The European Court Of Human Rights..

[JBR]

Do these ridiculous obligations also apply to other EU countries, or do they just ignore them?

As long as we remain in the EU, it's high time we started ignoring some of these diktats ourselves.

 

[Peter1919]

As I already pointed out the European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by the British in 1950, it has nothing to do with the EU or Brussels as the European Court of Human rights is based in Strasbourg.

The Human Rights Act was created in order to give a British Law which British judges could make judgements against in human rights cases so meaning we made far more of our own judgements in this Country without people having to resort to appealing to the ECHR.

I have no problem with people being against the EU or against the ECHR I just want them to base these objections on fact and not confusing the two completely separate institutions.

 

[JBR]

As I already pointed out the European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by the British in 1950, it has nothing to do with the EU or Brussels as the European Court of Human rights is based in Strasbourg.

The Human Rights Act was created in order to give a British Law which British judges could make judgements against in human rights cases so meaning we made far more of our own judgements in this Country without people having to resort to appealing to the ECHR.

I have no problem with people being against the EU or against the ECHR I just want them to base these objections on fact and not confusing the two completely separate institutions.

Did you not read Jock's post (with which I agree)?:

"Peter, While the Human Rights Act might be a piece of British legislation, it was aimed to bring us in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, (a bit of Brussels stuff, which is having a great impact on British courts). The HRA, places a duty on British courts to interpret legislation so it's compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, So, although it is a British Law, it embraces everything European and is designed to kow tow to Europe.
This is the law that allows foreigners to our shores, to drive (whilst drunk), without insurance and knock down and kill children, with no fear of being deported, Allows foreign criminals who are repeat offenders to claim their right to live here, simply because they now own a cat, budgie, hamster etc, or have a relationship with some woman of ill repute, (who just happens to be born in the UK.)"

 

[Peter1919]

My previous post was largely in response to the 'bit of Brussels stuff' part of the post given i have repeatedly pointed out it has zero, nadda, nothing whatsoever to do with the EU or Brussels

The human rights act made no difference to the overall effect of the law in Britain given we have been signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights since 1950 and people had recourse to appeal to the ECHR if they felt they had a case of their human rights being infringed. The only difference the human rights act made was to allow human rights cases to be largely judged in Britain rather than at the ECHR in Strasbourg. Something I would have thought most would agree is a good thing.

The historic point I have been trying to make is that after the Second World War Britain was basically the of the main protagonist in creating the Council of Europe and drafting the European Convention on Human Rights and getting other Countries to agree to sign up to it. It was effectively us telling much of Europe how they should behave. So excuse me if I find it ironic that people now claim its Europe dictating to us.

 

[Norcon]

What the hra did was make rich barristers and lawyers even richer.
That's the main reason Cherie bliar brought it in.

 

[JBR]

...and people had recourse to appeal to the ECHR if they felt they had a case of their human rights being infringed...

Exactly. How can it be nothing to do with the ECHR, then?

As things are, a hypothetical undesirable alien (just to take one example) can be told to return to his own country. He appeals to the ECHR who overturn the British court's decision. He remains here.

 

[Peter1919]

Exactly. How can it be nothing to do with the ECHR, then?

I never said it wasn't I said the ECHR and the human Rights Act have nothing to do with the EU or Brussels

 

[JBR]

Exactly. How can it be nothing to do with the ECHR, then?

I never said it wasn't I said the ECHR and the human Rights Act have nothing to do with the EU or Brussels

But doesn't continued membership of the EU oblige us to accept rulings by the ECHR?

 

[chapeau]

No. It's being a signatory to the Convention which requires the State to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. Nowt to do with the EU at all. Any links are coincidental.

 

[JBR]

So we could 'leave' the ECHR even if we don't escape the clutches of the EU?

 

[chapeau]

Dunno if we could leave the Convention easily or not.

You should read it before you think about leaving it. It's a very popular idea amongst Conservative loonie right wing home secretaries, their freedom hating police force, and daily mail readers.

For example, our beloved governments have passed laws which they claim allow their security forces to read ALL our internet traffic. The only way that will be stopped is by going to a higher authority. That higher authority is the European Convention which has clauses in it which protect our privacy. I believe Liberty is doing that right now.

There is a long list of 'rights' which our national governments have taken away from us honest law abiding citizens. The way we get them back is the European Convention.

We are all a lot safer having the European courts protect our rights. The governments we elect and their police forces are not to be trusted to do that.