Reply to: Blimey we shoot a known gangster its hand wring time yet the Kenyans use rockets

[sasguru]

In other words, the home secretary tried to use powers that he didn't have while he could have gained those powers by going through parliament and getting them on the statute book. The judgment balances the rights of everybody in that it clearly shows that a minister must not rule by decree, but by law.

So the (perhaps unfortunate) result of the case is either a consequence of the Home Secretary's incompetence or his disregard for parliament, or both, and not a consequence of the human rights act itself.

True. And I'd rather have an independent judiciary (even if that caused some criminals to go free) than have (like the vast majority of the world) a judiciary controlled by government for its own purposes.

[Mich the Tester]

Ok look at this case ,explain why you think this balances the rights of the victims with the criminals ?

In the written ruling, Lord Justice Brooke said: "We commend the judge [Mr Justice Sullivan] for an impeccable judgment.
"The history of this case through the criminal courts ... has attracted a degree of opprobrium. Judges and adjudicators have to apply the law as they find it, and not as they might wish it to be."
"So far as the powers of the home secretary are concerned, the challenges created by the respondents' presence in this country have been apparent ever since they landed here over six years ago.
"There has been ample time for the home secretary to obtain appropriate Parliamentary authority, if he wished to be clothed with the powers he gave to himself without parliamentary sanction in the August 2005 asylum policy instructions."

In other words, the home secretary tried to use powers that he didn't have while he could have gained those powers by going through parliament and getting them on the statute book. The judgment balances the rights of everybody in that it clearly shows that a minister must not rule by decree, but by law.

So the (perhaps unfortunate) result of the case is either a consequence of the Home Secretary's incompetence or his disregard for parliament, or both, and not a consequence of the human rights act itself.

[sasguru]

Ok fair dos.
Although having read that, it doesn't support your claim that the victims are considered less than the criminals.
It's a more complex case than that. These guys were fleeing a murderous regime, they apologised for the fear they caused and their intention (which I maintain is important) was not to cause harm.

[amcdonald]

Well yes, you can argue about the interpretations just as you can argue over the interpretations of most laws, but why not tell us which particular articles you find objectionable first, before throwing a question back?

Ok look at this case ,explain why you think this balances the rights of the victims with the criminals ?

[Mich the Tester]

Which bit don't you understand ?

I'm just guessing as to what he doesn't understand; the bit where you say the human rights act gives more rights to criminals than victims, and at least two of us were hoping you could show us the exact parts of the act that do that.

[amcdonald]

No you're the one making the claim, you have to prove it.
Can't be hard to give some examples if your claim is true.
Unless you're JAC.

Which bit don't you understand ?

[Mich the Tester]

It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

Citation required for when they don't

Well yes, you can argue about the interpretations just as you can argue over the interpretations of most laws, but why not tell us which particular articles you find objectionable first, before throwing a question back?

[sasguru]

It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

Citation required for when they don't

No you're the one making the claim, you have to prove it.
Can't be hard to give some examples if your claim is true.
Unless you're JAC.

[amcdonald]

Which articles give more rights to criminals than victims?

It's the interpretation that is important, in practice they do.

Citation required for when they don't

[Mich the Tester]

The human rights act

Which articles give more rights to criminals than victims?

[amcdonald]

No the question was why do you think criminals have more rights than victims.?
Got any specifics you can tell me or are you JAC?

The human rights act, which strictly also gives rights to corporations as well

GBTNS

[sasguru]

Because the establisment wants us to live in fear

No the question was why do you think criminals have more rights than victims.?
Got any specifics you can tell me or are you JAC?

[amcdonald]

Do we? How so?

Because the establisment wants us to live in fear

[sasguru]

But the point is we live in a society where criminals have more rights than victims, hence I think he was just trying to outline the contrast

Do we? How so?

[amcdonald]

Surely it's absolutely right to hold an inquest on the use of guns in a case where a suspect has died? And what's this about 'the left'? Are you implying that anyone who wants to find out the truth of these cases is somehow from 'the left'?

Again, I'd suggest these were very different situations that are difficult to compare, and the comparison doesn't really inform debate very much.

But the point is we live in a society where criminals have more rights than victims, hence I think he was just trying to outline the contrast