Friday, May 12, 2006

Human Rights Act not to blame for decision

Telegraph | News | Human Rights Act not to blame for decision

Sue Welsh:
The right question to ask "Dave" and other people who grumble about the Act is, do you approve of withdrawal from the Convention?

If the answer is no, we can stay in the Convention, we just don't want the Act, then I think that means they want the respectability of belonging to a nation which says it does not condone torture, without the sometimes uncomfortable consequences which flow from taking that stance. This is hypocritical in the extreme.
Agree completely.

4 comments:

Dr. Nazli said...

MTGB: I am so excited to know that there are free thinkers (mostly from Europe it seems) who blog fearlessly.

As for "Human Rights" and blame - oxymoronic by definition

Katy Newton said...

I'm not sure I agree with you there, Mat. I think most people's problem is not the principles in the Convention but the way in which the HRA has been interpreted since coming into force. Particular problems would be things like the right to privacy, which can sometimes hamper law enforcement agencies in investigating crime and gathering intelligence.

To be honest, though, I think that the HRA has been a pretty damp squib. It's one of those things that people seize on, like "political correctness gone mad".

MatGB said...

On the second point, agree completely. On the first, I think most of the problems haven't been about what's in it, but of people being overly scared of getting things wrong.

Poorly trained staff/officer/whatever worried about a breach of the HRA instead of actually doing their jobs.

Falconer this morning was particularly obtuse.

MatGB said...

Dr. N; perhaps we're reading different US based blogs? They're out there. But yes, there are a number of blogs out there with similar approaches to ours, that's definately a good thing.