanent and irrevocable.

[1ofTheseDays]

It won't happen at all, no matter who is in power. It would be illegal for a Government to revoke the Act, so it is permanent and irrevocable.

 

Eh?? it was brought in through an act of parliament and it can be repealed in an act of parliament.

[HeadingNorth]

Eh?? it was brought in through an act of parliament and it can be repealed in an act of parliament.

 

Theoretically it can't, because any Act that revokes it would be in breach of it and would not be legally valid.

 

In practice ... well, the courts allow the illegal 1949 Parliament Act to hold, even though there's not a lawyer in the land - in the world - who would ever try to argue that it was valid. The same might well happen with an Act that revoked the human rights, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

[Darth Vader]

Is Fat Nick planning to use it again :hihi:

 

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2494

 

I see the fatcism is alive and well.

[Cyclone]

Parliament has the right to change constitutional issues, thus they could exit the EU, end their treaty obligations, repeal the human rights act and so on. It also appears that the 1949 act is in dispute amongst a few academics, some of whom believe it to be unconstitutional, but as it's never been challenged it stands.

[HeadingNorth]

It also appears that the 1949 act is in dispute amongst a few academics, some of whom believe it to be unconstitutional, but as it's never been challenged it stands.

 

 

It has repeatedly been subject to a lawsuit, but the courts - I believe - have always refused to hear the case and let the Government have its way.

 

 

There is no question that it is unconstitutional. The 1911 Act - passed in both houses and therefore legal - states that it (the 1911 Act) can be used to bypass the House of Lords, but only on issues that do not affect the 1911 Act itself. The 1949 Act directly alters that 1911 Act, and so cannot be legally valid unless it clears the Lords. It never did: the 1911 Act was (illegally) used to bypass them.