BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?

Subject: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 07:04 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Watch_UK


As a codicil to the 쳌eUK Immigration too high?쳌f thread, I쳌fll here point out that the independent pressure group, MigrationWatch UK has called for the British Government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and write its own Human Rights Act.

I쳌fd be interested to know others responses


http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 07:06 AM

Condemned out of their own mouths!

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 07:59 AM

Pretty well all other countries in the EU have domestic Human Rights legislation, which are reinforced by the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom does not - all we've got in this line is the European Convention. Without it there would be no limits on what a government with a majority in Parliament could do to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 08:02 AM

On another thread I was asked why I supported the EU

I can only endorse McGrath's comments wholehearedly

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:04 AM

Mr Happy's Migrationwatch link is not helpful.

If you want what really came out of their own mouth Richard, look here.http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/8_3_Asylum_Laws_A_Way_Forward.pdf
They actually say that a better course than withdrawing would be to renegotiate the section causing all the problems.
"A better course might be to withdraw and then re-adhere having
made a reservation under Article 57 in respect of revised national
legislation."

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:23 AM

I am amazed that you think it worth starting a thread over one paragraph in the site of a very small UK pressure group!

There is nothing stopping you flouncing back into the thread you flounced out of.

Happy days.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 09:34 AM

I don't follow you, McGrath, we have the Human Rights Act, and it contains some very trick drafting to try to keep a figleaf to cover the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty - the very limited remedy of a declaration of non-conformity.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 12:34 PM

I oversimplified. The point is that the Tories have said they plan to repeal the Human Rights Act.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:17 PM

Keith, you should take the MigrationWatch document to a constitutional lawyer. Even a third year student would do. The HRA is binding in the UK, and via a sidewind of the "acquis communautaire" doctrine (EU law specialists, do not jump on this too literally, it is a simplification) may have some effect, but the general rule remains that international conventions only affect a internal law when there is a genuine ambiguity in internal law, the presumption that a state intends to honour its international obligations being rebuttable.

For an example of rebutting it, see the US's Berne Convention Implimentation Act.

Consequently, the UK is entitled to legislate to clarify the convention statement that immigrants awaiting determination may be detained, and to reverse the alleged judicial decisions (I note none were cited) that "MigrationWatch" says have the opposite effect.

Every time I look more closely at "MigrationWatch" the more it seems to me to be a sinister racist and authoritarian apologia.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 04:42 PM

Richard, I am no lawer.
Please give your lawer's solution to the problem stated.
Remember, other countries do not interpret it as our judges do.

Asylum and Immigration Acts in 12 years have failed to bring the numbers
under control. The 2002 Act seeks to speed up the process but will have no practical
effect if those who fail are not removed. One of the major obstacles to removal is the
European Convention on Human Rights, now incorporated in British law as the Human
Rights Act 1998. Article 5 (f) permits the detention of a person against whom action is
being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. However, British judges have
ruled that detention is illegal unless the deportation is imminent. Meanwhile, Article 6
provides that "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time
by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". This, in practice, means
lengthy judicial review and appeals processes. So, once a judicial review or appeal is
lodged, deportation ceases to be "imminent" and the applicant must normally be
released from detention even if his legal challenge is later shown to be meritless. It is
noteworthy that Mr Justice Munby recently criticised delays to a deportation case caused
by a string of meritless appeals (The Times 10/4/03). In other case Article 8, which
provides that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life…", can
also be brought into play. If an asylum claim has already taken a considerable period
the applicant can contest his deportation under this Article on the grounds that he has
established a family life in Britain.
7 The result is a vicious circle whereby various provisions of the two Conventions
interlock so as to prevent detention which is the only means of ensuring both a rapid turn
round of cases and effective removal.

The number of asylum seekers (including dependants) it now running at about 300 a
day. This is unmanageable unless the cases are processed within a month or so. Such a
flow can only be achieved under a new legal framework.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 05:19 PM

keith, when you say asylum seekers number 300 per day, do you mean now, yesterday, last year, 2006 or 2003? You have proven yourself quite untrustworthy on these matters so clarification is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 07:40 PM

I did.

"Consequently, the UK is entitled to legislate to clarify the convention statement that immigrants awaiting determination may be detained, and to reverse the alleged judicial decisions (I note none were cited) that "MigrationWatch" says have the opposite effect. "

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:11 AM

Royston, not me but Migrationwatch.
They made that statement back in 2003!
Mr Happy, why a thread about it now???????

This is what they are saying about asylum seekers this year.

3. Asylum is back in the news with hundreds of mainly young men seeking to cross the channel from Calais but the number of asylum claims is small compared to immigration as a whole. They are now running at about 30,000 a year - only 10% of net foreign immigration.

4. The recession is likely to reduce immigration but previous experience suggests that this will be only a temporary phenomenon, after the last three recessions immigration resumed its strong upward trend
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/outlineProblem.php

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:38 AM

thanks keith. So this time it was you lying, not migration watch. The numbers may have been true in 2003 but to introduce them now as so called evidence for your 'concerns' amounts to a lie. Good. So asylum seekers coming into the uk is not a current problematic issue. Good.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:43 AM

Royston Mr Happy raised the issue.
I merely provided the years old piece he was complaining about.
For that you call me liar?!

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:48 AM

You see Royston, that last paragraph about 300 a year was part of the 2003 statement, and not my words at all.
I gave the link. You should have used it before calling me a liar.
Will you now take that back!

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:59 AM

No Keith, I won't. In spite of being caught out time after time you keep contributing de facto lies to support your side of emotive arguments.

If irrigation happened once then one could say 'well, ok, maybe he was in hurry and he won't do it again'. But it's all you ever do. You are a liar. Your intention is to mislead people.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 04:01 AM

irrigation = it

Bloody blackberry

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 04:13 AM

You forgot "racist" Royston.
I am happy for others to decide on both smears.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 04:49 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM KAoH
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:43 AM

Royston Mr Happy raised the issue.
I merely provided the years old piece he was complaining about.
For that you call me liar?!


***************


Subject: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Mr Happy - PM MrH

11 Oct 09 - 07:04 AM

As a codicil to the 쳌eUK Immigration too high?쳌f thread, I쳌fll here point out that the independent pressure group, MigrationWatch UK has called for the British Government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and write its own Human Rights Act.

I쳌fd be interested to know others responses

****************

Now folks, get together in groups & discuss, comparing & contrasting the above 2 posts, then try to discover where, in the 2nd post, there's any reference by the poster of the emboldened 'complaint'alluded to by the 1st poster.

Next, examine other posts from the yellow individual & try to determine to what degree on a scale of 1 to 10, how his statements are inflammatory, dishonest & contradictory

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 05:54 AM

Mr Happy, I got the impression that you were not happy with Migrationwatch's old statement.
Do you in fact think it a good idea Mr.H?

If only you had posted the old statement in context yourself, I would not have needed to do it for you.

Mr.Yellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:20 AM

From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 11 Oct 09 - 02:17 PM


Every time I look more closely at "MigrationWatch" the more it seems to me to be a sinister racist and authoritarian apologia.

From: Royston - PM
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 03:59 AM

No Keith, I won't. In spite of being caught out time after time you keep contributing de facto lies to support your side of emotive arguments.

If irrigation happened once then one could say 'well, ok, maybe he was in hurry and he won't do it again'. But it's all you ever do. You are a liar. Your intention is to mislead people.


Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 12 Oct 09 - 04:13 AM

You forgot "racist" Royston.
I am happy for others to decide on both smears.


************

It's very apparent to me & others from just a small sample of their views that the decision on what you perceive as 'smears' is in fact proved

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:36 AM

I challenge and defy you to find a lie or racist statement in any post of mine.

You attack the person because to you do not like their views.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:53 AM

To be fair Keith, it is easy to mistake some of your posts for thinly concealed xenophobia. Lets be glad that we are civilised and ofer asylum, especially where the baleful influence of colonialism and economic exploitation have led to the states of affairs that they are fleeing. We call our own economic migrants the 'Brain Drain', and still think its OK to retire to almost anywhere in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 08:37 AM

Please give an example Tug.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 09:19 AM

Mr Happy, you have been busy posting elsewhere.
I asked you for a single example from my posts that justify calling me "liar" or "racist" which you stated were "proven" against me.

If you have any shred of decency you will back up your disgusting smears or withdraw them.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 10:56 AM

Mr Happy, you have again ignored my very reasonable request, and continued happily posting.

The obvious conclusion is that you found nothing to justify those disgusting accusations, but you lack the moral courage and decency to say so.

What does that make you?
Happy?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 11:15 AM

I really don쳌ft need provide you with examples, as you쳌fve proved your fallibility in the majority of your own posts which contain misleading information, either by omissions or otherwise by quoting questionable statistics from flawed sources such as Migrationwatch
However, here쳌fs just one post which IMO sums it all up:

""1I have given impeccable sources for every statement I have made.""

Impeccable according to WHO?

A Whitehall appointed government quango, a man whose activities are inextricably linked with an organisation which has a very dodgy past, if not present, and YOU.

Hardly impeccable at all then!
[Don T]

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 11:51 AM

You say I have "proved (my) fallibility in the majority of (my) own posts"
It should be easy to post an example then.
But you can not can you.
I never used the "man" as a source.
Migrationwatch only use official statistics. Find any one of them that I have used to challenge.
The quango is the ONS which IS impeccable as even Royston has admitted.

So no lies or racist remarks.
Not one.
Take it back.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 02:31 PM

"majority of your own posts which contain misleading information, either by omissions or otherwise by quoting questionable statistics from flawed sources such as Migrationwatch"

I deny any such post. Find one and rub my nose in it.

I have only quoted impeccable government statistics, including those used by Migrationwatch. Find a questionable one and rub my nose in it.

The quango. Impeccable.
The man. Professor Colman. Brought in by Emma B. I gave extracts from two articles about him. Not to support my case but to defend him.I said Royston would find his views challenging. True.
I never once used him as a source for any argument. Did I?
DID I?
I have knocked down all your points.
The only lie here is your attack on me.
Are you Happy to leave it there?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 03:06 PM

Tug the Cox, I did agree with your last post, except for the opening sentence, "it is easy to mistake some of your posts for thinly concealed xenophobia"
I ask you again to give an example of such a post, or at least reply to my request.
You found time to post elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 03:40 PM

Everyone has lost patience with you Keith.

Your 'facts' WERE true.

They are all out of date.

In the context of a discussion about NOW, where you put forward old facts, they amount to lies.

You amount to a liar.

Why do you mislead people. Some suspect you have a xenophobic or racist agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 04:10 PM

Royston, the last 15 months have been atypical because of the economic crash and the recession.
In our last exchange we discussed the post crash situation in some depth.
Immigration is a complex issue and you have to look at long term trends.
We did that as well.
How does that make either of us liars?

Why can you not discuss this without making these nasty personal attacks?
Is it because your arguments are so inadequate?

Now I challenge and defy you again.
Produce a post where I put forward anything that "amount to lies"
GO ON.
PRODUCE ONE!

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 05:03 PM

keith, you just refuse to learn.

2006 and 2007 were abnormal years because we were in an economic bubble not seen since the 1920's in which lots of people came here on temp work permits because we were awash with money and jobs for them.

Party's over, they're going home, the bubble will not return, nor will they. The points based system does not allow people to come here unless we have jobs and need them or their skills.

The points based system would not have had a great effect in 2007 - 8% you said? - because we needed those migrants and there were plenty of jobs. That is the point.

I'm not wasting any more time on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 13 Oct 09 - 07:53 PM

keith said
You found time to post elsewhere.
I've only just reopened this thread and found your post. Examples....well, I suppose it's a cumulative feeling, but I mistook thids one for veiled xenophobia.



The number of asylum seekers (including dependants) it now running at about 300 a
day. This is unmanageable unless the cases are processed within a month or so. Such a
flow can only be achieved under a new legal framework.

If you replaced ' asylum seekers' with ' hip replacement seekers' I might see veiled ageism.Or if you replaced it with ' University applicants' I might accuse you of veiled elitism. Difficult, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 01:14 AM

Thanks Tug.
mr happy started this thread about a Migrationwatch statement in 2003, but failed to quote it.
I did it for him and the bit you quoted is just part of that 2003 migration watch statement.
I produced it to help Mr Happy and you use it against me.

Thanks for conceding it was a mistake anyway.
Please now take back " "it is easy to mistake some of your posts for thinly concealed xenophobia"

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 09:51 AM

Royston, I knocked down that argument here, where I also exposed your devious and deceitful excuse for first calling me racist. thread.cfm?threadid=124011&messages=172&page=1&desc=yes#2743942
But I did not ask you to reopen old arguments.
I asked you to justify calling me racist and liar

By 28th September we had already established that there were different significant periods. On that day Emma B provided the 2009 figures and I responded.
All the figures I have ever given were dated. It was clear which period they were for. All open and honest.
That is why you cannot find a lie.
I made none.
Being no racist I have never posted any racist statement.

Royston and Happy, it is not acceptable to find time to make despicable accusation, but not to justify them.
"Proven" Mr Happy?
Then show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 10:41 AM

Keith, there are only three people here that take you seriously: You, the BNP troll and Riginslinger. What does that tell you, in spite of all your deceitful hysteria-whipping?

You apparently can't even read.

Take Tug the Cox. He said that "it was easy to mistake..." your posts as racist.

You asked him for an example.

He quoted one which he "mistook..."

So he is not contradictory and has nothing which he should withdraw.

I think you are a scaremongering xenophobe. Now that we see net Migration rates plummeting, you're still not happy? Why not? Because, so you say, the reduction in net migration is because of folks leaving. So why is that a problem for you? Because what you don't like is "johnny foreigner" continuing to arrive. At least that's the way it seems. My opinion.

I think you're not too bright. My opinion.

I think you support your fears and try to spread them with lies and misinformation. Proven fact.

We all agree now that net immigration is plummeting. For you it is somehow the wrong sort of net reduction. I see no point carrying on - the facts are settled, we differ on other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 11:34 AM

There has been a surge in emigration.
I considered the components of that surge, and explained in detail why it could not last.
Instead of repeating your tired old arguments, tell us something new.
Every recession has produced a temporary surge in emigration, which soon ended and did not effect the long term trend.
Tell us why you think this one will be any different Royston.

You have also just repeated the baseless slanders against me.
Repeat them is all you can do.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
JUST ONE QUOTE.
But you have nothing.
Just empty abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 02:31 PM

Please help me, by showing me a post, that would be easy to mistake, for thinly concealed xenophobia.
I did not realise that I made any such.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 02:33 PM

That was a reply to Tug The Cox who has just been deleted as anonymous.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 02:44 PM

Keith,

You started this whole bollocks by proving that 1997-2007 was a period of unusually high migration. That was because of the financial bubble. Unusual financials = unusual social effects.

Now that the world is returning to some sort of normality (but we haven't yet faced up to the asset price correction in the sense that property hasn't even come close its real downward correction), so will migration.

It starts with emigration, migration has a slight lag as the message gets out that the street are no longer paved with gold.

"Every recession has produced a temporary surge in emigration, which soon ended and did not effect the long term trend."

That is your extraordinary claim, so you prove it, I'm not claiming anything about previous recessions; only what is manifestly happening now based on government data.

I'm saying that based on the current situation you are whipping up a stupid hysteria in your own tiny mind and trying to bring other people into your twisted reality by lying to them. It's all bit Daily Mail / BNP.

QED

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 04:27 PM

"Every recession has produced a temporary surge in emigration, which soon ended and did not effect the long term trend."

That is your extraordinary claim, so you prove it,
OK.
The last three recessions were in 1975/6, 1981/2, and 1993.
There was a marked drop in net migration coinciding with each, but a long term upward trend continuing through the whole period up to 2006.
http://www.balancedmigration.com/briefingPapers/Will%20a%20recession%20solve%20the%20immigration%20problem%2019%20October%202008

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 04:43 PM

I do not know why the link does not work.
Use this one, scroll down and click on the heading "Will recession solve..."http://www.balancedmigration.com/briefing.php

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:06 PM

Your link doesn't work Keith, but google the article and you'll find it on the author's website - MigrationWatch.

I doubt, Keith, that you're mentally equipped for a discussion that involves exercising some original thought; I suspect that you just lap up whatever you are told by people more intelligent than you, but only in so far as it matches your own fantasy or expectation or preconception.

The first point is that the MigrationWatch data tells us nothing new. You and I both agree that net migration rises in boom years and drops in recessions. When we need migrants, they come. When there is nothing here for them, they go. The data shows this.

The second point is that the MigrationWatch data plots net migration against real GDP. So it makes it look as though the last decade of high net migration happened without any sort of economic boom.

You and I both know that this not true, as we have both lived through these boom years and we know that for the majority of people it has been more or less of a binge decade.

That is because the boom (the bubble) was fed by an asset price inflation and resultant credit boom - so the wealth in the econmoy is not reflected at all in real GDP figures. We weren't producing anything, we were just spending on tick and spending it on imports, foreign holidays, the public sector, and lots and lots of migrant workers to do the jobs we couldn't be arsed to do.

So the data from MigrationWatch is slightly disingenuous in not making clear the economic grounds for high net migration in the last ten years, but mainly it adds nothing to our discussion - we agree on the symbiosis of the economy and migration. If we have cash to spend and jobs for people to do then they will come. I don't believe those high-rollig days are ever going to return.

But until indigenous unemployed get the message that in these straitened times, they are going to have to pick fruit, harvest crops, lay bricks, fit washers to taps etc, we will need the Poles and Hungarians for a while yet.

The people complaining the loudest about unemployment tend, in my experience, to be the ones with a long list of jobs that they see as beneath them; the very reason for us having to import so many workers who are now apparently so resented.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:19 PM

Correction,

I see that the MigrationWatch dataset plots real GDP growth year-on-year as opposed to absolute GDP. It explains the disconnect on the two trend lines 1997-2008.

My main point remains true. We agree that more people are needed and more people come in the boom years. Less people in recessions.

Everything else in my 05:06 remains up for discussion. So how will we as a society adapt to having to do all the work for ourselves for less money in Keith's migrant-free world? Will Keith beat people out of bed and onto the collective/corporative work-parties?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Royston
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:20 PM

By the way, should we not paste this into "UK Immigration too high"?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 05:34 PM

Yes Royston, we should stick to one thread.
I will post my reply on the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 08:43 PM

ooops, was logged out earlier when I declined Keith's kind invitationn to take back my remark about mistaking his posts for thinly veiled xenophobia. I declined because it really is an easy mistake to make. I'm sure I could be easily mistaken over many of his posts. perhaps I'm prone to mistakes.... or.....

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 08:56 PM

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms


"The Constitution Act, 1982 (Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (UK)) is a part of the Constitution of Canada. The Act was introduced as part of Canada's process of "patriating" the constitution, introducing several amendments[1] to the British North America Act, 1867, and changing the latter's name in Canada to the Constitution Act, 1867. Elizabeth II as Queen of Canada brought the act into effect with a proclamation she signed in Ottawa on April 17, 1982.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forms the first thirty-five sections (counting section 16.1, and not counting section 35) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

To the present day, the Government of Quebec has never formally approved of the enactment of the Act, though formal consent was never necessary. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords were designed to secure approval from Quebec."



The UK could do worse than fashioning their 'Human Rights' Act after Canada's, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 14 Oct 09 - 08:57 PM

I think that immigration levels in recent years give cause for legitimate concerns

The majority of our immigrants, however, are from Africa and the Indian subcontinent

The concern is that EU incomers are very likely to return, but not those from third world countries.

People are welcome to work, send home money, save and return.

The Government claim that immigrants add £6 billion to our economy. What they do not say is that they also add to our population in almost exactly the same proportion as they add to production. Thus the benefit to the native population is very small - an outcome confirmed by major studies in the US, Canada and Holland and most recently by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The Government's own calculation, submitted in evidence to that Committee, implies an annual benefit to the resident population of only 62p per head a week (see White Paper Cm 7414 para 2.5).

Meanwhile, there are more than 300 primary schools in which over 70% have English as a second language; this is nearly a half million children.

Especially in our cities, immigration is the overwhelming factor in these issues.

Oh Crikey, how do I keep mistaking this stuff dor thinly veiled xenophobia?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 02:17 AM

Thanks Tug.
Reply on other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Oct 09 - 06:22 AM

I can think of quite a long list of (indigenous) people in my village who I would not let anywhere near my taps!

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 03:55 PM

Government still doing a great job I see.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/home-secretary-scrap-human-rights-act-083212525.html

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: ollaimh
Date: 02 Oct 11 - 09:39 PM

canada has both a federal human rights code--covering federal governmant acytivities and human rights protections in the charter of rights and freedoms. they overlap in some areas and both are plead simultaneously in many human and civil rights actions. however unlike hat was recently posted these human rights protections have proved effective in many cases. the failure of any province to ratify the constitutional amendments has no legal effect. it does piss off many quebecois but they still benefit from the constitutional human rights protections.

in addition canad has provincial human rights codes in every juristiction now--new brunswick being the last to sign on. these have provided practical and efficient remedies across the country for abuses for which the common law did nothing, or provided remedies that were too expensive , too slow or pureley symbolic. i was, for instyance harrassed in a starbucks for a while by staff and some friends of staff, for totally spurious reasons. i brought a human rights complaint and quickly got a restraining order and a small monetary judgement. in common law the defamation suit possible would have draged on for years even a decade.

most discrimination does not require a major remedy, just small payments or restraining orders, or occasionally an oder of mandamus--to do something left undone improperly.

so i strongly disagree that the uk shouldn't follow thre canadian example. quebecs opting out has not affected people in quebec getting remedies because they have the mosyt stringent human rights code in canada. quebecois may be ambivalent to the federal constitution but are usually ther most progressive people in canada on most issues.

the real problem for the uk is a human rights code on a european or canadian model would allow minorites remedies that are repugant to the british population. such as challenges to torture of irish people in northern ireland. it has already beened ruled by european commissions that the human rights of the uk did not meet international standards. the brityish reply, was typical, rule britania britannia waves the rules. they disposed of the presumption of innocence in any practical way and brought in the abusive diplock stylke courts to cover all citizens. which would not meet the normal human rights standards.

it is my belief that the uk is a society which has such deep seated and long standing bigotry on may issues that a human rights code would be helpfull but unlikely to survive as minorities getting relief would couse out cries. for example the failure to charge the murder of the bloddy sunday victums by the criminal justic system. in canada that would be failure to provide equal protection before and under the law as provided by the charter, in a section that cannot be opted out of. when people die by acts of volition they must be dealt with by criminal authorties at least as much as to provide a finding that a conviction could not likely be secured. usually this means that acts of volition causing death in any circumstances are charged and the prosecutors let the chips fall where they may. whethter the killers are soldiers , minorites or police. after that there can be abuses but they can't just sweep it all under the carpet very often.there are still human and civil rights abuses in canada, especially against the natyive population, but we are making progress--not nearly enough but we are miles ahead of the old bigoted empire--er that was british empire

of course i find the discussion of human rights in britain ironic as the british empire and its successors have one of the world's worst human rights records. the elephant in the room that "reasonable " people like richard bridges just ignore. it would interesting to have a human rights code that allows citizens of former colonies sek redress for the many ethnic cleansings murders wrongfull arrests and adminstrative discrimination in religion, education and government services. all highlighting the predicament. an imperial state has to really come clean if it wants to establish believable human and civil .

i do applaud cameron's public admissions of complicity in many of the world's worst ethnic disptes and in northern ireland but the out cry against him for these admissions show its a long way to tipperary.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 03:09 AM

With all due respect to Olly and his giant french fries (several hundred chips) on both shoulders, at the times of which he speaks the UK did not have a Human Rights Act - and very possibly it would have reduced the occurrence of the things of which he speaks.

What Cameron and in particular Ms May want to do is to prevent any effective protection for human rights (and such a reduction is what White Man supports).

The particular idiocy of the Cameronian position is that the Human Rights Act was drafted with the greatest care so that a UK Statute may require an outcome that is not compatible with the convention, and the greatest remedy that the courts can then provide is a "declaration of incompatibility", which in the face of government determination achieves precisely nothing - and not even the sterling work of Mr Justice Collins can change that.

I am now off this thread - Olly and White man, you deserve each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 03:35 AM

We have The Human Rights Act. Ok.

I do a lot for a government regulator and we get the obligations drummed into our heads at every point.

My experience, which is not all encompassing nor indeed in great detail, would suggest we take our obligations seriously. In fact, (again, my opinion rather than trying to force a fact here..) I reckon it is precisely because we take obligations seriously that we have so many Euro Sceptics, whilst other countries may sign anything in order to keep the gravy train running, but pay no more than lip service to what it may entail.

I was subject to a lowering of human rights in 1984, even physically barred from walking home once as my route was past the pit. The Prime Minister of the day called us "the enemy within."

Yeah, we need something and for now, The Human Rights Act and external scrutiny in The European Courts is enough to keep a bit of a lid on excessive excitement amongst politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 04:11 AM

Excellent post ollaimh. It is time to scrap the venal European "yuman rites act " and replace it with a British Bill of Rights.


Ignore that little tantrum by Richard the Turd, he is just pissed at putting all his effort into selling pegs on behalf of the Dale Farm pikeys.


We have glaring evidence that the perverse rulings of Left-wing judges in human rights cases are not only an affront to natural justice but pose a clear and present danger to our national security.


Foe example, those involved in acts to murder British citizens in London on July 21, 2005, are back on the streets after serving disgracefully short prison sentences.
Eritrean national Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali was released halfway through his nine-year jail term and is living in a bail hostel. Somali Ismail Abdurahman spent just three years behind bars before being freed.

Both men were convicted of providing support to the gang of five Al Qaeda terrorists who intended to repeat the carnage of two weeks earlier on the London Transport network, which claimed 52 lives and wounded hundreds of commuters.

The fact that they were let out halfway through their sentences is another shocking indictment of the deceit of our so-called criminal justice system. No one ever serves their full tariff.

In America, they'd be serving 35 years to life, as a basis for negotiation, without prospect of parole.

We can't even deport them to Eritrea or Somalia because the courts have decided that their lives could be in danger if they were returned home and it would therefore be an infringement of their inalienable yuman rites.

Consequently, they are free to mingle with the very people they planned to murder and the hard-pressed security services have to spend a vast amount of money and manpower to keep them under constant surveillance.


Convicted foreign terrorists routinely argue that they would face torture, or worse, if they were repatriated. The courts always take them at their word. It is time for change, come on Dave, this country needs you.

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 12:42 PM

Well, this was fun. Keith, I've never thought of you as awful, FYI.

I am not exactly for any individual nation having a bill of rights that only applies to their citizens. I mean, sure, the Americans had one back when nobody else did, but that was then, this is now.

I would like to see a world-wide bill of human rights.

It bugs me when I hear politicians saying things like Every American should have the right to blah blah. What about every person?

Subject: RE: BS: Human Rights: UK Withdrawal?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Oct 11 - 06:14 PM

""It bugs me when I hear politicians saying things like Every American should have the right to blah blah. What about every person?""

As far as the American politicians are concerned, the only "Americans" are those with six figure or greater incomes, and if they regard the poor and disadvantaged in their own country as "non-citizens" and "losers", why would you expect them to give a good Goddamn about the people of other countries.

When "EVERY AMERICAN" actually means what it says.........maybe, but I doubt that'll ever happen.

Don T.