Tory human rights plan ‘could lead to departure from EU’

Bring it on!!

Dear Mr Howard A Ward

I'm at a loss where to start...

My piece reported the comments of Terry Davis, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, and concluded with a comment from Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary.

It was a balanced piece of journalism and neither quoted nor represented the views of the Law Society - and was certainly not 'propaganda' on behalf of it. We are an independent newspaper, albeit under the Law Society banner.

Human rights are what they say on the tin. Rights that we are all entitled to simply because we are human. They are what the Nazis, for example, didn't give Jews, mentally ill people, gypsies, political opponents, the people of countries they invaded and the rest. The European Convention on Human rights arose from the ashes of World War II and we scrap laws defending human rights at our peril.

Human rights are what they say on the tin. Rights that we are all entitled to simply because we are human. They are what the Nazis, for example, didn't give Jews, mentally ill people, gypsies, political opponents, the people of countries they invaded and the rest. The European Convention on Human rights arose from the ashes of World War II and we scrap laws defending human rights at our peril.

Of all the ridiculous defences of the HRA you could come up with, suggesting that those who oppose it are akin to Nazis is about the most feeble I can imagine.

Human rights are, indeed, what they say on the tin. Rights owned by humans, not given to them by anyone, at least not in traditional Common Law jurisdictions. The HRA, on the other hand, has resulted in the creation of entitlements masquerading as rights. Whereas rights offer a defence of the individual from interference by other individuals and the State, the HRA has too often been used to demand entitlements from the State paid for by others.

You demean yourself and your argument by resorting to hysterical bleating about National Socialists.

"The European Convention on Human rights arose from the ashes of World War II and we scrap laws defending human rights at our peril."

What a shrill and hysterical response from Jonathan Rayner. The enacting of a British Bill of Rights would replace the HRA. How exactly would a British Bill of Rights result in a failure to enshrine human rights in law? No one is saying that laws will be scrapped and people left without any legal protection of their rights. Maybe the real issue here that upsets Mr Rayner is the challenge this represents to European control of judicial matters.

Perhaps Mr Rayner you can explain why you consider the UK incapable of protecting human rights unless there is some element of European involvement in the process? After all, that is the only issue here - whether the European project retains its power over human rights, or whether a nation state can itself effectively protect human rights without European control.

We need a democratisation of judicial matters, not a further centralisation of them in a remote and unaccountable entity. Europe is the roadblock to democratisation as its aim is to move power further away from the people. Replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights maintained by an accountable body - Parliament - is a positive step to ensure the law serves the people. That may not be in Europe's interest but it is certainly in the interest of the British people.

Dear Mr. Rayner,

You correctly state that the ECHR was set up in the aftermath of the Second World War. A very different world with very different problems and different human rights challenges. It is now an organisation long past its ‘sell by date’ and as The Orator alluded to has become an instrument for the self indulgent and those involved in this so called human rights industry. The current governments act had, as always with them, had more to do with spin and pandering to its perceived core vote that dealing with the problem, bringing the Human Rights decisions back to this country and applying the test of basic common sense.

I did not at any time suggest that we ditch HR legislation as should have been obvious to you! If I had, your argument would clearly have had more impact, so I can understand why you inadvertently suggested it!

As with much in our legal system we need solution based upon common sense and not the professional self indulgence that we usually have to suffer. Nor can we continue to pander to the crack pot political views of the Guardian readers.

Your quote from The Shadow Justice Minister may be correct in this narrow context but he received a lot of internal flack recently for what was perceived as not going far enough.

It's no crime to have once been a former Labour MP, though judging from the sclerotic Surrey saloon bar rants of Howard A Ward and The Orator they would like it to be. Mr Rayner deserves credit for provoking such a fevered debate. Classic case of shoot the messenger!.

Re: The Guardian. How true! If only that dangerous Communist organ adhered to the rigorous editorial ethics of the always sane and reasonable Daily Mail, or the pornographer-owned Daily Express, or even the ever benign Rupert Murdoch. That would put the Great back into Britain. David Cameron writes therein quite regularly. Better watch out he's not a dastardly fifth columnist! Come on Orator admit it - you're Simon Heffer in disguise. There are many on this thread being 'shrill and hysterical' and Jonathan Rayner ain't one of 'em.

Gentleman please (and it's strange how bloggers almost always are men, don't you think?) . I fear this increasingly intemperate 'debate' is about to degenerate into playground abuse. The Dominics Grieve and Raab (Mr Grieve's chief of staff) will doubtless will be knocking the ball back over the net with interest in next week's Gazette so watch this space. In the meantime, the Conservative take on human rights is admirably summarised HERE http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/comment/a-liberty-based-approach-rig...

Paul Rogerson
Editor, Gazette

This burdensome legislation is not fit for purpose. Every time I empty my 82 year old father's bed pan I am reminded that if I was performing the same act whilst paying my "debt to society" in prison it would be contravening my human rights. This HRA empowers prisoners to launch legal actions against the state and be paid an obscene amount of money in compensation. This cannot be seen as reasonable but the insular system prevents communicating dissatisfaction to the unelected arbiters responsible?

The whole EU system is rancid, we are seemingly impotent to prevent a federalist agenda with our now emascualted democratic process. This must change and the immense burden of implementation put upon the British taxpayer must be reversed.

Please bring back power from Brussels to Westminster and stop the rapacious advance of nanny state legislation that is unecessary, unwanted and unaffordable!

The absurdity of the HRA can surely be seen in the way its consequences are at odds with traditional British liberties.

Thanks to HRA, we have moved from a distateful situation where foreign nationals could be be detained without trial OR have leave the UK, to one where every UK national or resident can now be subject to 'control orders' - the former being a breach of "human rights".

On the other hand, the HRA seems to have been useless when it comes to, say, those in Financial Services. For example, small-time sole-traders can be subject to penalties from the 'administrative' FSA enforcement procedure. Likewise, the Financial Ombudsman Service is empowered to adjudicate its cases on the basis of what is "fair and reasonable" in their own opinion rather than on the basis of, say, a rule breach occasioning a loss under s.150, FSMA. These Quangos are then largely exempt from judicial review or indeed an action in tort if their screw ups cost you your livelihood.

If that's "Human Rights" for you, then no thanks - I'd prefer just to go back to the old system of habeas corpus, trial by jury, natural justice and due process etc...

Interesting point about the Nazis v Human Rights. Would you care to recall what rights were supposedly enshrined in the Weimar constitution (and subsequently ignored)? How about the rights in the Zimbabwe constitution?

The reality was set out by Michael Oakeshott 60 years ago: freedom in England was not based on the Bill of Rights (or the writ of habeas corpus, or parliamentary democracy, trial by jury or this or that), but by the combination of such elements meaning that there were few concentrations of power...This contrasts with our current system of a highly centralised bureaucratic State, the Surveillance Society and the Quangocracy - onto which people really believe that grafting a 'Human Rights Act' can make a positive difference when clearly all it does is lead to odd results in an already dysfunctional country.

The Tory Plan of a massive shift in power away from the centre has some obvious shortcomings, but it would certainly do a lot more for traditional liberties in the UK than all the HRA or the Convention itself.

On a lighter note, is "parting company from the EU" if we bin the HRA meant as a threat or a promise? Personally, it sounds like a genuine "win-win" scenario.