´óÏó´«Ã½

The European Human Rights Act - probably among the worst peices of legislation of the 20th century.... and nothing whatever to do with true 'human rights'.

John: There's no such thing as the European Human Rights Act. The HRA is an Act of the UK parliament, which incorporates many (but not all) of the provisions of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. This Act makes me feel proud to be British. If you are so opposed to it, why not actuallys state which provision or article you find so offensive? Would it be the article banning capital punishment? Or the article banning torture? I see you're writing from the United States, where the right to execute and torture is closely guarded.

David-

Let's leave your anti-Americanism out of this. I'm a British citizen who approves of the "closely guarded" right to execute in the United States. And my comment was not intended to be a comprehensive list of my problems with the Human Rights Act: that would take a lifetime.

John -

Be my guest. Give me three rights from the Human Rights Act you have a problem with ...

I was born in the USA [and I live in the USA]. If there was true freedom, other alternative parties would be standing for office on the same competitive stature with the Twiddle Dum and Twiddle Dee of US Politics [the Republicans and Democrats]. I hope one day to see the Libertarians or even Greens dominate US Politics.

David- What I said was that it was the worst piece of legislation of the 20th century. It was European in nature, if not in actuality. It was badly written, so as to leave unintended or unforeseen court challenges based on its precepts. My comments are also in context of my belief that it would be better for the UK to withdraw from the EU (putting the EU in a position of authority in UK lawmaking is like leaving your car keys with Dennis The Menace). I don't understand how a piece of legislation that has been used in practice to put the rights of criminals above the rights of their victims can be regarded so highly (see the Anthony Rice case, for example). The idea that the UK must put up foreign criminals using taxpayer cash because the HRA denies them the right to deport them is worrying. If we are really talking about individual rights, then it is clear that the individuals who have benefited most from the HRA are criminals and terrorists. Is that what the legislation is trying to achieve? And the reason I hate the HRA is the same reason that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and the Guardian love it - it’s based on the trendy notion that criminals are created by society and aren’t looked after well enough.

It’s the worst piece of legislation of the 20th century not because of its provisions, per se, but because of its subsequent interpretation in court. You say the HRA makes you feel proud to be British. Do you feel then that it’s a better accomplishment for the UK than, for example, the Bill of Rights was in the United States?

John -

1.The human rights act is the worst law of the 20th century? Worse than the Nazi laws? Come on! You're letting your ideological commitments get the better of your common sense. I think, after that comment from you, it would be wiser to dismiss your subsequent comments as beyond contempt; but I'll resist that temptation and correct a few more myths you're perpetuating.
2.Court challenges – there are court cases related to every law, not just the HRA.
3.Your views on the UK's place in the EU are irrelevant to this discussion about the human rights act.
4.You give the example of the Anthony Rice case as an example of how the Human Rights Act puts the rights of criminals above the rights of victims. Yet again, you simply repeat deceits and inaccuracies: the Rice case has nothing to do with the Human Rights Acts. He was released under entirely different legislation having to do with parole policy (see the government report on the case:
5.You think it's appalling that the UK must give shelter to a foreign criminal because the HRA doesn't permit deportation is also inaccurate. The HRA does permit the deportation of foreign criminals – unless that person is likely, in the judgment of a UK court, to face execution or torture in their home country. What would you prefer? That we return someone to face death? As a UK tax payer (unlike you), I consider my taxes well spent by the Home Office if they protect another human being from unjust and abusive treatment.
6.Your comment about the HRA being produced by the notion that criminals are socially constructed is bizarre. The HRA was produced by a concern to establish international legal protections to prevent the kinds of abuses we saw in Europe prior to and during WW2. You call this trendy? Would that it WAS fashionable to protect people from oppression.
7.Then you switch your argument – you change your mind. Since you can't actually identify a provision of the Act that is so clearly offensive, you regroup and argue that this is the worst law in a century within Europe because os subsequent interpretations by the courts. So I ask you: Which interpretations? Which court? Let's see your evidence. At the risk of sounding cynical, your comments so far suggest that you've never actually read the Act.
8.Then you throw up a naïve comment about whether the HRA is a better piece of legislation than the US Bill of Rights. The US Bill of Rights - being the first ten ammendments to the US Constitution - is an extremely impressive body of constitutional law. Yet the Bill of Rights was clearly insufficent, hence the need to add further amendments to the US constitution. Take, for example, the issue of slavery. The Bill of Rights did not protect black Americans from the scourge of slavery, and it did not establish the equal rights of female Americans. So clearly it is imperfect. Would I prefer to live in a society governed in accordance with the orginal Bill of Rights (those first ten amendments) or the Human Rights Act of 1998? In a second, I would opt for the Human Rights Act.

John, you do no justice to the supposed Libertarian principles of your own blog by writing in such a lazy and ill-informed fashion about a matter as important as this. I respect your right to disagree about the Human Rights Act, but please use arguments that are based on the truth. Your arguments here are an assault on legal education, basic logic, and plain common sense.

David- I will start by admitting that you have a point when you say I haven't done this important topic justice here; I have been extremely busy, and I must offer the excuse that lack of time forced me to rush my earlier comments. I appreciate your reply, and your criticism. If William (and ´óÏó´«Ã½ webmaster) doesn't mind, I'd like to offer a response.

'WORST piece of legislation' - maybe I overstated that. Worst piece of existing UK legislation - it's a contender. The Human Rights Act is written so as to leave a lot open for wide interpretation by judges. You seem to imply that I changed tack halfway through my thought process by saying that it was *interpretation rather than the actual *provisions of the law that I find so unacceptable. I never even attempted to list any provisions of the Act (though there are several I could - it's simply the case that the legislation is being used by the wrong people to claim the wrong rights, subsequent to its being signed into law.

For example, the foreign criminals thing. As PM Tony Blair said, "We can't have a situation in which people who hijack a plane we are not able to deport back to their country. It is not an abuse of justice for us to order their deportation. It is an abuse of common-sense, frankly, to be in a position where we can't do this." In commentator Carole Malone's she documented her outrage. I think you'd find most Brits unable to feel much sympathy for this particular group's plight in Afghanistan were they deported.

I suspect from your writing style David that you are from an academic background of some kind. Unfortunately academia suffers from a shortage of people offering tenacious opinions contrary to the left-wing standard, so you may not be aware of the reasons this legislation is so unpopular in the United Kingdom. Hard-working British people are sick and tired of being forced to give up rights of their own to compensate others who are undeserving of such lavish treatment. The well-intended HRA just came at the wrong time for a working, law-abiding public who feel completely fed up.

I simply think that the UK could do better than the Human Rights Act and better than the European Convention on Human Rights. And yes, starting with modelling the US Bill of Rights would be better than starting with an European barrage of leftist drivel.

John - it's almost impossible to find a place to start in addressing the sub-Littlejohn nature of your responses here, given the lack of merit of most of what you say. (That's not a compliment, by the way, although I'm sure big Dickie is right up your street).

Much UK law is open to interpretation by judges; anyone with a basic knowledge of the law will tell you that. I was going to ask if you'd studied even basic law but don't feel I need to - the reverse snobbery about academia evident in your comments here suggests some sort of defecit in that regard. I'm no academic (can you tell from my writing style? another of your talents is determining people's backgrounds by their sentence structure, apparently), but I don't have that sort of chip on my shoulder either.

Oh yeah, about that - "academia suffers from a shortage of people offering tenacious opinions contrary to the left-wing standard." So - if I'm right about how you're reading this - the people who have been trained to conduct research and whose livelihood depends on rigorous investigation and review by their peers broadly take (in your view) a 'leftist' position on this matter.

While I don't believe this to be true, if it were, that would suggest that a 'left-wing standard' was the view arrived at by those with the most in-depth knowledge of the arguments. Or have I misunderstood again?

Alternatively, keep believing in the left-wing conspiracy. Incidentally, are the terms 'European' and 'leftist' interchangeable, because you seem to treat them as such? Again, I imagine this is more to do with your ignorance than any actual reasoning on your part; where, for example, would you suggest the ideological compass of the single biggest grouping in the EU parliament points at the minute? (Never let the facts get in the way of an erroneous perception).

Hmm. I had a quick flick through your blog and am amused at the constant references to lefties and leftists. Is anyone NOT a part of the global socialist conspiracy? What in the name of *insert deity* has an outdated economic/ideological theory got to do with human rights, anyway? You know that using 'the left' as shorthand for anything you decide you don't like is lazy and sloppy, don't you?

In summary - the original blog post references lawyers, legal academics etc, and David Green asks you to point out the ACTUAL problems you have with the Act itself (NOT your perceptions of the Act, or your Dr Strangelove-style reactions to anything European).

In response, you provide a link to the Daily Mirror and a plethora of unsubstantiated opinion.

Nothing wrong with that in itself, but don't expect anyone who actually has been through any sort of academic training, or who understands that opinions should backed up to be taken seriously, to find you anything but laughable.

Tell me, why is it you don't open up your 'blog' to comments again?

Jonny-

Thanks for the laugh. Are you always this pleasant?

"Much UK law is open to interpretation by judges; anyone with a basic knowledge of the law will tell you that," - yup. And your point is..? MY point was that the HRA is an example of bad lawmaking because it is open to wide interpretation by judges, and that the UK could do better. I made no comment on "much UK law". The best legislation, in this sense, is the legislation that requires least guesswork for judges.

"Another of your talents is determining people's backgrounds by their sentence structure, apparently..." - well, David Green is free to correct me on that point. What can I say, Jonny, m'lad? I have a gift.

"...a 'left-wing standard' was the view arrived at by those with the most in-depth knowledge of the arguments. Or have I misunderstood again?" - No, you got me right. But that doesn't mean they are correct. A great portion of what we believe is merely gleaned from those we spend most of our time with. A majority of our professors today are politically left-wing, and that has certain repercussions, but the arena of argument is still the proving ground. I have spent a lot of my adult life with 'academics' - believe me, it is no reverse snobbery; simply an observation.

"...keep believing in the left-wing conspiracy." - I didn't say there was a conspiracy, dude.

"...are the terms 'European' and 'leftist' interchangeable?" - Sometimes.

"I had a quick flick through your blog and am amused at the constant references to lefties and leftists." - Yes, that's what my blog is ABOUT ... it argues for libertarian ideals as opposed to what the Left or the Right are saying. Do try and keep up.

"What in the name of *insert deity* has an outdated economic/ideological theory got to do with human rights, anyway?" - I assume you're referring to my use of the word 'leftist' or 'leftism' or 'Left' to describe those who are on that side of the political spectrum. If so, this is an extremely naive comment. You may want to do some yourself (or don't you like the Wikipedia link either?). The reason I normally use 'left' rather than 'liberal' is because I don't think 'liberals' are all that liberal.

So it has EVERYTHING to do with human rights. But I can't see where I've used the word 'left' before now in this discussion of the HRA... so, in the name of *insert deity*, just where were you going with all this???

The central difficulty with human rights is twofold:

1. They are feudal, in that they constitute entitlements handed down by an elite with reference to that elite's determination of one's membership of a particular class or identity group.

2. They are the legal equivalent of economic central planning (which is also feudal), by which an elite decides what is one person's due in life - which inevitably means that some other person has less of a due: on this measure, the law is not a blind arbiter so much as a determinative tool of redistributive fetishes.

Huxley cannot be repeated too often: "liberties are not given, they are taken".

Jonny -

Thanks for your valiant efforts to reason with John Wright. His ill-informed, culturally paranoid rants are probably the result of spending too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh. Rush, as in rush to judgment. I can spot a "ditto-head" a mile away.

Uhhh.... yeah, cause Limbaugh talks about the UK Human Rights Act, and is a libertarian. (???) If you guys actually want to discuss what I write about in my blog, feel free to write me and we'll go for coffee sometime, I'll be in Belfast next month. But you're way off base on this one.