MrSmith Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Totally don't agree. If you read what the act covers it is not just about our capacity to deal with criminals and deportees. The act enshrines many basic entitlements that affect our everyday lives. I don't think we should wish that swept away just because it causes Mrs may a few procedural difficulties. In fact the idea of doing so is plain ridiculous. It covers: 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 Didn’t we have all those things before the act. A criminal forfeits their right to liberty when they commit crime so they could also forfeit some of their other rights. There is nothing wrong with the act; it just needs to be used sensibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Didn’t we have all those things before the act. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Totally don't agree. If you read what the act covers it is not just about our capacity to deal with criminals and deportees. The act enshrines many basic entitlements that affect our everyday lives. I don't think we should wish that swept away just because it causes Mrs may a few procedural difficulties. In fact the idea of doing so is plain ridiculous. It covers: 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 No wonder we got voted out at the last election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Didn’t we have all those things before the act. What is May proposing in place of the 1998 Act? She hasn't told us. I would tread carefully with just throwing out the window an Act that enshrines our basic rights. May's reasons for wanting to do so are just not good enough. It ain't going to happen anyway. But for the record I don't agree with her, basically because she hasn't made a good case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Are you suggesting that we shouldn't? I’m saying that we should have those things but some should be forfeited when we break the law and disrespect other people’s rights under the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I’m saying that we should have those things but some should be forfeited when we break the law and disrespect other people’s rights under the act. Of course. But what is May going to replace the Act with? She hasn't said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Of course. But what is May going to replace the Act with? She hasn't said. A good citizen’s act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 I agree with Mecky that the problem is largely due to the judges who don't seem to know what they are doing. The defence of a "right to a family life" that has been played out a number of times should not be given more importance than other aspects of a case. The right to a family life is dependent on there not being a prospect of further criminality or a threat to the UK. In the case of the driver who killed the child and was allowed to stay due to the "family life" defence the judge should have weighed that against the recidivist nature of the criminal and deported him. The law said he could be deported, the judge decided not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 No she's palying to the base instincts of the gallery. I agree with Ken Clarke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 In the case of the driver who killed the child and was allowed to stay due to the "family life" defence the judge should have weighed that against the recidivist nature of the criminal and deported him. The nature of human rights is that they aren't consequentialist, they are the exact opposite. They are applied solidly and consistently, and the outcome can differ massively. Sometimes that is fine, and sometimes the outcome can seem massively unfair. Your option would be to balance infavour of the best outcome, which could sometimes mean that somebody doesn't have the "right to a family life" - which would go against human rights. It's a very old debate about justice essentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.