Theresa May to fight 2020 election on plans to take Britain out of EC Human Rights

[original PM]

Dont confuse the Brexiters with facts. Brexit means Brexit. It has Europe in the name therfore we voted out.

Well it was a bit more about not having to comply with regulations which quite clearly flew in the face of sanity.

So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights.

So you know maybe think about what it actually means before you blunder headlong into another 'Brexiters are stupid, remainers are great' rant.

Just saying loike!

[BlasterBates]

Dont confuse the Brexiters with facts. Brexit means Brexit. It has Europe in the name therfore we voted out.

Absolutely....

European Court of Human Rights rules in favour of extradition Abu Hamza

[NickFitz]

Well it was a bit more about not having to comply with regulations which quite clearly flew in the face of sanity.

So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights.

So you know maybe think about what it actually means before you blunder headlong into another 'Brexiters are stupid, remainers are great' rant.

Just saying loike!

"On 8 July 2010, the ECtHR temporarily blocked Hamza's extradition to the United States to face terrorism charges until the court was satisfied that he would not be treated inhumanely. The court based its judgement on ECHR, which applies to British law. It is an absolute prohibition for a signatory to the ECHR to remove anyone to a place where they would be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment… On 24 September 2012, the court said he could be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ha..._United_States

So it all turned out right once the correct procedures had been followed. I really don't see what the problem is with ensuring that even thoroughly objectionable people are dealt with according to the due process of the law.

That's the one case you cited dealt with. Perhaps you'd now like to cite some cases where the ECHR has protected people from injustice? Or is considering both sides of a complex question too much to ask for?

[original PM]

"On 8 July 2010, the ECtHR temporarily blocked Hamza's extradition to the United States to face terrorism charges until the court was satisfied that he would not be treated inhumanely. The court based its judgement on ECHR, which applies to British law. It is an absolute prohibition for a signatory to the ECHR to remove anyone to a place where they would be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment… On 24 September 2012, the court said he could be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ha..._United_States

So it all turned out right once the correct procedures had been followed. I really don't see what the problem is with ensuring that even thoroughly objectionable people are dealt with according to the due process of the law.

That's the one case you cited dealt with. Perhaps you'd now like to cite some cases where the ECHR has protected people from injustice? Or is considering both sides of a complex question too much to ask for?

The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

I think it is the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision......

Or are you concerned that this is just the first step towards a totalitarian state?

[NotAllThere]

---
So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights...

Wrong. We couldn't initially allow the extradition of Abu Hamza because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that certain guarantees were required first.

Plenty of people here will quite happily preach hate and encourage people to abuse other people's human rights. In the UK there's this thing call freedom of speech. When he over-stepped the mark, he was arrested and charged. Eventually...

[VectraMan]

The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

Obviously not, as otherwise why would anybody be talking about leaving?

[GB9]

The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

I think it is the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision......

Or are you concerned that this is just the first step towards a totalitarian state?

We aren't socialist enough to make the correct decisions.

Yes, the EU is becoming totalitarian, hence the need for an EU army.

Good to see the pro-EU lobby are still posting drivel during the break though. Makes you wonder if they are bots of some sort.

[NickFitz]

The point is why do we have to have a European Court tell us what is right and or wrong?

It is a complex question but are we not mature enough as a nation to be able to manage that ourselves?

I think it is the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision......

Or are you concerned that this is just the first step towards a totalitarian state?

Because we won the war. The ECHR was drafted under the supervision of a British MP and lawyer, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who had been a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials - the prime example up to that point of an international court successfully holding the representatives of a nation state to account for criminal injustices they had perpetrated.

So maybe the question should be, why do the nations of Europe (not members of the EC, which is a completely separate thing) submit to a court created primarily under the supervision of the British to tell them what is right or wrong? And the answer would be that it is because a trans-national authority is seen as the most effective way of preventing the rise, in any of the nations subject to its authority, of a totalitarian regime that abuses the rights of its citizens and commits crimes against humanity. Quite reasonable goals, I reckon.

As the UK legal system incorporates a commitment to be bound by the rulings of the ECtHR, there is no question of not "managing that ourselves". The ECtHR is ourselves (in the sense of the British state), along with others, and the British legal system incorporates it on the grounds that the greater good is best served by accepting overarching legal obligations that are beyond the self-interested control of the government of the day.

And "the assumption that if someone does not like what the UK legal system says then they can take that ruling to another body who seem to be able to overrule the UK legal decision" is a false assumption. A UK legal decision can be overruled by the ECtHR if it is against the ECHR, and for no other reason. If it's against the ECHR, it is not a legally valid decision under UK law. It's no different to the Appeals Court overruling a lower court on the grounds that it failed to take some aspect of the law into account.

[BlasterBates]

https://www.bihr.org.uk/theconvention

Yes interesting.

The UK played a significant role in creating and writing the ECHR:

Winston Churchill called for ‘Human Rights Charter’ in the aftermath of World War II. He spoke about the strength derived from our sense of common values, and the Charter being “guarded by freedom and sustained by law” which ensured that “people owned the government, and not the government the people” (speech at The Hague, 1948).
One of the key writers of the ECHR was the British lawyer and Conservative politician David Maxwell Fyfe, who went on to become the UK’s Home Secretary.
The UK was one of the first states to sign the ECHR on 4 November 1950.

Leaving the ECHR is nothing more than showing two fingers at Winston Churchill, a populist policy designed to appease the "hard of thinking" who avidly read the Daily Mail and the Sun and hate the ECHR for no other reason than the word "European" is part of the name.

[BlueSharp]

Well it was a bit more about not having to comply with regulations which quite clearly flew in the face of sanity.

So we cannot deport Abu Hamza the hook man - because it will be against his human rights - while all the time he is preaching hate and encouraging people to abuse other peoples human rights.

So you know maybe think about what it actually means before you blunder headlong into another 'Brexiters are stupid, remainers are great' rant.

Just saying loike!

Imagine a court demanding that someone gets a fair trial before being deported, unless of course you think it's acceptable to use torture to gain evidence? Once assurances were given that was the case the ECHR agreed he could be deported.

Unfortunately some who voted Brexit believed we could 'send them back' but we would have to leave the ECHR to do that not the e.u.