Human rights

[said]

A complete overhaul of Human Rights is long overdue. It is impossible to apply one set of rules for every country in the world for by doing so it prevents certain nations their own Human Rights.
As Professor Eric Posner of the Chicago Law School states:

"The central problem with human rights law is that it is hopelessly ambiguous. The ambiguity, which allows governments to rationalise almost anything they do, is not a result of sloppy draftsmanship but of the deliberate choice to overload the treaties with hundreds of poorly defined obligations. In most countries people formally have as many as 400 international human rights – rights to work and leisure, to freedom of expression and religious worship, to nondiscrimination, to privacy, to pretty much anything you might think is worth protecting. The sheer quantity and variety of rights, which protect virtually all human interests, can provide no guidance to governments. Given that all governments have limited budgets, protecting one human right might prevent a government from protecting another."

[Toodles McGinty]

I agree that this would be abhorrent but your statement seems to ride rough shod over the presumption of innocence - surely at the point of the cross examination the person is an alleged abuser.

For my money the idea that an accused person may represent themselves (however much of a hash they make of it) is fundamental to the principle of a fair trial and the right to justice however -
I see nothing wrong with having some kind of a pre-trial were the judge can examine the proposed line of questioning and offer 'guidance' upon what is or is not permissible.
I am unsure whether or not video link evidence or the use of a screen is allowed in these cases but perhaps that would go some way towards mitigated any distress and be a way forward.

I see what you mean, but I'm thinking that if it is a 'family court', the abuser would already have been found guilty elsewhere. I assume that the family court system deals with such disputes as those over custody or access to kids.

If a person has already been found to be an abuser, then they surely shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to inflict further abuse?

[Toodles McGinty]

A complete overhaul of Human Rights is long overdue. It is impossible to apply one set of rules for every country in the world for by doing so it prevents certain nations their own Human Rights.

The government aren't talking about repealing the laws of all different countries. Just ours. So what is contained in our Human Rights Act that would deny another person their rights?

[said]

The travelling community have human rights. These people are classed as a minority group based on their beliefs, language and traditions. The travellers do not recognise local laws as they are not part of their own laws upon which their minority status is based on. So by allowing this minority group their human rights, prevents the human rights of other citizens. i.e citizens are prevented from freedom of movement on a traveller's site - for the travellers consider that those people are trespassing in accordance with their traditions. Travellers are allowed to create pollution with the rubbish that is left behind - while other people are penalised. Travellers are allowed to park in areas where it is forbidden to other citizens. Whose human rights take priority?

[Styx]

Conservative Party Manifesto, 14 April 2015

The Conservative Party's Bill of Rights

( The path to enlightenment awaits. )

https://fullfact.org/law/conservativ...s-bill-rights/


The Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would "break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK".

Take just one case-

Abu Hamza



• In January 2003, armed police arrested seven people at the mosque in a dawn raid. A stun gun, replica firearms and CS gas canisters were among the items seized.

• In February 2003, Hamza again caused outrage when he described the Colombia space shuttle, which contained Christians, Hindus and a Jewish person, as a ''trinity of evil'' and said its destruction was a punishment from Allah.

• In April 2003, then-home secretary David Blunkett announced new laws allowing British citizenship to be removed from immigrants who ''seriously prejudice'' the UK's interests. Legal moves began to get Hamza deported to Yemen.

• Two weeks later, his lawyers announced he would appeal against the move.

• In May 2004, Hamza was arrested on a US extradition warrant. The US want him on charges of conspiring to take Western hostages in Yemen, funding terrorism, and organising a terrorist training camp in Oregon between 1998 and 2000.

• In October 2004, he was charged with 15 offences under the Terrorism Act, including incitement to murder and possession of a terrorism document, temporarily staying the US extradition process.

• On February 7 2006, Hamza was jailed for seven years after being found guilty on 11 of 15 charges.

• In July that year, he was given the go-ahead to challenge the convictions for incitement to murder and race hate offences.

• In November 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the conviction.

• In May 2007, a preliminary extradition hearing took place in London.

• This was followed, in July 2007, by a hearing where Hamza spoke by video link to fight the extradition.

• In November 2007, a judge at London's City of Westminster Magistrates' Court ruled that Hamza had lost his legal arguments against his long-running extradition battle. Senior District Judge Timothy Workman sent the matter to the Home Secretary to make a final decision.

• On February 7 2008, then-home secretary Jacqui Smith signed an extradition order, meaning Hamza would be handed over to US authorities within 28 days if he did not appeal.

• But Hamza appealed, delaying moves to extradite him. He later lost his bid to avoid extradition on June 20 2008, when two High Court judges ruled that the decision was ''unassailable''.

• On July 23 2008, he was also refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords when senior judge Sir Igor Judge refused to certify that his case raised a point of law of such public importance to go before the highest court in the land.

• On August 4 2008, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that Hamza should not be extradited until judges could examine his case. The Home Office said it would abide by the court's request.

• On January 18 2010, Hamza launched another legal fight to hang on to his British passport.

• On February 9 2010, legal aid bosses seized Hamza's house in Greenford, west London, to pay off his legal bills, despite the radical preacher claiming it did not belong to him. Officials hoped to raise £280,000 from the sale.

• On November 5 2010, Hamza won his appeal against the Government's attempts to strip him of his British passport. The move would have rendered him ''stateless'' as he had already been stripped of his Egyptian citizenship, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) ruled.

• On April 10 2012, Europe's human rights judges ruled that Hamza, along with four other terror suspects, would not be subject to ''ill-treatment'' in America and their extradition was lawful.

• On September 24 2012, European judges rejected Hamza's request for an appeal. He could be gone from Britain within days.

• On September 26 2012, Hamza applied for an injunction against his removal at the High Court.

• On October 3rd 2012 Hamza claimed he was suffering from sleep deprivation

• On October 5th 2012 Hamza loses final appeal and will be extradited within days

Source:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...Abu-Hamza.html


Abu Hamza cost this country MILLIONS in legal fees. With the Conservative Party's Bill of Rights, he would have been gone in a flash.

[Hamble]

I agree that this would be abhorrent but your statement seems to ride rough shod over the presumption of innocence - surely at the point of the cross examination the person is an alleged abuser.

For my money the idea that an accused person may represent themselves (however much of a hash they make of it) is fundamental to the principle of a fair trial and the right to justice however -
I see nothing wrong with having some kind of a pre-trial were the judge can examine the proposed line of questioning and offer 'guidance' upon what is or is not permissible.
I am unsure whether or not video link evidence or the use of a screen is allowed in these cases but perhaps that would go some way towards mitigated any distress and be a way forward.

In reality what happens is the victim is publicly victimised by the perpetrator asking questions.He can say anything-nothing to lose
not under oath as the victim is.
Questions deeply upsetting such as counter accusations of domestic violence and child abuse.
Not uncommon for the trial to be halted whilst the victim leaves court to
recover to then refuse to return.The distress is awful to watch.

Some victims refuse to give evidence.
Some retract the statement of abuse.

Giving evidence by screen is not allowed in these cases.
The persons are known to each other and the person cross examining
must be able to see the face of the subject.

Persons electing to represent themselves do not get a dummy run.
In a Magistrates Court it is usually Magistrates rarely a district Judge.
Crown Court is for more serious allegations.

Sometimes the abuse occurs in front of the children or against the child and mother or father.

With the best intentions justice is best served when both partners are served by professional council.

I am so glad the law will be changed.

[Toodles McGinty]

The travelling community have human rights. These people are classed as a minority group based on their beliefs, language and traditions. The travellers do not recognise local laws as they are not part of their own laws upon which their minority status is based on. So by allowing this minority group their human rights, prevents the human rights of other citizens. i.e citizens are prevented from freedom of movement on a traveller's site - for the travellers consider that those people are trespassing in accordance with their traditions. Travellers are allowed to create pollution with the rubbish that is left behind - while other people are penalised. Travellers are allowed to park in areas where it is forbidden to other citizens. Whose human rights take priority?

Those are not human rights issues. Those are a flagrant disdain for the law. For whatever reason, as we've seen locally, the police will not enforce the law when it comes to travellers. They are allowed to flout the law until whichever local council steps in and initiates eviction proceedings.

It's a situation that the majority of us find perplexing, but it certainly isn't a human rights issue.

[Mint]

I am more concerned with the rights of victims compromised by
the EU and Schengen which has taken power away from British autonomy.

I am not sure what those might be. What is it you are thinking of?

[silver fox]

I am not sure what those might be. What is it you are thinking of?

Hamble has the naive belief that Brexit will make the EU and Schengen go away, seeing that we are not and never have been party to Schengen, leaving the EU will not improve or stop attempted illegal immigrants, may actually worsen the situation.

[Albion102]

Hamble has the naive belief that Brexit will make the EU and Schengen go away, seeing that we are not and never have been party to Schengen, leaving the EU will not improve or stop attempted illegal immigrants, may actually worsen the situation.

Indeed a country that grows wealthy and free once relieved of the constraints of the EU will be even more attractive to illegal and legal immigrants.

[Hamble]

I am not sure what those might be. What is it you are thinking of?

Specifically trafficked and modern slavery victims brought to this country through Europe.

Those women seeking or granted asylum on the grounds of domestic violence whose partners track down and follow the victims through Europe.

[Hamble]

Hamble has the naive belief that Brexit will make the EU and Schengen go away, seeing that we are not and never have been party to Schengen, leaving the EU will not improve or stop attempted illegal immigrants, may actually worsen the situation.

So how do illegal migrants get from out of the EU into the EU across Europe to the Thames?

[The PNP]

So how do illegal migrants get from out of the EU into the EU across Europe to the Thames?

There's no EU and no Schengen in South or Central America, yet large groups of 'illegals' still manage to make the Mexico/US border....Seems it's always easier to migrate to a perceived land of milk and honey, than to get it together in your own homeland.

[Hamble]

There's no EU and no Schengen in South or Central America, yet large groups of 'illegals' still manage to make the Mexico/US border....Seems it's always easier to migrate to a perceived land of milk and honey, than to get it together in your own homeland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centra...trol_Agreement

[silver fox]

So how do illegal migrants get from out of the EU into the EU across Europe to the Thames?

In exactly the same way whether in or out of the EU, illegal immigrants are illegal now, while we are still in the EU, they won't be any more illegal or deterred after exit.

I struggle to see your obsession with Schengen when we aren't party to it anyway, if it comes to it many EU countries are taking a much harder line with non EU migrants, Schengen or not.