Human Rights reform

Freedoms
1

Repeal the HRA 1998 and leave the ECHR. A new Bill of Rights should give roughly the same protections but these protections should not be universal, specifically:

  • Every single provision of Islam that runs contrary to UK law is expressly excluded from any rights eg freedom of religion and expression; and

  • Only UK domiciled individuals are eligible for rights insofar as it relates to protection of citizenship (domicile being according to extant common law rules) with automatic deportation for anything other than a fixed penalty notice or equivalent offence.

1 Like
2

Islam is not the only issue. This is a bit long winded, but it partly the reason human rights have gone mad and why citizen’s don’t have many rights at all when it comes to their safety, especially when it comes to deporting criminals.

Many blocked deportations hinge on Article 3 of the Human Rights Act.

Article 3: Prohibition of torture. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Example case - Chahal v United Kingdom [1996]Article 3 prohibited his removal as he faced a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if removed. An Indian Sikh living in the UK claimed he would be tortured if deported to India because he was a high-profile supporter of Sikh separatism. The UK still sought to deport him on suspicion of being a terrorist. The Court stressed that Article 3 prohibits, in absolute terms, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct (including suspected involvement in terrorism).

Questions that need answering: Is he still a supporter of Sikh Separatism while living in the UK? Is he just a supporter of Sikh separatism for India or does he believe in Sikh separatism for the UK too?

Most importantly, does his presence in the UK place others at risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?

If we apply the last question to convicted rapists fighting deportation, surely rape is considered an act of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. When a person has a proven track record of subjecting victims to such treatment, their presence in the UK surely places UK residents at higher risk than the deported rapist or other violent criminal?

Proposed amendment to the human rights act: The law also has an obligation to protect all UK residents under article 3. If credible evidence exists that a person remaining would risk violating the article 3 rights of another in the UK, they must be removed to their country of origin.

BHRA: The Conservative party appears to believe that amending the act will be sufficient, but as long as this legislation is being interpreted by European courts it leaves too much room for activist judges to sidestep the literal wording of any act. Leaving the ECHR and replacing the European Act with a well worded article 3 in a British Human Rights Act is the best way to prevent this.

An act of Parliament might also be necessary to prevent activist judges from taking it upon themselves to re-interpret law and respect the separation of powers and the sovereignty of Parliament.

Finally: Human rights, human lives: a guide to the Human Rights Act for public authorities

This guide is designed for officials in all public authorities, from central to local governments, the police and armed forces, schools and public hospitals, and other bodies.

This guide was written by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Who are these people? Who elected them to tell public servants how to do their jobs? Are they another group like the Sentencing Council of England and Wales? What gives them the authority to do this and what is their ideology?

3

We should repudiate the UN Refugee Convention; it was written post WWII to adress the diaspora of that conflict. It never envisaged the specific circumstances of modern economic migration trends.

The ECHR is a foreign court (of a federation we no longer belong to), it’s too politically biased to be of any use & seeks to be supreme over our own courts, so we must withdraw from that.

A British Bill of Rights could answer any issues that come up in relation to refugees, migrants & asylum issues, as well as the standard fayre of British citizens rights & responsibilities under the law.

4

Once we understand that there is a real cost to everything - any allocation of capital other than in accordance with the utility it creates is at the expense of capital, which of course includes human capital - then it becomes obvious that human rights as they presently are, are against the most important right, which is to life itself. By taxing us to support unproductive spending, government, or in this case courts, destroy people. For us to have the real human right of life, government must allow us to be free to live and thereby provide for ourselves. Anything else is at the expense of our lives. The politicians, and indeed the public, need to be taught this most important aspect that there is a real cost to everything we do, and any allocation of capital otherwise is at the expense of capital, including human capital. Rather than people like Starmer who simply follows the logic of “the computer says”, we need people and politicians that can understand these simple realities.

5

Post-WWII legislation on human rights (up to and including the present time) should be repealed. However, talk of replacing it with a new bill of rights is misplaced. This is a widespread misunderstanding.

The point is that the rights and liberties of British citizens were already protected and need no further legislation.

Many are under the impression that the HRA awarded us new protections and were we to remove the 1998 Act, we would need another Act to replace it. This is to fundamentally misunderstand what has occurred.

The HRA incorporated the ECHR into domestic UK law. Yet the ECHR was itself based on pre-existing British protections of the rights of the citizen, so in the British context was redundant (it was designed principally with former Axis powers in mind).

The problem with the HRA is that it fails to distinguish between citizen and foreigner. It breaks a fundamental legal principle, namely, ‘standing’. All in Britain now have ‘standing’ and are entitled to protection by British courts (as far as ‘human rights’ are concerned), previously a privilege of British citizenship. Hence the string of cases with which we are all familiar of illegal aliens being treated as though they were legally no different from British citizens and being exempted from deportation.

What is required is to remove that unearned and undeserved protection from foreigners. British people will legally retain their liberties thanks to eight centuries of English constitutional development. We were already quite free before Anthony Blair started his meddling, thank you very much!