What's Left of our Human Rights?, Post Abu Qatada, May postures to repeal Human Rights Act Options

[On the edge]

I'd go along with the Levellers and a charter, but not sure it provides for separation of powers. To me, that seems to be the secret, although still not perfect. The trouble with a single all powerful executive is the abuse of power that seems to go with human nature. Sadly, the biggest champions of that these days are the Labour Party; who's record isn't good. So I suppose the secondary issue is how do we control egos?

[Simon Kirby]

Simon, what a novel idea, the police and criminal justice system acting as guardians of human rights!

I am pretty sure from my policing days, that they are meant to be, but sadly at times fail in this role miserably. But there again this failure to protect human rights was and has been driven by the immediate past, and the current government.

I respect your observation of course, but I think much could be said for the Police being a safe pair of hands (my concern would be with the ability of the CPS to prosecute anything that wasn't a simple bit of shoplifting or house breaking).

I think it's appropriate for a state body to investigate and prosecute HR abuse because the distinction for me between civil and criminal law is that civil law is a private matter of addressing personal loss, but criminal law is a public matter of deterring and righting offences against society and societal values. So a breach of contract is a civil matter because it's an argument between two people which doesn't necessarily touch on broader societal values, but stealing is a criminal matter because dishonesty attacks the fabric of society in general. I see HR abuse as an attack on the fundamental values of society and for me that makes it a criminal matter.

Leaving it to the victim to defend themselves also means the weak will not get justice, and the perp is always the state so the victim is virtually always weak. As I already argued, there's even a HR argument for making HR abuse a criminal matter.

It's possible that responsibility for HR abuse could be given to some other body in the same way that the Information Commissioner can take action for information crime or the Health and Safety Executive can prosecute breaches of health and safety legislation, but I don't see HR abuse as a separate class of criminality requiring any radically different approach to investigation and detection than the range of criminality that the Police already deal with, so that makes the Police the obvious choice.

The Police no doubt have their challenges and I wouldn't presume to disagree with your analysis, but I can't think that there would be another better organisation to take the responsibility. There will always be history, the British state has a rich history of the most appalling violations of Human Rights, but values change. I wouldn't give the job to the Equalities And Human Rights Commission or any such quango because so many seem to be undermined with pro-establishment bias - look at the pish-poor job the Care Quality Commission have done - the Police, as an institution, and its individual constables, do have a deep tradition of not being afraid to challenge.

[Simon Kirby]

I do not know of any intent for the UK HRA to be repealed. As previously commented, the upset is with the European Court interpretation of our national standards......

I believe that it has been reported that Theresa May would consider a repeal. I'll see if I can find a source for that, and I apologise if I am mistaken.

[Andy Capp]

Simon, the police are there to detect, not prosecute.

[Simon Kirby]

And by many who believe that fairness be applied depending on who deserves it. It is usually a populist examples (e.g. Islamist terrorists) that incites resentment of the HRA.

Yes, it's a pretty common idea that only the deserving should be allowed their rights and that some partial or complete suspension of rights would be appropriate for criminals, and especially the most repugnant criminals such as terrorists and paedophiles.

For example, the argument goes that it's fine for respectable deserving people to have a right to a fair trial, but that shouldn't apply to criminals. The problem is that without the right to a fair trial there's no objective way of saying who the criminals are.

The point with a right is that you don't do anything to deserve it, it's yours by right.

The essential problem is that the human rights are not particularly widely or deeply felt values. I'd like them to be because I feel it would make society more just and peaceful, but they're not.

[Simon Kirby]

Simon, the police are there to detect, not prosecute.

Yes, I noted that the CPS was responsible for prosecution, but I also worked that into the discussion of another organisation doing the whole job and that may not have been very helpful, sorry.

[Simon Kirby]

I do not know of any intent for the UK HRA to be repealed. As previously commented, the upset is with the European Court interpretation of our national standards......

I didn't read further than the headline as it makes my eyes sting, but the Hate Mail is shrieking something about Theresa May promising to repeal the Human Rights Act here.

[Simon Kirby]

I'd go along with the Levellers and a charter, but not sure it provides for separation of powers. To me, that seems to be the secret, although still not perfect. The trouble with a single all powerful executive is the abuse of power that seems to go with human nature. Sadly, the biggest champions of that these days are the Labour Party; who's record isn't good. So I suppose the secondary issue is how do we control egos?

The Judiciary is independent from the Legislature. It is reasonably strongly coupled of course because Judges are generally expected to do what statute says, but it's more nuanced than that and a judge's first loyalty is to the law, and that's not exactly the same thing. It's not always the same thing as justice either, but that's rather a different matter. I don't think any of that is written down in a constitution anywhere, it's just how it is.

If you want to see the benefits of ego on justice read some judgments of Lord Denning.

[NWNREADER]

I didn't read further than the headline as it makes my eyes sting, but the Hate Mail is shrieking something about Theresa May promising to repeal the Human Rights Act here.

Accepted, but the cynic in me says what a politico says in an orgasmic moment before the fawning supporters is not 'intent'. Even if the current iteration were revised I suspect there would only be fiddling with detail.

The Daily Wail loves to write a headline that has little connection with the reality!

[On the edge]

The Judiciary is independent from the Legislature. It is reasonably strongly coupled of course because Judges are generally expected to do what statute says, but it's more nuanced than that and a judge's first loyalty is to the law, and that's not exactly the same thing. It's not always the same thing as justice either, but that's rather a different matter. I don't think any of that is written down in a constitution anywhere, it's just how it is.

If you want to see the benefits of ego on justice read some judgments of Lord Denning.

That is probably the nub of the issue. Separation in the UK is via the Crown, so a judge's loyalty, sworn on oath is to the Crown. Thus, Government ministers cannot alter decisions of the Courts, even if they and the general population don't like them. The British Constitution is not written down, it is determined, in effect, by custom and practice; like common law. Separation is necessary because there are, as you've demonstrated, egos in each branch.