I am deeply suspicious of the Great Repeal Bill in the coalition agreement.
Yes, there's some legislation badly in need of repeal.
The Human Rights Act, however, is not among that legislation.
Actually, it really is. The problem with the Human Rights Act (in fact, with the European Convention on Human Rights, which it reflects) is not that the principle is bad, but the legislation is. Many of the articles are entirely sensible & right, but the definitions are so badly written that they are being extended to pretty much anything the plaintiff can get away with.
Having studied pretty much all the high-profile cases where it's actually been invoked, you're entirely mistaken. That's simply how the less reasonable bits of the media like to paint it. Unelss you actually have some solid examples of the law being invoked wrongly with success?
More to the point, the key articles were already enshrined in the British legal and judicial systems (fair trial, life, reterospectivity, etc). Also, it may have passed notice, but Britain wasn't exactly a morass of rights abuse pre-1998, certainly not compared to some areas of the EU or prospective EU (Turkey) which the 1990's / 2000's political obsession with Human Rights was concerned with. It has essentially enshrined protection for people who did not need it, and opened up the law to exploitation by the unscrupulous.
Actually, the fair trial provisions were much, much weaker, and the binding of other public bodies besides the court similarly so. I really don't think you've done your research properly.
(I specialised in HR at University)
Another serious point which is increasingly becoming a problem is the argument by some activists that the HRA / ECHR binds us into not having dealings with any countries which do not conform to the standards in HRA / ECHR. This is, frankly, unworkable. You've probably heard of organisation bringing lawsuits to argue we shouldn't work with Afghanistan, Pakistan etc for these reasons, and may well agree. You probably wouldn't be quite so happy that the logical extension to their argument is that legally we should cut government aid to pretty much all of Africa as well.
Theoretical arguments yet to be tested in court are no basis for repealing anything.
I'm afraid you need something a bit more substantial than the wild claims above. Try doing your own research into HR law isnetad of just believing the media.
Posts
I offered flippy d a deal but he wanted to play hard to get
It goes against everything I stand for buuuuut... ok.
APPARENTLY EVERYTHING GETS RUN BY ETONIANS THESE DAYS
FEEL THE TENDRILS OF THE OLD BOYS' NETWORK
HA HA HA HA HA
Actually, the fair trial provisions were much, much weaker, and the binding of other public bodies besides the court similarly so. I really don't think you've done your research properly.
(I specialised in HR at University)
Theoretical arguments yet to be tested in court are no basis for repealing anything.
I'm afraid you need something a bit more substantial than the wild claims above. Try doing your own research into HR law isnetad of just believing the media.
1. Immigrants are awesome
2. They've stolen all your jobs and would like to do the same to your women
3. I am an immigrant
So I should get OP
This is discrimination! Both racial and temporal!
Take it to the EU Tempo.