EMRK erodiert das öffentliche Vertrauen, weil es Kriminelle schützt, sagt Labour
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/echr-erodes-public-trust-because-it-protects-criminals-says-labour-p9gh68lbf
Von ThatchersDirtyTaint
EMRK erodiert das öffentliche Vertrauen, weil es Kriminelle schützt, sagt Labour
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/echr-erodes-public-trust-because-it-protects-criminals-says-labour-p9gh68lbf
Von ThatchersDirtyTaint
29 Kommentare
The whole point of the ECHR is that it protects everyone and forces the state to deal with us all according to the law.
It does protect criminals and ensures their right to only be convicted of crimes where there is evidence presented, and that their treatment after conviction is in accordance with the law.
By definition, you’re only likely to have to call on your ECHR rights when you’re in dispute with the state and they’re acting beyond the law in how they treat you.
Damn it. Would be much easier to punish people without those pesky human rights.
well unless you are going to declare criminals aren’t human, then any human rights are going to protect them
It needs to change, the balance between individual rights and societal rights at large is not correct. We shouldn’t swing 100% the other way and end up somewhere like China but a small shift is essential.
Important to note that Labour are not discussing scrapping the ECHR or the Human Rights Act.
They’re talking about clarifying Article 8, and how it should be applied in relation to immigration rules.
Ah goodie. Once again we have morons who feel they don’t have power and want it to be unchecked so they have free reign.
Now I’m sure we’ve got a word for people like that but I’m not as smart as these very clever people clearly.
If people can look past the intoxicating label of “Human Rights”, you’d see that the HRA really imports a set of policy prescriptions, the full extent of which are only increasingly understood the more that “human rights law” develops, and all of which circumvent the democratic process and take power to decide (on immigration, criminal justice, property and planning law, etc etc) out of the hands of (potentially) accountable people.
If human rights don’t annoy people they aren’t doing their job
Labour just handing the country to reform if it just pursue rethoric to appease reform’s audience
It’s absolutely true that the ECHR has problems. It always has, as would any static document.
Technically though it is not totally static, it’s actually heavily interpreted by judges and (without being familiar with the details of these cases) these cases likely involve balancing acts between the human rights of convicts, and the security and policy goals of the state.
Jumping to conclusion a bit here, but it does sound a bit like politicians wanting to change the rules to get around judicial decisions, not because the ECHR is the problem. That’s a little dangerous.
The governmnet blaming ECHR for their own failings again? If only Parliament was sovereign and could change British Law how they see fit, oh wait, they can.
„The ECHR is a provlem“
„Will you change it or leave it?“
„No“
It protects criminals and the British population from freedom of torture and slavery. They want to remove EHCR from the British and we will end up with an American For-Profit system where the prison population will be manufacturing goods for mega corporations for £1 a day. It’s slavery through the back door..
Oh my god are Labour gonna rip the biggest page out of Reforms book? Lmao. I’m right wing but even I know it’s not the ECHR that’s the main issue. It’s about judges who are interpreting it protecting all kinds of criminals.
Just a reminder. The real reason businessman like Farage and pals want out of the ECHR is because it will benefit business and remove red tape.
Ie. More protections from abusive practice by companies would be removed, cutting their costs but significantly harming workers rights.
Put simply, they will save money by treating you like sh*t.
And if you can’t see that as a clear motivation and you think removing the basis of all of the Humans Rights Protections we have, just to stick it to a couple of those nasty brown people, then I can’t too how foolish a society we’re now living in.
Other countries have deported people, there seems to be a difference on how the UK applies echr law.
It protects us against corrupt politicians. No wonder the tories and reform hate it.
Now labour dislikes it I’m wearier of them
This sounds ominous. Although I suppose Labour could complete their transformation into a party Suelle Braverman would be proud of by kicking the ECHR out of the picture.
Remember when we voted away our right to free movement to stop Johnny Foreigner’s free movement?
Let’s do the same with the ECHR and wave goodbye to our right to free speech and thought, right of property ownership, religious expression, to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, right to a fair trial, the duty it imposes on governments to protect our lives.
Wanting out of the ECHR to stick it to criminals is about as fucking stupid as disbanding the Fire Service to make sure they don’t douse a blaze at a paedophile’s house.
Bad journalism erodes public trust in institutions.
FTFY
Why do we need foreign unelected officials to tell us right from wrong?
I’m fairly confident that the majority of Brexit voters thought that getting out of Europe meant getting out of EHCR jurisdiction
Seems to me the state protects criminals far more than the ECHR does.
Typical Labour pandering to Reform UK voters.
Criminals are STILL humans.
Seriously, if you’re a left-leaning person and you’re still voting Labour you are also part of the problem.
Vote Green. Stop austerity. Tax the rich. Protect our human rights, protect racial justice. Save the planet and the people within it.
I mean the whole point of laws is to protect people the State might deem criminals.
I think the media does erode trust in the value of the ECHR by one-sided reporting. It would be great if, instead of firing shots against the ECHR, they’d give concrete examples of issues, which clause of the ECHR they’d appeal to, and what they want to do to change it.
I have read the ECHR and cannot see anything that I’d change, but I am also not pretending to be an expert in law.
Things that are often rammed down our throats via the media are instances like that guy that wasn’t deported because his son loses access to chicken wings. Well, that was an appeal that wasn’t decided, so it’s just due process.
There is no chicken-wings for minors clause in the ECHR – this should come as no surprise to anyone. So I expect that guy to lose, and take his son back to where theye are no chicken wings. I think it’s probably in the interest of the child to get off his chicken wing diet.
So is the law sometimes interpreted in ridiculous ways? – I’m quite sure. And it’s not just in refererence to claims under the ECHR.
A lot of people here are missing the point that it is entirely within the government’s ability to fix this, that’s what they’re talking about and it’s one of the main criticisms of the Tories that they were too incompetent to understand how to fix it. Parliament is sovereign, no law may restrict its ability to make laws as they see fit, the judiciary only interpret law in the UK and make sure that Parliament is following its own law. Parliament decides how the ECHR is interpreted and has wide scope to decide how to interpret it to balance it with our laws and our convention obligations. There are plenty of countries that are signed to it and don’t have issues deporting criminals, there are also plenty of countries where you have protections under ECHR that you don’t get in the UK. We don’t need to renegotiate anything or change the ECHR, parliament just needs to pass a law that changes the interpretation. The Tories could also have done this but they either didn’t want to or were too incompetent to do it. Most likely they wanted to not fix it and use it as a way to scare people against voting for labour but that really stops working when you’ve been in power for a decade and a half.
I’m reminded of how well this approach worked for the Tories as regards UKip… Labour are NOT going to attract the Reform vote, but they will drive away the Labour vote.
Why are they thus saying this stuff? I believe it’s because the only thing that unifies the public is a move away from neoliberal politics, but that isn’t what the leadership are in anyway going to do.
„Mahmood added: “There must be consequences for breaking the rules“
„Your human rights are conditional on your behaviour“