United Nations and the Human Rights act is inadvertently enabling tyrannical leaders and terrorist groups to manipulate the system. It needs repealing and or revising. These organisations policies have a knock on effect with migration, extremist ideology being spread to Europe and a negative economic effect on the whole world.
5 Likes
I believe ive not been active enough to post policies but here is my punt at this one. It is a subject i have studied, purely out of interest fr many years.
The UK Human Rights Act has significant short comings that require reform. Many people will take the view, as I do, that as the country that effectively founded the concept of Common Law rights about a thousand years ago Human rights are surplus to requirements and the act itself should be withdrawn. However I also believe that politically that is not possible/realistic and so a more pragmatic approach is required.
Problem statement:
- Article 29, Para. 1 of the UNDOHR states that âEveryone has duties to their community only in which their full human development is possibleâ. What this means is that you have the right to grow yourself into the best version of yourself that you can be and the ONLY way you do this is by taking on responsibility for that and many other things and for yourself. This by necessity requires a smaller state and greater emphasis on personal moral agency. Para. 2 also states that âSociety shall only be subject to such restrictions as required for maintenance of public order and civil society.â Again the emphasis is that the state should only become as big and inclusive as it needs to be to. It should surprise no one to learn that Article 29 did not make it into the Tony Blairs 1997 UK Human Rights Act, or as it should be now more accurately known âHuman Rights Reduction Actâ. To be clear Article 29 was not even included in the 1952 European Convention on Human Rights that is the founding document of the ECHR.
- Another part of the 1948 UNDOHR that is not included in the UK legislation is the right to be ââŠfree from arbitrary attacks on your honour and reputation.â (Part of Article 12.)This is extremely convenient because this right would render NCHIâs and their like illegal as a clear breach of this particular freedom.
- The UK Human Rights was incorporated specifically to supersede and take supremacy over Traditional Common Law Rights.
- In theory all Rights are considered equal, while none should be absolute in all contexts. In reality all these rights can conflict with each other and which one wins in any context should depend on that context, the particular right in question and who and how many people it affects. In practice some rights, one in particular, have been informally elevated over all others such that we currently live in a tyranny of Equality. Some rights and freedoms while not being absolute are more important than others, being the cornerstones of our values, if we are to continue to maintain the culture of a liberal, pluralistic democracy (please note use of liberal with a non-capitalised âlâ)
- Because of the above emphasis on Equality, Human Rights are being practiced such that they only protect minority groups with a history of being marginalised or oppressed. Article 29 Para 3. Is very clear âThe above rights shall not be used for purposes they were not intended.â Human rights not only exist for everyone, but I would argue specifically exist to protect the majority from aggressive politically motivated minority groups. They are currently being used for the direct opposite of this, to allow politically motivated minorities to bully and oppress the majority.
Solution:
- Undertake a full review of the UK Human Rights act to:
- Clearly state that it no longer takes supremacy over British Common Law, but sits alongside it and is simply part of the same proud tradition;
- Identify any rights that have been removed or reduced in the transition from the 1948 UNDOHR to the 1997 UK Human Rights act; as per Article 29 and 12 as outlined above;
- Redraft the UK Human Rights act incorporating all aspects of the 1688 Bill of Rights and fill the gaps identified in point b. above. Particular emphasis should be put on ensuring Article 29 UNDOHR is included in full;
- Clarify that Equality in the context of Human Rights means equality of process, and specifically excludes Equality of outcome.
- Undertake a widespread publicity campaign to âraise awarenessâ of how the 1997 act actually removed and reduced UK human Rights, and how with its emphasis to include Article 29 plus, it now represents a higher standard of rights than the European Convention espoused by the ECHR;
- Use the evidence of point 2. to withdraw from the ECHR;
- Require that in any individual Human Rights judgement by any court include an impact statement demonstrating that the judgement does not breach Article 20 Para. 3 (i.e. it does not contradict the spirit and purpose of human rights) and explaining the impact on the human rights of the wider majority and explaining why in this particular context it is the right thing to do that we uphold this individuals rights;
- Use this opportunity to re-establish and reset the UKâs traditional and successful culture by nominating 3 particular rights and freedoms that we see as the underpinning of the UKâs historical and future culture and elevate them to the status of âtruths that we regard to be self evidentâ This is in the same spirit of two of the other worlds great but very different democracies, namely France ((Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) and the USA (Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness). My recommendation for these 3 would be: Life, Liberty, Duty! Use this to have a wider countrywide discussion about what these should becand to define out primary duties as uk citizens.
1 Like
Youâve identified the real nub of the problem. The problem is not the fundamental principles of human rights. The problem is the extreme abuses of the human rights laws. It is not the law as written which is the problem. The problem is the cherry picking way in which the law is applied and enforced.
When we hear news reports e.g., that a violent criminal cannot be deported because of his Article 8 rights or because of his childâs dislike for overseas chicken nuggets, we are in the realm of the abusive misapplication of human rights laws. The ECHR Article 17 if applied, would prevent such abhorrent misuse of HR law. If Article 17 was properly observed and applied in the UK courts then no violent criminal could assert his human rights was more important and take precedence and priority over the human rights of all the citizens who also have the human right to family life and be protected from violent criminals who should not be in this country.
Therefore, it seems to me that when the Government use the immigration courts human rights judgments as justification for not deporting violent foreign criminals, it is because the Government immigration lawyers did not ask the immigration court to strike down such human rights arguments as an unlawful abused of human rights law which is prohibited by Article 17.
It is also notable that other than the abusive (and unlawful) use of human rights laws in the UK immigration courts, the UK courts do not really have any respect for upholding human rights law when it comes to the indigenous population For example, did you know that the courts have held that children who are excluded from school have no Article 6 right to a fair hearing? And notably, the courts and authorities have had absolutely no regard for violations of childrenâs human rights whom they left to suffer extreme abuse for the âsake of cohesionâ and political power.
The principles underlying those human rights treaties are still sound principles. The problem therefore is the Government, the courts and the local authorities cherry picking decisions as to whose and what human rights they are willing to observe, enforce and uphold. Clearly at the moment, there is an unspoken political policy to uphold the human rights of foreigners whilst disregarding the human rights of its citizens. It is another example of the two-tier system again. We appear to have a system of two-tier human rights too, where the UK citizens human rights are relegated to second place.
Do you know of any cases where the Government immigration lawyers have invoked Article 17 prohibition on the abuse of the ECHR?
