Many Unhappy Returns of the Human Rights Act
Sunday, November 9th marks the tenth anniversary of Royal Assent to the Human Rights Act 1998, surely one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation ever passed by the mother of Parliaments.
The Human Rights Act (HRA) was intended to enshrine the European Convention of Human Rights in English law. The HRA’s proponents argued that it was invidious for complainants to be forced to travel to Strasbourg to obtain ‘justice’ in human rights matters, rather than having a remedy in the British courts.
The Left often seek to portray any opposition to the Human Rights Act as being synonymous with opposition to the very idea of fundamental rights, but of course that is just typical left-wing sophistry. In fact, the Human Rights Act has never had much to do with the protection of genuine rights and freedoms. At best, the Human Rights Act has been ineffective; at worst it has created a toxic culture of faux rights and impunity for the guilty and undeserving. It has also done much to undermine the foundations of the English legal system.
The ink was scarcely dry on the Human Rights Act in 1998 when Labour ministers began a crusade against ancestral British freedoms, which has succeeded in curtailing genuine rights and liberties in almost every walk of life. Even as Labour breezily twittered the language of human rights, they imposed the ‘surveillance society’, restricted traditional British free speech and subverted the democratic system.
Ten years after the Human Rights Act, we now live in a society where every email and telephone call is to be recorded and logged by the State. Free speech has been eroded by successive racial and religious “hate” laws which have made Britons terrified of speaking their mind on any subject that might be deemed ‘politically incorrect’. The right to trial by jury has been limited and the ancient legal protections against ‘double jeopardy’ have been abolished. A freeborn Englishman can now be locked up without charge in his own land for longer than in any other western country. For the first time since 1832, we cannot trust the integrity of our electoral system. The Human Rights Act stands condemned by its failure to impede or delay any of these poisonous developments.
The European Convention of Human Rights, on which the Human Rights Act is based, was developed in the 1950s specifically to combat the sort of abuses characteristic of Nazi Germany, where people were hounded from their jobs and property solely on the grounds of their political or religious affiliations.
After 50 years of the Convention and 10 years of the Act, it seems that nothing much has changed. During the last month, a policeman in Manchester has been forced to resign for the ‘crime’ of wearing a BNP badge while off duty. A BNP teacher, already sacked from his job for his politics, now faces being deprived of his teaching livelihood altogether at the whim of a General Teaching Council dominated by left-wing unionists. Labour trade union leaders are even now demanding the right summarily to expel BNP members from trade unions. BNP bus drivers, railwaymen, health workers and ballerinas have all faced politically-motivated repression without the benefit of any effective legal remedy. Every police force in the land now operates a formal policy of institutional political discrimination against BNP supporters - and there are continual demands from Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the bizarrely misnamed “Equality and Human Rights Commission” for this Stalinist policy to be extended to every branch of the public sector.
In contrast with its uniform failure to protect genuine rights and liberties, there are areas where the Human Rights Act has had a massively harmful impact. It has prevented the just deportation of dangerous terrorists back to their native lands. It has notoriously compelled Britain to harbour Afghan hijackers and guarantee them jobs. The Human Rights Act has been used to argue the case of a schoolboy arsonist expelled from the classroom, a convicted rapist awarded £4000 compensation because his appeal was delayed; and even a burglar given taxpayers’ money to sue the man whose house he burgled.
If anything, the more insidious effects of the HRA have been still more damaging. The Act requires judges to interpret statute law in accordance with the principles of the European Convention wherever possible. Where this proves impossible, the HRA encourages judges to issue a “declaration of incompatibility” certifying that a particular law does not comply with “Human Rights” principles. In turn, this allows any “incompatible” statute law to be changed by a “fast track” procedure. Overall, the practical effect is to elevate judge-made law above the sovereignty of Parliament. Unaccountable, unfit and unelected judges can use vague Human Rights principles as blunt coshes to attack Acts of Parliament enacted after public debate by the duly-elected representatives of the British people. The Human Rights Act represents just one more Labour nail in the coffin of British Parliamentary democracy, perhaps the greatest-ever invention of the world’s most inventive nation.
To add insult to injury, over the past ten years, a clique of left-wing Human Rights lawyers has grown fabulously wealthy from the rich pickings of the bogus Human Rights bonanza, a feat skilfully achieved without affording any worthwhile legal protection at all to the ordinary citizen.
Needless to say, the Human Rights Act would be repealed during the first term of a British Nationalist Government. We should replace it with a British Bill of Rights, based on the best principles of Magna Carta and the original 1689 Bill of Rights. This would not override any Statute, but would act as a resounding declaration of the fundamental tenets of British Liberty, including the rights of free speech, of jury trial, of habeas corpus and freedom from arbitrary detention and state surveillance, and of participation in a free and fair democratic political process.
Under a British Nationalist government, ancient and robust British freedoms would be restored, and the vacuous, alien jargon of Human Rights legislation would be exposed to the ridicule it so richly deserves. The Human Rights Act has reached its tenth Birthday, but its days may yet be numbered!
Loading... 
How much longer do we have to suffer the iniquities of this pernicious piece of legislation ?
Give us back our rights as Britons. We have no no desire to be dictated to by a judiciary we do not want, or have any need of.
screamingmad.
Human Rights? Clearly if you are White & British you are not classed as Human!
“We should replace it with a British Bill of Rights, based on the best principles of Magna Carta and the original 1689 Bill of Rights.”
And the Habeas Corpus Act(1679) - freedom from arbitrary imprisonment is the very cornerstone of our freedom.
Magna Carta
Habeas Corpus
1689 Bill of Rights
These are the building blocks. To make absolutely sure that we don’t get any more of the treason we have seen for the last 60 years I would also suggest that the laws of Praemunire are brought back - dating from the reign of Richard II these made it an offence to introduce foreign influence into England(later Britain), the creation of an alien “state within a state”. The penalities for this heinous offence were loss of all civil rights, effectively outlawry. Consideration could also be given to the restoration of Impeachment, trial by Parliament, and of Attainder - whereby traitors were dealt with summarily.
I despise this act/law. All it does is give EVERY criminal/immigrant/non law abiding citizen, a “right” when they should have no rights. Just another mickey mouse law that Bliar bought in….cannot wait to see the back of it when the BNP finally come into power.
VOTE BNP.
A bit of interesting News. The E.U. is taking away the Parliamentary immunity from Frank Vanhecke, one of the leaders of Vlaams Belang, the Belgium equivalent of the BNP. They are getting really desperate; you will understand what I mean when you read the excuse for doing it.
The Belgian authorities hold Mr Vanhecke responsible for the publication of a text in a local party publication in the town of Sint-Niklaas. The author had blamed a wave of vandalism at a Christian cemetery on immigrant youths. As the culprits were minors, Belgian law prohibits disclosing their identity, thereby preventing the VB to prove beyond doubt whether or not the youthful vandals were, indeed, Muslim immigrants. Though the author of the text is known and is NOT being prosecuted, Mr Vanhecke is, even though he had not written the article, nor seen it before it was published. The authorities hold him responsible for the article since he was the national VB leader at the time of publication.
Life gets interesting don’t it.
-
Thanks for that one, YM. The EU has turned its countries into politically correct minefields, and will do its darndest to trap the unwary, particularly if they are of the Nationalist persuasion -Ed -Ed
The ‘Human Rights’ movement - classic Marxist devils doctrine assiduously forced down our throats through every institution thats been hijacked by Frankfurt School zealots across the entire western world - a pestilence unrivalled by anything ever witnessed in our history. Exaltation and extollation of every ethnic minority, alien religion and foreign culture over and above that of the indigenous British/European/Western natives. One only needs look at the news to see a mixed race sporting hero Lewis Hamilton hailed as the first ‘black’ motor racing champion thus eradicating the other half of his white heritage. Then follows the future ‘black’ president of the United States in the upcoming ‘historic’ election campaign where the establishment has already decided that Barak Obama, Americas first ‘black’ president will be elected - willfully ignoring half of his white ethnicity. What a moment to trumpet these ‘mixed race’ heros as ‘wonderful’ and ‘vibrant’ products of the man made multicultural eutopia - but no. The ruling elite get to decide who’s ‘human’ and thus who has ‘rights’. The establishment is guilty of anti-white racism on an unprecedented scale… But it won’t work and is doomed to spectacular failure.
Interesting ideas, Stringbag.
Top of the list for repeal must be this insidious filth of an act which confers on foreign filth rights which indigenous British Patriots are deprived of.
I am in favour of Common Law and a written bill of rights.I believe we might have to engage the services of some foreign English speaking lawyer to draft it, however, as it appears difficult to find competent legislators here.
Roll on the demise of liblabcon traitors.
Their days are numbered.
Notice the latest lunacy proposed? British troops for DR Congo. A former Belgian
colony.I do not believe a single Dr. ever graduated in the Congo.
I’ll never forget the story of the 9 hijackers from Afghanistan who where allowed to remain in Britain and live on benefits or even work at airports , of all the things wrong with this human rights act I think that one stands out the most .
Nine Afghans have won the right to live in Britain after hijacking a passenger flight in Afghanistan in 2000. The Boeing 727 was flown to Stansted in Essex where the captors threatened to kill the 160 passengers unless they were granted asylum
disgusting !
My password seems to have disappeared to log on, but have just got a new one. Has there been any problems Ed?
A ‘British Rights Act’ is the right and proper way to dispense with the corrupting and purposely misnamed ‘Human Rights Act’. And while on the subject of future proposed new laws, we should also consider a ‘Retrospective Treason Act’, backdated to 1948, when the first act of destroying this country’s borders came about under the British Nationality Act 1948, which made no difference between a British person born and bred in Britain, and someone from Timbuktoo. It is no coincidence that 2 years later the planning started for the fledgling European Union. You see, they’ve had this planned for decades now and they wont stop until we are all under the EUSSR permanently.
-
Web Monkey has been busy upgrading and then trying to iron out subsequent problems. I reckon he’ll be working on it until his usual 3 am :^) -Ed
The ‘Human Rights’ movement - classic Marxist devils doctrine assiduously forced down our throats through every institution thats been hijacked by Frankfurt School zealots across the entire western world - a pestilence unrivalled by anything ever witnessed in our history.
Exaltation and extollation of every ethnic minority, alien religion and foreign culture over and above that of the indigenous British/European/Western natives. One only needs look at the news to see a mixed race sporting hero Lewis Hamilton hailed as the first ‘black’ motor racing champion thus eradicating the other half of his white heritage. Then follows the future ‘black’ president of the United States in the upcoming ‘historic’ election campaign where the establishment has already decided that Barak Obama, Americas first ‘black’ president will be elected - willfully ignoring half of his white ethnicity.
What a moment to trumpet these ‘mixed race’ heros as ‘wonderful’ and ‘vibrant’ products of the man made multicultural eutopia - but no. The ruling elite get to decide who’s ‘human’ and thus who has ‘rights’.
The establishment is guilty of anti-white racism on an unprecedented scale
But it won’t work and is doomed to spectacular failure.
Within the HRA is a little known and little publicised clause which states that the HRA is not applicable if it interferes with the goals and workings of the EU.
Nice work if you can get it.
You are absolutely right to draw attention to this iniquitous piece of legislation which serves only those who wish to avoid their responsibilities and those who seek to undermine the course of natural and intuitive justice.
It not only thwarts the process of law, as it should be done and seen to be done but ties up in knots the government itself when it makes it’s puny attempts to repatriate illegal immigrants.
The only indiginous British people who benefit from this ( “I know me rights”) crap are the underbelly scum of British society and the self-serving politicians and lawyers who make so much ( inevitably tax-payers’) money from it.
A point to remember - the Human Rights Act was very profitable for members of the Law profession. The Act was brought in to law when a certain Tony Blair was Prime Minister (previous profession - Lawyer) who was married to a certain Cherie Blair, who just happened to be a Lawyer. Tony Blair also had many close friends, who also just happened to be Lawyers - does anyone get my drift?
While I agree with the points made in the above article, the main problem with the Human Rights Act is the problem which afflicts most legislation enacted by our Parliament in recent times. That problem is Special Interests. Time and time again, we see Acts passed for which there appears to be no specific need or call for, and which are badly thought through, if at all. How many others have read in the papers about a new idea from the government, and wondered at the need or good sense of the proposed new law? The reality is that most of our new Laws are inspired by Special Interest groups who have their own agendas - most of them being profit orientated. I would bet money on it that any proposed new Law, if you dig deep enough, means money to someone - and usually that someone has close ties to someone in power. That is a fact of the current state of our ‘democracy’. I seem to remember a long time ago when reading about the fiasco of Wind Farms, that the Director of one of the companies who had the contract to erect these was related by marriage to someone in the government - I cannot be sure of all the facts - but I remember thinking at the time ‘here we go again’!
There was an interesting article in today’s Daily Mail by Melanie Phillips which, in the last few paragraphs, reveals the involvement of Special Interest groups in the Drugs legislation enacted by this Government. Another piece of disastrous legislation which the great majority of voters didn’t want, or even if they wanted it, didn’t think that it was of great national importance. To our elected representatives however it was quite important, by downgrading the use of Cannabis, it ensured that they and their families would never get a Criminal record, which of course would have excluded them from any high level jobs. Throw in the Special Interest groups, and hey presto, you get new legislation. Was it good for the Country? Hell no - but who in government cares about a little thing like that?
As this self enrichment and promotion of agendas by Special Interest groups has completely wrecked this country and it’s democracy - the one thing that we need from any future elected representatives is total honesty, incorruptibility and the commitment to act only in the interests of the Nation at all times. One reason that I, and many others, vote BNP, is because we are sick of the current state of affairs and want our democracy back where it belongs - with the people. And we believe that those within the BNP are like us and want the same things.
An illegal immigrant who killed a brilliant young writer by driving into her at 60mph cannot be deported because it would breach his human rights.
Ahsan Sabri, 28, was unlicensed and not properly insured when he roared through a red light and ploughed into Oxford University graduate Sophie Warne
What about her human right not to be killed walking across the street by a criminal who should not even have been in this country in the first place?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082768/Illegal-immigrant-killed-brilliant-Oxford-graduate-roaring-red-light-deported–human-rights.html
-
I find it impossible to understand how anybody can vote for the Lib/Lab/Con [who are equally culpable for both the death and the failure to deport] when incidents like this are a regular occurence on our streets and roads turned into indigenous killing fields. It may also have been another case of RTA jihad if he was a Muslim which the name would certainly suggest - Ed
The Sun online newspaper just breached my human rights, My human rights to belong to a legal political party by removing my “waysist” gravatar.
The same one I am using here.
-
Try one with the beauty holding Solidarity aloft bertie
http://www.solidaritytradeunion.net/
- Ed
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
This act should be cut up into small squares, it may then serve some useful purpose!
Yes, that about sums it up.
They do it differently in the US:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1225715333240
Here’s what would probably have happened if he’d been in the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082716/Six-asylum-seekers-claim-300-000-compensation-wrongly-held-arrived-Britain.html
So the powers-that-be snoop on our e-mails do they? Well check this out ……. I declare that I detest this Labour government and everything they stand for. I cannot wait to see Gordon Brown and chums booted out of office once and for all and I hope I live to see the day that lying war monger Tony Blair is locked up for war crimes. Now come and get me boys!
VOTE BNP
…Warriorbrave, everyone has those rights.. but (if Lickyalips is right) the Act is not applicable if it interferes with the goals and workings of the EU.
I’m certain MaidOfKent is correct in her assessment of the Blairs’ involvement in this Act. Quite a large proportion of Parliament are lawyers and it’s unlikely they would examine legislation which would make them money as critically as legislation likely to do the reverse. Nor are they likely to factor in the costs of the legal system when it suits them not to. There must be evidence from 1997 as to how this Rights legislation was perceived. There must have been seminars on exploiting the Act, articles in lawyers’ journals about the likely implications, University courses on it, new books from special legal publishers, job adverts from various chambers describing the probable remuneration… Unfortunately legal people stick together in a deeply unhealthy and malign way. If this website had existed in this form a dozen years ago, probably it would have amassed a rather damning collection of evidence, rather than just reports of after-the-event disasters where these aren’t kept secret.
Ditto with other special interest groups - EU, wind farms, drugs, ‘regeneration’, building projects, weaponry, quasi-charities, civil service, ‘faith groups’….
I’m reminded of Littlejohn who in 1995 in the last days of John Major helped start the populist crit of quangos and waste. [Guardian .. 37 pages of jobs The total bill came to £7.6M - not including.. cars, pensions, etc.. about £400M a year..] Also the EU [CAP 'adds 15 billion a year to national food bill'. 'There is fraud on a massive scale'.]
Let’s hope a few honest lawyers provide clear evidence of what’s going on. There have been a few renegade lawyers, such as Michael Joseph (Lawyers Can Seriously Damage Your Health (1985) but they are terrifying rare.
It would appear that we have all being deceived, like in the film The Matrix; Acts aka Statutes aka Commercial Bills (yes for money and profit) are not law, you do not have to consent to them, you can take the red pill, if you understand commerce.
When your birth was registered a commercial instrument was set-up by the UK Government, to pay _their_ bills; your parents were tricked into making you an employee (wage slave) of the state, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
There are many public organisation which are also commercial corporations (e.g. the Queen, the UK Government, the MPs, the various police bodies, the councils, the courts etc.), often for profit, they are not immune to the law, provided you cut through the legal deception, reclaim your sovereign power and abide by the rules of commerce.
Why do you think that there are performance targets, for public organisations?
… because these corporations are owned by private shareholders, for profit.
How do you think Tony Blair got so wealthy?
… because he was a shareholder of the Treasury.
Look for any public body (including alias and title variations) on here, and understand how much we have been deceived:
http://www.dnb.co.uk/
See http://www.tpuc.org and associated sites, the information there will shock and enlighten you!
If we want a better government, then we must legally reclaim our sovereignty, demonstrate that we are no longer children, and require that they behave honourably if they want our credit.
The only thing this was good for is keeping self serving lawyers in a nice big wedge regularly , started by Bliar and well followed up by his missus and all the other lawyers . The first thing the BNP must do when coming to power , apart from the abolition of the viewing and listening poll tax , is to repeal this nonsense once and for all .
“The European Convention of Human Rights, on which the Human Rights Act is based, was developed in the 1950s specifically to combat the sort of abuses characteristic of Nazi Germany, where people were hounded from their jobs and property solely on the grounds of their political or religious affiliations. ”
This has such a hollow ring to it, it’s almost unreal.
It’s almost as if this law was created to work against us Brits.
One I shall not drink to.
@ northbrit08 10.52am and Ed
It seems this person would be a muslim as he hails from Pakistan. The reason given in his appeal was that his British wife is Christian and they have a child. I must say going by the name of his wife she may be white. Even Littlejohn in the Mail fails to see why they as a family shouldn’t be deported. If she wanted him to be the father of her child , then she would follow him where ever he may wish to take them. This is the latest in the never ending saga of the dregs of humanity being allowed to stay here endangering all others in the wake of “Bliars law”. Badly written and probably illegal. After all is there not persons of foriegn birth sitting in out law making parliament. Contrary to the 1689 Bill of Rights and 1701 Settlement act.
We own the laws that we the people forced from the Crown. Not the festering mob that Laud themselves over us. They are culpable and will pay.
Old people in nursing homes, the most vulnerable and lonely people in the country, have no human rights. The Act is suspended in this case.
The legislation is cherry picked in favour of the EU, the foreigner, and to the detriment of the old, the dissident and the truly British.
Tony Blair introduced this piece of legislation which directly affected (increased) his wife’s earnings, and yet there was no mention of conflict of interest. The Blairs are the most treacherous, amoral pair ever to reside in 10 Downing Street.