I think the Human Rights laws are damaging my Human Rights, can I challenge there existence?

Spence

I never thought of that before!! Yes lets all get together and get those damn Human Rights people who imposed these stupid Human Rights Laws!!

lesroys

I know what you mean, but challenging human rights laws is not the answer. ASSERT your human rights as a law-abiding citizen.

The police have become next to useless because of government policies. The police would like nothing better than to be able to do the jobs they trained for.

I feel the same way you do and am currently trying to find out whether there is a movement for people like us. If there isn't, I'm seriously considerating starting one. My opening statement would go something like this:

"Of course criminals have rights. They have the right to remain silent. They have the right to an attorney. They have the right to a fair trial and the right to confront their accusers in court. They have the right to humane treatment while incarcerated and the right to lodge one or more appeals of their sentences. But criminals do not have the right to deprive victims of their human rights to live their lives without harm to their persons or their property or threats of harm. Common criminals are no better than the bloodiest tyrant, because they share with bloody tyrants the same blatant disregard for the lives, wellbeing, property and freedoms of others. In the commission of their crimes, they willfully hurt, destroy, instill fear, cause emotional distress and physical pain to innocent people.

How can I, a private individual, protect myself against this tyranny? I cannot attack a criminal I catch in the act, because I will be prosecuted and imprisoned even if my action was in self-defence. I cannot defend my family or my property because someone I did not vote for decided on my behalf that a criminal's rights outweigh mine. I cannot depend on the police to help me, because what's the point in arresting suspects if the CPS will not prosecute them? I cannot depend on the CPS to prosecute criminals because the prisons are full. I cannot depend on the government - the one I didn't vote for - to build more prisons because they think that incarceration is inappropriate for criminals. Instead, they believe that criminals - even persistent offenders and career criminals - can be rehabilitated by sending them on foreign holidays rather than British jail cells."

I haven't finished my speech yet. I'll let you know when it's ready for publication.

'H'

What a plan! I like the idea......go for it!

trucker

they have created more injustic and fear, they are a menace.

floppity

The funny thing is that you could come up with anything, not having your tea on the table at five o'clock, as damaging your human rights. They were written in such a manner that any fool can crack them... so in answer to your question, yes you can.

lokidrew

Do what you want shall be the whole of the law.

Crowley must have predicted 21st century Britain!

mad keith

your right let me know when you strart with action and i will join you

VidaUK

I think you are right - human rights laws do seem to protect the minority and not the majority - the majority appear to suffer because of them. You can't challenge their existence - but if your community is suffering as a result of the police not stopping certain criminals/activities for instance and that lack of action is affecting the whole communities quality of life then you can pursue that - authorities have a 'positive obligation' and often they are not applying it to the extreme issues some areas are facing.

If you do pursue - let us know - there will be thousands behind you!!

Amir N

The Human Rights Act 1998 applies to all people and it is there to protect the rights of every person within the country, because we, as a society feel that all people are entitled to these basic rights, no matter who they are or what they've done.

"How can I, a private individual, protect myself against this tyranny? I cannot attack a criminal I catch in the act, because I will be prosecuted and imprisoned even if my action was in self-defence."

You still have that right to self defence and that is enshrined not only in UK Statutory law, but also English Common Law and also in the Convention on Human Rights, which the HRA gives effect to. Police may arrest a person for assault, but it is up to the CPS to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute and even then the courts will recognise self defence.

"I cannot defend my family or my property because someone I did not vote for decided on my behalf that a criminal's rights outweigh mine. "

No, the Human Rights Act is not weighted toward a particular group, it applies equally across the board. There is no specific mention of rights being weighted in favour of any particular person. Like the scales of Justice, all things must be balanced and thus, criminals too must have rights in some regard. Just because you feel the sentance is not sufficient, does not necessarily mean that your rights are being discarded in favour of a criminals. If we were to go by that maxim, then perhaps you would see all thieves put to death?

I cannot depend on the police to help me, because what's the point in arresting suspects if the CPS will not prosecute them?

The Police's job is to arrest and investigate. The CPS decide whether to prosecute based on a test on whether there is sufficient evidence and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute this person. The police do the best job they can as do the CPS but they too are bound by the laws of evidence. We cannot suspend these laws just to get a conviction for those who feel they've been aggrieved. Perhaps you might understand if you were arrested for say assault and you were brought before the court, you'd want a level playing field to make your case and not have the odds stacked against you. Miscarriages of Justice are expensive and the laws of evidence are there to prevent that.

I cannot depend on the CPS to prosecute criminals because the prisons are full.

Again, look at the above, but the prisons being full isn't a factor the CPS looks at when deciding whether or not to prosecute. Prisons are full because people are demanding that criminals even for the most minor of sentances, drug possession, minor thefts etc must be sent to prison for months or years. There'd be plenty of space if we were to use the maxim, prison is for the most dangerous of criminals that society must be protected from. Not, if they've committed a crime, they go to jail for x amount of years minimum.

I cannot depend on the government - the one I didn't vote for - to build more prisons because they think that incarceration is inappropriate for criminals.

Actually the government is building 2 new prisons and also is looking at 2 ships for floating prisons. Sometimes imprisonment IS inappropriate for some criminals. Prison does not work to prevent the causes of crime and nor is it a deterrent.

Instead, they believe that criminals - even persistent offenders and career criminals - can be rehabilitated by sending them on foreign holidays rather than British jail cells.

When have any prisoners been sent on foreign holidays? Most criminals I know have been sent to one of HM Prisons, not carted off on holiday. Perhaps you too have been getting a little too taken in with the sensationalist tabloid claims that prisons are hotels and that criminals are being sent on holiday....? Perhaps you need a taste of prison then and you tell us whether or not it is quite so nice?

Everything most people have said has been negative toward human rights. I think that most people don't actually realise what protections and other laws that have come into force as a result of the Human Rights Act. You have the right to compensation should you be unlawfully detained, you have the right to say what you want where you want, albeit, with some restrictions. You have the right to privacy, to which end, no public body can infringe, you have the right not to be put to death or tortured, the right to an education etc etc etc.

Just because people you don't like are exercising their rights under this legislation doesn't mean that the law is bad or that it should be scrapped, it means you too should exercise your rights under the law and become more assertive.

Also, let me just say that the police have not become next to useless as a result of the Human Rights Act. They still do much the same job they have done since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Human Rights Act in my opinion, has made very little impact in how the police work on a day to day basis. Arrests are still made for offences and they are still allowed to investigate crimes.

Perhaps you could further elaborate on what you mean, useless?

Finally, you can't challenge the existence of the Human Rights Act, I'm afraid. It is an Act of Parliament, thus, under the rule of Parliamentary Sovereignty, nobody, no court, no person (save the Queen), is able to declare it illegal and scrap it. Only Parliament itself can amend or repeal the Act.

* In response to the comment made above by the original poster.... I am a police officer and I don't believe the Human Rights Act has changed the way in which we operate. In fact, Human Rights legislation was in place prior to the HRA1998. We were still required to caution people, we were still required to arrest and we were still required to abide by the laws of evidential procedure with regards to arrest. English Common Law has provided for and protected such rights for a great deal of time. The Human Rights Act 1998 merely codifies it and gives effect to it in UK courts.

I do see crime, yes but do I believe criminals should be or ought to be treated differently because they commit crime? No. I look at all people equally, regardless of what they have done because it is my job to. Have I been a victim of crime, yes, many many times in the course of my job, but off duty, it's still relatively rare. However, that being said, in certain areas, it differs, and crime is prevalent, but the Human Rights Act, in my opinion is not to blame. These rights were protected well before the coming into force of the Act.

Kind of like the latin term: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc..... After it, therefore because of it. Meaning since you believe you've seen an increase in the assertion of these rights, you therefore believe it is as a result of it that these assertions are taking place. In fact it's not true and it rarely is ever true.

You may not like what I want to say because it isn't the simple explanation. Nothing in life ever is simple. There are deep-seated problems in our communities, poverty, social problems and many other issues that are causes of crime. The Human Rights Act however, in my estimation does not compare to these causes. If we are to blame anything, then perhaps we ought to blame a poor social policy for letting communities get torn apart and literally fall apart, the lack of social cohesion and alternative activities for youths to commit to.

I reckon that this post will get rated poorly, not because what I say is wrong (Not saying it's right either!), but because people want to seek the easy answer out of problems and want someone or somebody quick to blame. If I said something you don't agree with, then that's fine, but it's one perspective that perhaps carries some weight since it doesn't place all our blame on the Human Rights Act which merely codified existing laws that our common law recognises anyway. *

SirCharlez

...what Mr. Smith didn't know about "human rights" Mr. Wesson did... !

The Fat Controller

il have a look

Greg N

You can try I suppose but you'll lose.

100%Born&Bred

your completely an utterly right buy hey what the hell can anybody do about it, changing government might help

Bobby Cretin

Stop reading the Sun/the Star/etc. You are badly misinformed.

cromwell

human rights is a joke it protects the devious criminals who know the loop holes as they spend half there life in court where as decent nieve people suffer i am speaking from personal expereince the goverement dosent care about you . one example my ex a tart i was seeing herb brother was releced from prision after serving 5 years for attempted murder one night he tried to kill me in a drunken rage and when i called the police they were reluctant to press charges despite his previous convictions . they olso stated it wasent 100% he would receve a prison scentence if i did persist with legal actions even with him only one been out of jail for one month . so in the end i dropped the charges as i would be playing russian rulet with my safety if he did go to jail it would be a short scentence and as a result i would be forced to be a criminal to defend myself from this subhuman anamial and that is our great uk leagal service keeping us safe

cromwell

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: