What do you think of this Human Rights thing ?

Question

I think the Human Rights law is wrong made.As I live in Britain, I , like many others, have noticed countless of cases were human rights laws were wrong applied. I heard that there is nothing wrong with them , that is just a matter of interpretation. well, these laws were made by humans, and humans may be wrong. everybody in britain knows now about fu....g convicts who get huge amounts of money and lots of things that other poor people, cant afford to have.and why? because they have they human rights breached.
I dont think human rights laws should be scrapped, someone should take a new look over them and see what's wrong.

Answer 1

we need some laws to protect our human rights or we would end up like Zimbabwe.

the law needs to change though with regards to criminals and their human rights. as far as im concerned, if you break the law, thats your human rights gone.

the cases im thinkin of are the criminals in prison who won compensation due to being forced to stop taking heroin when they went in prison which was against their human rights

Answer 2

I'm a LLB Law student and currently in one of my modules we are studying the Human Rights Act 1998. The principle of Parliamentary supremacy gives rise to why the Act (HRA 1998) is so weak.

No one Parliament can entrench a piece of legislation so as to avoid a future Parliament removing it from the statute books.

Furthermore when the Act was drafted the interpretation and loopholes incorporated are so wide as to allow any piece of legislation to be passed even if it is a direct breach.

The Courts cannot declare a piece of statutory based law as invalid (unlike US Supreme Court), thus when a piece of legislation is in direct conflict with the HRA the courts power extend only to a 'declaration of incompatibility' which means absolutely nothing in law and perhaps, at best, is only a political tool that sparks public awareness.

The law of the UK is so old that for one single document to contain the absolute rights of individuals (i.e. like the US Bill of Rights) would mean an administrative nightmare for the judiciary, that's why it has me in stitches when the Tories say they would scrap the HRA and implement a UK version of the Bill of Rights - it would be impossible to do so.

Answer 3

The Human Rights law is a cash cow for lawyers and only benefits those and the criminal.

Answer 4

Human rights shld indeed be a case of not extending beyond one's domain. It shld be a balance eg of freedom of speech & responsbility, a need to say something in public against a need not to be misinterpreted by others.

Answer 5

I agree this Human Rights thing has gone too far. We have to do something to dis-empowering the special interest groups. What was essentially a good thing always turns out wrong. You know that old thing about how the pendulant swings.

Answer 6

human rights are helping to fulfill a prophesy, that evil will be swopped for god and good for evil, human rights laws are a strategic warfare strategy against the goodness of life because there is money and careers based on evil, theres no money in goodness of behaviour,if everybody did all things right we would not need the massive social sytem and careers from those who do it wrong.

Answer 7

I'm with you on this. By the way, did you know that Cherie Blair makes most of her money, as a barrister, by fighting the government on human rights issues?

Answer 8

I see here people say we need Human Rights law .I thought we did alright before and to say it would be like Zimbabwe?I never saw any white farmers thrown off their land?

Answer 9

I agree. To often human rights laws and organizations go to far in protecting the perpetrator of a crime rather than the victim.

Answer 10

Human rights and common sense don't appear in the same sentence.........Except this one!