That 2nd conceren is what many like to call a "check and balances system". Getting rid of that judicial check for human rights is a slipperly slope ripe for exploitation by politicians.
@@mikemartin6748 well, if you take a look at history, the UK has not the greatest trackrecord of upholding human rights of its own citizens and other people more on the contrary.
@@mikemartin6748 I think Ireland might have something to say about the UK's views on human rights. On a completely unrelated note, the GFA was also signed in 1998. Fancy that.
It's very convenient for all those in British politics who hate to EU to forget the ECHR was proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted by primarily British legal experts... It's literally the most British thing since the Queen and has nothing to do with the EU
The EU and the ECHR are two completely different things. It says so here in this video. The EU is a bloated tyrannical economic bloc. The ECHR is a court of appeal.
@@adamross6474 the UK polled the electorate and entered into a negotiated process set down in an agreed treaty in order to leave the EU, I think you have vastly misunderstood the meaning of tyranny
Having a monarch itself in this age and age is cringe, and contrary to the dignity of free citizens. If you willing bow and prostate yourself before a infant who happened to inherit the crown, you show that you are servile person, barely deserving basic human dignity. Such behavior is an outward token the government's authority rests in and off itself, and does not come from the electorate, reducing the people from free citizens to servile subjects.
Exactly. The entire government is summed up by the sentences 'And once said that he (Dominic Raab) doesn't believe in economic or social rights. When he was appointed Justice Secretary.....' It doesn't matter what it looks like now. The goal is to decouple human rights provision from EU legislation and wrestle control..... so that it can be gradually eaten away in the next 10 years piece by piece.
I wouldn't trust this government to do anything. Honestly, after their terrible track record and constant lies, I have no idea why anyone would be voting Conservative.
Same as having a Home secretary who want to bring back Hanging... Or having a proven pathological lier and cheater as PM... I mean, we got one of the worst combination possible in the government in history.
@@idontwanttopickone It's the same way in America, and there's just no stopping these conservative loons. Most people already have nothing, but yet we're going to have to give more and more to the corporations as time goes on
When ministers start wanting to remove rights on the basis of "liberty" you know you're fucked living in that country. Wish us luck lol Edit: also "innovative policy" that's inhibited by human rights sounds possibly a bit genocidey/warcrimey
They probably want to have an easier time deporting immigrants. I’m an immigrant living in the US and there’s always been very little paperwork between me and an ICE officer. If you consider that climate refugees would flock to places like the UK in the case of a massive drought or flood, this begins to make sense. The UK knows that a lot of the countries vulnerable to climate impact are ex-colonies that would see the UK as the place to go to. They probably want to be able to bar refugees from coming in large groups. But this is just speculation in my behalf. We still need to see the actual white papers, and it’s also not a given that it will go into law. That being said, good luck 🍀
they have already started innovating their response to attempts to speak truth to power. I'm reading "give secret police more power" "create gulags" "rebranding activists as terrorists" "create a sky floating second london for them that an afford it so they don't need to watch the rest of us live in a trash heap"
@@gabrielsoto1693 I'm a UK citizen and they can expell me and revoke my citizenship without even notifying me. All that's stopping them I guess is this human rights bill they're trying to repel. They don't just want to deport immigrants, they want to deport anyone they don't like.
The worse is that in a functioning democracy where politics and judiciary are constitutionally separate, the Judiciary is the only ‘mostly’ impartial meritocrat system in power with actual professionals at the helm. That’s why politicians hate it, they are actually held accountable by a proper judiciary in regards to their laws and the fundamental rights of the people!
The judiciary isn't meritocratic. It's influenced by the culture it operates in and therefore copies and strengthens historical power centres. It's conservative by nature.
This is a good point. How the Judiciary is selected, then, becomes a critical process. I live in a part of the U.S. where certain judges are elected! But to be eligible to hold office, they have to meet certain professional criteria defined by law. And they face retention elections too, so their power is not unlimited. It's probably too complex. But it touches upon essentially how the Judiciary take and retain power.
@@aussietom85 not really. Judicial activism is a reality in many countries, with judges conjuring up novel interpretations of existing laws that the people who wrote those laws would have thoroughly rejected. Judges as a whole are neither more nor less conservative than the overall population.
Why not just declare Brits as non human. This would get around the unpopular decision to scrap the human rights act. Just let the tories decide who counts as a human and who doesn't.
I mean, you have a spine, so you already have rights as a sentient being according to this British government. Why the need for extra rights just because you're a human being? I don't see an issue with tearing it up and lumping the British public in with the other animals. There are too many rights. It's too much reading for poor MPs.
I've lost the confidence that this government will do anything with a moral approach. That's sad because even if they want to, it creates a doubt on their sincerity. First and foremost a government should maintain trust in the people, this government has lost it.
Everything in this video makes me think that the UK needs that Human Rights Act more than ever. Every example of where the govt thinks the act is problematic just seem like great examples of the act actually doing what it was supposed to do, and how the British should probably be glad to have it
From the outside (Germany) looking in a politician saying he "doesn't believe in economic and social rights" is ... mind boggling. To me this looks like current UK government has a bunch of laws on the agenda that would oppose the HRA and want to make sure they can pass them, which is scary.
Might surprise you, but our own version of the Bill of Rights (Art. 1-19 GG) doesn't contain any sort of economic or social rights either, excepting a vague reference to mothers being entitled to the support of the community and state control of (and so indirectly responsibility for) all education. Human rights are basically what the government is NOT allowed to do to you, rather than things it has to do for you. That way, even the poorest country in the world can reasonably claim not to violate their people's human rights. Of course, it might be good policy for a government/society to ensure everyone has access to a variety of things, or even the morally right thing to do, but if it just can't, that doesn't in itself constitute a violation of human rights.
Wait until Rishi reveals his brand new "Oxygen tax" where you are not permitted to breathe without a licence. Also, the innovative MOP department - Ministry of Pavements who can issue fines for uninsured shoe wearers.
@@alanlittle4589 half price oxygen tax if you sing god save the queen every morning in front of your government approved security camera installed for your "safety".
"Innovative policies" is an interesting euphemism. What all this boils down to is that the HRA is a check on the government's power, and politicians - especially conservative ones - don't like that. It's just something they grudgingly have to accept. The current cabinet seem to have looked across the Atlantic and asked themselves whether they could actually have their cake and eat it, too. I believe Bojo even said as much at one point.
Yup, the HRA is the closest thing UK citizens have to constitutional rights, but a simple majority vote by Parliament can remove those rights. Normally countries with constitutions make it very hard to amend the constitution (example the US which requires 2/3rds majorities in both houses of congress and ratification by 3/4ths of state legislatures)
Genuine laughing out loud 😂 it's funny and absolutely f****** terrifying simultaneously.... I've genuinely bought some Swiss francs, not a lot because I am hardly well off. Because I don't feel safe in our economic security... Breaking our rights is one thing, breaking the economy, intentionally, or not, can tear society apart.
The Tories really do want to become the ultimate, unquestionable authority in the land. If they get away with this and their proposed Interpretations Bill (which basically says MPs can overturn court decisions) then there will be no checks and balances.
I'm disabled, dealing with a benefits system for years that was already ruled as violating human rights nearly a decade ago. Almost nothing has changed besides ATOS changing the name of the subsidiary. I'm very aware that my human rights mean nothing. And yet, this still feels like another step into authoritarianism.
So uh, if I understand correctly, some of the problems with the current HRA is that is prohibits torture and forces the government to invest in your security and health?..
I honestly thought you were going to say "the right to trial by combat" when talking about traditional British rights. But I honestly don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion on this, I just know the government has done a pretty good job at making my life considerably more difficult with Brexit so I doubt they have my best interest in mind.
Most of the "controversy" around the human rights act is based on fabricated stories in the tabloids, like a convicted terrorist being blocked from deportation because he has a cat, or asylum seekers being housed in 5 star hotels because to do anything else would infringe on their rights. In my view using evidence acquired through torture in British courts is something I'm quite happy to see called out. And the ruling on prisoners voting only said that it was wrong to have a blanket ban on all prisoners voting, it would be totally acceptable to have a ban on voting imposed as part of the punishment if it was deemed appropriate. Meaning that if, for example, someone is given a 2 week prison sentence for refusing to pay a disputed speeding ticket, and a general election just happened to take place while that sentence was being carried out, that person wouldn't automatically be denied a vote. But if someone was sentenced to prison for two weeks for election fraud at the same time the law might stipulate that even for such a short sentence a denial of the right to vote was appropriate. Just common sense stuff. But the one thing our torys don't like is being told to do common sense things. And the only thing worse is being told to do common sense things by foreigners
I saw deportation and I was thinking that the law is questionable. Then I saw torture and I could imagine it being way more common should this "british bill of rights" be accepted.
Well V for vendetta was published during Thatcher's time and was speaking out against the politician who he thought was a supreme fascist and that her conservative party was dedicated to ushering in a new era of totalitarianism in the UK. Looks like he might not of been wrong and BoJo and crew are here to finish her work.
The first issue just makes sense, especially post brexit. It's almost contradictory in a sense. However making it so the supreme court can't over rule is a massive alarm bell all by itself. the third point at face value seems logical too. However glancing deeper to see they want to define definition to escape culpability is yet another alarm bell. But the biggest one of all is repealing the human rights act. Before this was even a thing they've tried to suppress the right to assembly and protest as something unlawful when its a human right. So lord knows what they will want to sneak in there. Or more likely keep out.
It's not an EU bill, much of it drafted by UK lawmakers. If they disagree with parts of it, there were other ways of dealing with it. There was no need on any of the 3 reasons. Either something shady is going on, or they're incompetent. And honestly, with this govt it's hard to figure out which is true.
They want to unpick Labour intrusions into the lives of people. It's not too difficult to understand. Blairs introduction of the supreme court, the HRA, Terrorism Act 2K, the EHRC and unrestricted free movement have not been good things for the UK, especially in the eyes of social conservatives. I don't know if you think life before Blair was some kind of barbarous despotism, but the repeal and redefinition of these regulations is very much 'small c' conservative thinking.
But it makes sense that a lower court looks at the ruling on an higher court and adjusts their interpretation of that law. Otherwise every case that is ruled differently by the lower court will be repealt by the higher court. The UK is part of the ECHR so it's obligated not to act contary to it.
A privilege is an already owned power, a right must be given. The state is often the only entity with the power and willingness to enforce a right. If a state is weaselling out of an obligation to enforce a right, it's abandoning people to rights violations, even if it's legal for the person to enforce his own rights. For example, if a state does not enforce minimum wage, workers will be underpaid, even if they can sue employers. If a worker could sue his employer despite risk to his own job, he'd already have the economic leverage to get better than minimum wage in the first place. In short, a state not obliged to enforce a right is effectively removing the right.
"A privilege is an already owned power, a right must be given." That's not correct. A 'right' is something that _everyone_ is assumed to have, by dint of simply being a person (or a citizen, in the case of citizen's rights rather than human rights). A 'privilege' is an unearned advantage that _some_ people are given over others (e.g. being a member of the royal family grants certain privileges that are not open to non-royals). In reality, there are no 'rights', there are only restrictions on the state. For example, the 'right to a fair trial' is a restriction on the state from conducting unfair trials. The 'right to free speech' is a restriction on the state from prohibiting speech, without very good cause (e.g. laws against fraud, defamation, perjury, etc.). The 'right to life' restricts the state from carrying out executions. Once you realise that 'rights' are restrictions on the state [edit: specifically, they are _protections from_ the state], it becomes very obvious why the Tories are against human rights.
@@Grim_Beard They don't need legislation to exist. They need legislation to take away. To quote Lord Mansfield: The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory.
@@Pax.Britannica I've already explained why that's wrong. 'Rights' _don't_ exist without legislation to protect them. The legal protection is what _makes_ them 'rights'.
This is a scary time. Interpreting the right to life as not having to keep you alive is their huge step into removing the need to have an NHS.. This government is dangerous nd anyone that voted for them, and you as dangerous
Human rights are better defined as special privileges conferred on some at the expense of others. A positive right to life places the cost of your life, however poorly you have lead it on the productive healthy members of society.
@@desbowman9497 doesn't matter how many mistakes you make in life, everyone has the right to Healthcare and medicine. A country always suffers if it's citizens are unhealthy or sick. Good Healthcare is a no-brainer and it's so extremely privileged to have any other position.
@@desbowman9497 oh, so a society that is as powerful as never before thanks to tech cannot even be asked to protect their members lifes at the most basic level? what are we modernizing for?
@@desbowman9497 You just explained why there's a government at all. Or why the first human species started grouping up. Kindly remove yourself from any society please.
I've news for you. ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE DANGEROUS AND THEY COLLECTIVELY ARE TAKING US ALL DOWN THE ROAD TO A VERITABLE NIGHTMARE, AND WE ARE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.
Ordinarily something like this would still be controversial. A government which had people's best interests at heart that considered reform of a fundamental piece of legislation such as the human rights act would be far more open about the kinds of changes they were making and why. This government isn't just making changes but rewriting the entire legislation with worse standards than before. Nobody believes that they're trying to make the current legislation more ambitious in scope of what constitutes human rights. They are worsening the specific standards that currently restrict their ability to completely fleece the population.
Here's a useful lesson that American's learned a while back, and need to keep relearning over and over again: it doesn't matter who is in power or how the system is set up... GOVERNMENT NEVER TRUELY HAS THE BEST INTERESTS OF ITS PEOPLE AT HEART, only its own interests. I hope that other nations can realize this before they destroy themselves too.
When refugees should declare refuge in the first country they arrive in. Not migrate across a continent and engage in illegal activity to gain access to another country.
@@emilyscloset2648 they were already in a decent country but decided the fuckin' idiots in the uk will give us a better life. I've no sympathy whatsoever.
Or they could stay in one of the strings of safe countries they've crossed through prior to the UK. It would do some good to sink a few of them with excessive force, might send a clearer message.
With a 70 seat majority in the House, they don't need to. Shortsightedness is (sadly) a typical British disease ! Who voted these arseholes into power ? To any TORY Government, the rank & file are seen only as slaves or cannon fodder !
The sad truth: there is no viable party opposition. In addition, the legacy media is mainly owned and the alt-media is censored; when people are intentionally made voiceless the divisions become glaringly apparent.
@@RustyOrange71 they would not got into power if the Labour party had not turned there backs on there people that voted to leave the eu I think it was about 80% of labour that wanted to leave the majority of conservative wanted to stay in.
In short the helped UK setup an institution dictating other countries how to deal with human rights. But now want to change it for UK does not like what the UK has done and calling it foreign interferance. How twisted can it be.
This feels like a very quick move to facism. The 'objections' are just the political class annoyed they cant tighten control over the rest of this country. The curtailing of rights is generally a bad thing. Hope this helped 👍🏻
makes sense, People have too many rights these days with being allowed to protest whatever and such. If the government wants to arrest people protesting the last thing they would need is those people protesting to be able to vote afterwards. Its actually really clever, remove prisoners rights to voting and remove/reinterpret "freedom of expession" while making certain protesting illigal. Possibly one of the most clever ways of exerting control over a popualtion ive seen.
The freedom of the press to publish whatever they want is another issue I'd love to see tackled. How can we have a free press when they publish something I don't agree with! Anything that paints the government poorly should be illegal!
Dude, people in prisons are citizens as well and are effected the same way, if not more so, by political laws and interpretation. Shouldn’t they have the right to vote?
@@andmos1001 OFC not! If they vote they will probably vote against the people who made those rules. If someones arrested for protesting the govenment decidions or lieing or coruption, the last thing they should do is get a vote.
Ah yes, nothing says you're in for a good time quite like a government deciding that they want to get rid of anything forcing them to actually look after their citizens...
Dear TLDR, would you please cover two possible topics sometime this week or next week. 1- BJ’s Monday accusation against Sir Keir (we all know what that is), and its fallout. 2- The pros and cons of the controversial Bradwell B nuclear plant project (I have some mixed feeling toward this project, mainly because of Chinese involvement).
As someone who lives just a few miles from Bradwell - number 2, definitely! Though I must say that a local Bradwell accident isn't my biggest concern, more the bigger long term motives of the Chinese state
While most of the world have seen the rise of leftwing extremism running riot. But of course these sicko supporters of it just refuse to see it. The left and liberalism are killers and need dealing with ... PERIOD!
@@antwilco5674 Ah yeah, turn fascist and violate human rights because you are scared leftist will turn fascist and violate human rights. I think you are the psychopath here mister Hitler.
It is very weird to me, as a European law student studying constitutional law and the ECHR, that things that are absolutely taken for granted everywhere in Europe (like the obligation of judges to follow the ECHR, the primacy of the ECHR over internal law, basic judicial review of internal laws etc.) are considered "controversial" in the UK. Really makes you think, not even Russia or Turkey openly claim that the ECHR does not apply internally, but the UK sort of does
The current Tory government looks at North Korea and thinks:"Look, that is how we want to run this country and all those people in North Korea look so happy".
Personally, I’m horrified by this move by the government. I strongly suspect that they have anterior motives for doing this. And they’ve made that fact pretty overt, both by Raab’s horrific statements that he doesn’t believe in rights (I don’t remember the whole thing, but the point is he’s got the wrong attitude) and by the fact the tories have made no secret of their contempt for migrants, the disabled, the poor, and a lot of other people based on policies they’ve enacted since they gained power in 2010. They’re whole philosophy that the government has little to no positive obligations I find backwards and totally opposite to what governments are supposed to do these days.
It's literally one of the reasons they wanted out of the EU. It's hard to strip workers of their rights and make absolute bank on it when a higher authority tells you that you can't do that. But, if my dad is anything to go by, then the loss of our rights as humans and workers, lower living conditions etc is all okay because Boris makes it okay to say bad things about brown people.
The government needs to check their own common sense. The only reason why the government is trying to scrap the bill is so that Government can pass legislations that violates human rights without it being strike down by this Court. Let this be a message that the government is not there to protect you!
Thatcher said back in the 80s. "society does not exist". This is what she meant. Its everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest, winner takes all. first move is to convince everyone you're about to exploit that everything is fine everything is ok.
“Tories repeal human rights” in my mind is a bad enough headline that I wouldn’t bother. With all the negative press the conservatives are getting, I think this’ll just sink them further
well, when do we see a Brexit to leave the UN? So they can decide all laws by themselves and are no longer bound by international law, which the UK citizen didn't vote for.
International law is not enforceable anyways, and your laws should be made by local officials anyways. Otherwise you could just choose to live your life by Chinese law.
So their two best arguments are that it doesn't let them torture people and it limits their ability to suppress voters rights, not a very strong stance imo
The only country on the planet to introduce repeal of human rights by legislation - says it all. When this is paired up with current Bills e.g. the Police, Health, Borders, Freedom and 'Online' Bills you are talking about a Police State.
The Soviet Union was under the ECHR, if they could manage a police state without violating it, then so could we. There's a lot more to removing it than what you think.
I don't want to see what "innovative policies" brought about by a "loosened" stance on human rights without an "positive obligation" and "harder for claimants to argue" against, because they are "inflated" due to such inflamatory additions, like abolishment of death penalty or torture, actually means. WTF is wrong with people.
??? Both this law and the police bill that was offered a few days ago are so bizzare and undemocratic. I don't understand how a person who believes in basic democratic and western values could seriously write something as bizzare as "rights inflation" down and be completely serious.
for those wondering: the 'economic and cultural rights' that raab is complaining about are called positive rights, and include the rights to healthcare, education, and applied equality among many more. telling for the tories
Most of their suggestions sound reasonable, it's just a shame the last seven years have left me incapable of taking anything the government says at face value. Also the requirement for showing "serious disadvantage" to take a human rights violation to court seems unambiguously bad. 'We view this as only a small violation of your human rights so we'll let it pass' seems very abusable.
How can the Right to Life being interpreted as simply "we don't actively try to kill you" as opposed to "we'll try and make sure you don't die" be reasonable? With the first interpretation you could argue to disband the police force and let serial killers loose on the streets but because the government aren't the ones holding the knife when you're stabbed in the street it fits with the first interpretation
The bit that concerns me the most is that instead of just amending the current HRA with provisions that would broadly achieve their aims, they want to repeal it and replace it with a new law, which is really hokey. If they're completely re-writing the law, they could change all manner of things that could make it a lot harder to preserve human rights, and a lot easier to violate them. Honestly, I think the best strategy is baking human rights statutes into the constitution, because it makes it a lot more difficult for an opportunistic government with a strong majority to just change things however they please. It sets a dangerous precedent, that the government can just change human rights laws if it so pleases them, and its something I don't think a government should be able to do without a strong majority of all people in support.
Leaving the Union? Let's leave it to a vote. Want to change human rights? Can't let the plebs vote on that, only us insanley rich MPs with insanely rich connections should have a say.
@@alr68 exactly. Here's a thing people don't understand: let's have them vote on it. What about this thing they understand perfectly? No, they couldn't possibly have a say
Complaining that courts have too much power has to be the largest autocrat red flag there is. Like, paint-the-moon-red-large. There have been pro-autocratic legal coups by executives and legislatives, but never by the judiciary of a country. Most of the time, the judiciary is the key stumbling block within the system keeping autocratic tendencies at bay. Strange that they would feel so threatened by it now, isn't it?
This is clearly a sign of British government aspiring to increase its powers and decrease its responsibilities. 1st criticism they had was basicly foreign laws shouldnt have ruling over ours. And 2nd criticism is that they wanna pass laws that contradicting human rights. First, ECHR is an international treaty, Council of Europe court is not a part of EU. So, there is no foreign intervention. There is an international supragovernmental intervention to put checks and balance to the governments. Governments are immensly strong compared to its citizens/individual humans. ECHR is placed there to balance this power difference by forcing governments to protect the people against the governments and other big powers. That is why governments shall not be allowed to pass laws against ECHR treaty. It is a very logical protection mechanism against power abuse by governments. Last and 3rd criticism is very similar to other 2. Shifting power from parliement towards courts in defining rights has resulted in democratic deficit? It is like saying rule of law, penalties on killing and the existence of courts resulted in deficit in personal liberties, because now we cant kill freely? Well yeah, that is the whole purpose of it. To limit your power as a government. You shall not make any law or decision that breeches human rights! Last sentence in 3rd criticism is just a manipulation tactic. Human rights inflation, lost touch with common sense, extending beyond oversight and control? Nope it is exactly within the scope of oversight and control and you have no point beyond words like inflates human rights, lost touch with common sense... These controversial rulings are not wrong, they are controversial. For example, it was all in your capabilities to record the guy all the time to show you did not tortured him to get the info. If you tortured him, then you are the enemy of human rights and you should not be trusted. You need to be out in control by international laws. One last point, they wanna avoid positive obligation? That also shows they have no interest in you living a good life. They want to take all your tax money and use it in things they like. ECHR forces them to use at least some of the spending into ensuring the rules stated by ECHR. How is that a bad thing? When a countries citizens prosper, the country will prosper... Removing positive obligation in time will make citizens live worse lives, draining people's resources to existing powers and weaken the nation. How is that a good thing! I cant believe how people dont get irritated even by existance of such an offer by their governments. UK is slipping down in this century...
It's interesting to see someone that has vast social and economic privelage argue that people have to many social and economic rights. I believe I that in his world, people that aren't privelaged don't deserve rights at all.
This bill would make sense in the context of the other bills being pushed through. For example, the new policing bill will substantially reduce our right to protest and the chances are that the existing rights bill would supersede those changes. I'm sure there are plenty of others but it's important to be in no doubt that the purpose of this is to reduce our rights. Like it or not, with the current tory government, we're heading in the direction of a police state.
HRA is fine, it's how society has evoled and its for polatitions to adapt to HRA. Also courts are what keeps government in line. (make a case for each problem and work through it.)
It’s terrible & full of illusionist rights & not absolute rights, we don’t have a right to free speech due to the lack of absolute rights. We need a new bill of rights, but it needs an absolute right to free speech, proper self defence rights, proper protesting rights e.t.c. basically an American system that cannot be infringed upon.
That part about the positive obligations was scary. So the government has no obligation to try keep you alive. Now that is alarming. What exactly would we need a government for then?
A simple clause stating something like : Where the Human Rights Bill doesn't contradict the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Bill would still be in effect, and where the two bills contradict each other, the Bill of Rights takes precedence, would solve all legal issues. The only reason to scrap the Human Rights Bill is to restrict and/or reduce the rights of the British people.
After other Bills to Interpret 'Rights Inflation': - Protest Crimes - Nationality & Borders I'm slightly concerned to say the least... Also did he announce the ability to be harsh on Drug related crimes with Nationality only after MP's Toilet Scandal? 👃🏼☄️👀
I guess the EU told Borris Johnson "Don't step out of this house if that's the clothes you're gonna wear" and Parliament is saying "I'll kick you out of my home if you don't cut that hair". His mom probably "busted in and said, what's that noise?" But try as hard as he can, he is not the Beastie Boys.
I mean, the idea of removing the current act and replacing it with another one, doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, there are plenty of reasons why that might be reasonable. Removing the courts ability to have an opinion on new legislation and how it affects Human Rights is a very big red flag, especially since it's non-binding anyway.
Tories 🤮 - appointing Dominic Raab, a JUSTICE SECRETARY who doesn’t believe in human rights 😳. You couldn’t make it up 😔😔😔. Edit - I forgot we’re talking about Tories 🤮🤮.
i haven't heard of any controversial judicial rulings where a judge overstepped their boundary in keeping the government in check, so i can only assume the reason why they care so much is that they want to pass legislation that would clearly violate human rights and dont because they will be help accountable by the judicial branch.
I think under the eighth circumstances and right leadership, scrapping the Human Rights Act in exchange for a Bill of rights could be good. Question is, do we trust the current government to do that?
So the second concern is that even though Parliament knowingly passed these things that took some power away from them it's bad because it takes power away from them and that's against the concept of Parliament, even though Parliament presumably knew what they were doing at the time, and now everything tastes like pennies
Our human right is not to be held in contempt by the government and that laws designed to protect human life should not to be violated by the government.
I still fail to see why a human rights act would be controversial, especially one written by the UK in the first place. How could they not have evil ulterior motives for changing it?
Problem is, I don't think that this particular Government want a codified constitution, given that it would confirm what powers they're allowed to have and not leave them any wiggle room for interpretation...
This was a major selling point for the Brexit Campaign, and is the major reason I voted remain. Anyone who voted leave has no right whatsoever to whine about this: THEY made it happen.
They aren't complaining. As per normal, is a subset of "remainers" stomping their feet and sulking that the UK public didn't vote the way they wanted them too. And as the video says. The ECHR and EU are different things.
If the government isn't doing anything _for_ you, what would its function be? Government exists to serve the collective of a region. International trade, protecting the citizens and the like are its _only_ functions
That 2nd conceren is what many like to call a "check and balances system". Getting rid of that judicial check for human rights is a slipperly slope ripe for exploitation by politicians.
Kinda makes you wonder how the UK functioned for the past thousand years before 1998
A slippery slope is more like a very inviting slide to this government
@@mikemartin6748 well, if you take a look at history, the UK has not the greatest trackrecord of upholding human rights of its own citizens and other people more on the contrary.
@@danielknight8351 can the public add some spikes to that?
@@mikemartin6748 I think Ireland might have something to say about the UK's views on human rights. On a completely unrelated note, the GFA was also signed in 1998. Fancy that.
It's very convenient for all those in British politics who hate to EU to forget the ECHR was proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted by primarily British legal experts... It's literally the most British thing since the Queen and has nothing to do with the EU
The EU and the ECHR are two completely different things. It says so here in this video.
The EU is a bloated tyrannical economic bloc.
The ECHR is a court of appeal.
However, I wonder if the shredding of this Human Right act may endanger UK's participation in the European Council, where it is still a member.
@@adamross6474 the UK polled the electorate and entered into a negotiated process set down in an agreed treaty in order to leave the EU, I think you have vastly misunderstood the meaning of tyranny
@@alphanet72 it probably would
Having a monarch itself in this age and age is cringe, and contrary to the dignity of free citizens. If you willing bow and prostate yourself before a infant who happened to inherit the crown, you show that you are servile person, barely deserving basic human dignity. Such behavior is an outward token the government's authority rests in and off itself, and does not come from the electorate, reducing the people from free citizens to servile subjects.
I'm sure this government would in no way abuse a situation in which the working class would no longer have a codified human rights :)
you missing an /s pal...
I mean, the UK doesn't even have a constitution.
@@bracco23 and you're missing an 're 😏
Good one LOL .
@@kronosbach5263 yes it does. It’s just not codified.
Great! Someone that "doesn't believe in economic and social rights" is exactly who you want rewriting a countries bill of rights.
Exactly. The entire government is summed up by the sentences 'And once said that he (Dominic Raab) doesn't believe in economic or social rights. When he was appointed Justice Secretary.....' It doesn't matter what it looks like now. The goal is to decouple human rights provision from EU legislation and wrestle control..... so that it can be gradually eaten away in the next 10 years piece by piece.
I wouldn't trust this government to do anything. Honestly, after their terrible track record and constant lies, I have no idea why anyone would be voting Conservative.
Same as having a Home secretary who want to bring back Hanging... Or having a proven pathological lier and cheater as PM... I mean, we got one of the worst combination possible in the government in history.
@@idontwanttopickone It's the same way in America, and there's just no stopping these conservative loons. Most people already have nothing, but yet we're going to have to give more and more to the corporations as time goes on
This. Also, the bit about how they don't want to create positive duty for the state like having to keep people alive. What's the state's job then ?
When ministers start wanting to remove rights on the basis of "liberty" you know you're fucked living in that country. Wish us luck lol
Edit: also "innovative policy" that's inhibited by human rights sounds possibly a bit genocidey/warcrimey
They probably want to have an easier time deporting immigrants. I’m an immigrant living in the US and there’s always been very little paperwork between me and an ICE officer.
If you consider that climate refugees would flock to places like the UK in the case of a massive drought or flood, this begins to make sense. The UK knows that a lot of the countries vulnerable to climate impact are ex-colonies that would see the UK as the place to go to. They probably want to be able to bar refugees from coming in large groups.
But this is just speculation in my behalf. We still need to see the actual white papers, and it’s also not a given that it will go into law.
That being said, good luck 🍀
they have already started innovating their response to attempts to speak truth to power.
I'm reading "give secret police more power"
"create gulags"
"rebranding activists as terrorists"
"create a sky floating second london for them that an afford it so they don't need to watch the rest of us live in a trash heap"
@@hc3657?
@@gabrielsoto1693 I'm a UK citizen and they can expell me and revoke my citizenship without even notifying me. All that's stopping them I guess is this human rights bill they're trying to repel. They don't just want to deport immigrants, they want to deport anyone they don't like.
@@hc3657 Its the conservatives who are proposing this not "marxists"
The worse is that in a functioning democracy where politics and judiciary are constitutionally separate, the Judiciary is the only ‘mostly’ impartial meritocrat system in power with actual professionals at the helm. That’s why politicians hate it, they are actually held accountable by a proper judiciary in regards to their laws and the fundamental rights of the people!
The judiciary isn't meritocratic. It's influenced by the culture it operates in and therefore copies and strengthens historical power centres. It's conservative by nature.
@@aussietom85 What you said is true, but that is why OP said MOSTLY meritoctatic.
This is a good point. How the Judiciary is selected, then, becomes a critical process. I live in a part of the U.S. where certain judges are elected! But to be eligible to hold office, they have to meet certain professional criteria defined by law. And they face retention elections too, so their power is not unlimited. It's probably too complex. But it touches upon essentially how the Judiciary take and retain power.
@@aussietom85 not really. Judicial activism is a reality in many countries, with judges conjuring up novel interpretations of existing laws that the people who wrote those laws would have thoroughly rejected. Judges as a whole are neither more nor less conservative than the overall population.
what sort of a joke is this?
Judiciary lmao
Why not just declare Brits as non human. This would get around the unpopular decision to scrap the human rights act. Just let the tories decide who counts as a human and who doesn't.
To be fair, Parliament did not vote to say housing should be fit for human habitation so maybe there already?
PS I am a frog
I mean, you have a spine, so you already have rights as a sentient being according to this British government. Why the need for extra rights just because you're a human being? I don't see an issue with tearing it up and lumping the British public in with the other animals.
There are too many rights. It's too much reading for poor MPs.
did someone just watch an anime called "86" ?
They're getting close, I mean they already made it so you can end up without citizenship anywhere in the world.
Presumably a generous donation to a minister will buy a Human Certificate. Problem solved.
I've lost the confidence that this government will do anything with a moral approach. That's sad because even if they want to, it creates a doubt on their sincerity.
First and foremost a government should maintain trust in the people, this government has lost it.
They were never sincere in decades since the Tories started dismantling funds from public services like the NHS.
@@brainbane8550 lol well I always try to give a chance
Everything in this video makes me think that the UK needs that Human Rights Act more than ever.
Every example of where the govt thinks the act is problematic just seem like great examples of the act actually doing what it was supposed to do, and how the British should probably be glad to have it
The act didn't stop Mark Meachan from being prosecuted over a dog video.
From the outside (Germany) looking in a politician saying he "doesn't believe in economic and social rights" is ... mind boggling. To me this looks like current UK government has a bunch of laws on the agenda that would oppose the HRA and want to make sure they can pass them, which is scary.
This. The only reason I can see for wanting to re-write the human rights act is that you want to do illegal/immoral things to people.
Dominic Raab's comments and lack of understanding on any number of subjects are mind boggling. The guy didn't know ports were important for the UK...
There's nothing scary about it. All it means is that the UK is not obligated to grant rights to people outside their jurisdiction.
Might surprise you, but our own version of the Bill of Rights (Art. 1-19 GG) doesn't contain any sort of economic or social rights either, excepting a vague reference to mothers being entitled to the support of the community and state control of (and so indirectly responsibility for) all education.
Human rights are basically what the government is NOT allowed to do to you, rather than things it has to do for you. That way, even the poorest country in the world can reasonably claim not to violate their people's human rights.
Of course, it might be good policy for a government/society to ensure everyone has access to a variety of things, or even the morally right thing to do, but if it just can't, that doesn't in itself constitute a violation of human rights.
It's not because it is not a codified right that the government wouldn't provide it. Some "rights" in said document are quite absurd.
They have so much contempt for us, that they don't see us as deserving of human rights.
They barely see us as human.
Wait until Rishi reveals his brand new "Oxygen tax" where you are not permitted to breathe without a licence. Also, the innovative MOP department - Ministry of Pavements who can issue fines for uninsured shoe wearers.
@@MedievalFolkDance ssh the Tory trolls are watching your giving them ideas lol
@@MedievalFolkDance Leaks suggest that you can get an oxygen rebate by flying giant union jack/flag and worshipping at his feet.
@@alanlittle4589 half price oxygen tax if you sing god save the queen every morning in front of your government approved security camera installed for your "safety".
"Innovative policies" is an interesting euphemism.
What all this boils down to is that the HRA is a check on the government's power, and politicians - especially conservative ones - don't like that. It's just something they grudgingly have to accept. The current cabinet seem to have looked across the Atlantic and asked themselves whether they could actually have their cake and eat it, too. I believe Bojo even said as much at one point.
Just as water boarding is called enhanced interrogation
Yup, the HRA is the closest thing UK citizens have to constitutional rights, but a simple majority vote by Parliament can remove those rights. Normally countries with constitutions make it very hard to amend the constitution (example the US which requires 2/3rds majorities in both houses of congress and ratification by 3/4ths of state legislatures)
Very cool and very normal! Surely there’s nothing suspicious going on here!
Tories be like: Geneva convention more like Geneva suggestion
Geneva convention, more like Geneva Inconvenience.
@@tonyb9735 I know right? It's so inconvenient that the Geneva Convention means prisoners of war can't be tortured.
@@prometheus7387 TRUE, human rights are so inconvenient
Genuine laughing out loud 😂 it's funny and absolutely f****** terrifying simultaneously.... I've genuinely bought some Swiss francs, not a lot because I am hardly well off. Because I don't feel safe in our economic security... Breaking our rights is one thing, breaking the economy, intentionally, or not, can tear society apart.
Being from the US, gotta say:
Psh, if we followed that we couldn't use land mines, flamethrowers or .50 cal sniper rifles!
The Tories really do want to become the ultimate, unquestionable authority in the land. If they get away with this and their proposed Interpretations Bill (which basically says MPs can overturn court decisions) then there will be no checks and balances.
It's called proto-fascism, and it will only get worse as long as they are a one party state.
Its not like Labour wouldn't pull the same shit, they're authoritarians as well, SNP too.
The UK is fuuuuuuucked.
@@meatpuppet5036 And yet the Liberal Democrats sit about spewing dogsh*t all day. Depressing in all honesty.
Comment aged badly. Labour are now abusing power. Pandering to minorities and jailing hurty words.
Article one: The prime minister shall have the unalienable right to party within number 10 regardless of current laws….retroactively.
I'm disabled, dealing with a benefits system for years that was already ruled as violating human rights nearly a decade ago. Almost nothing has changed besides ATOS changing the name of the subsidiary.
I'm very aware that my human rights mean nothing. And yet, this still feels like another step into authoritarianism.
We can't expect anything less from this government and from the silent public that simply don't care, it seems.
Absolutely this.
Yes ,there is plenty of EVIDENCE , cases and tragic consequences showing the truth of what you say.
i feel the same way. i hope your rights will not be erased.
So uh, if I understand correctly, some of the problems with the current HRA is that is prohibits torture and forces the government to invest in your security and health?..
Yeah, horrible isn't it? We need a Final Solution to this problem.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me I remember someone writing a book the Final Solution, it was nasty. What was his name? can anyone remember.
@@williamgardner2739 I think it was called Our peace?
@@ego8330 something about a struggle iirc
What? The government won't be able to torture people at will? Down with the human rights!
I honestly thought you were going to say "the right to trial by combat" when talking about traditional British rights.
But I honestly don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion on this, I just know the government has done a pretty good job at making my life considerably more difficult with Brexit so I doubt they have my best interest in mind.
Most of the "controversy" around the human rights act is based on fabricated stories in the tabloids, like a convicted terrorist being blocked from deportation because he has a cat, or asylum seekers being housed in 5 star hotels because to do anything else would infringe on their rights.
In my view using evidence acquired through torture in British courts is something I'm quite happy to see called out. And the ruling on prisoners voting only said that it was wrong to have a blanket ban on all prisoners voting, it would be totally acceptable to have a ban on voting imposed as part of the punishment if it was deemed appropriate. Meaning that if, for example, someone is given a 2 week prison sentence for refusing to pay a disputed speeding ticket, and a general election just happened to take place while that sentence was being carried out, that person wouldn't automatically be denied a vote. But if someone was sentenced to prison for two weeks for election fraud at the same time the law might stipulate that even for such a short sentence a denial of the right to vote was appropriate. Just common sense stuff.
But the one thing our torys don't like is being told to do common sense things. And the only thing worse is being told to do common sense things by foreigners
t h i s
I saw deportation and I was thinking that the law is questionable. Then I saw torture and I could imagine it being way more common should this "british bill of rights" be accepted.
I’m really struggling to think of a good reason to put anyone in prison for 2 weeks.
Also, "innovative policy" that's inhibited by human rights sounds possibly a bit genocidey/warcrimey
@@tomwalker5555 sorry, dyslexia brain, I meant two months.
Ahh, back to the good old days of workhouses and child prostitution.
Common sense isn't it.
yeah, right. people are gonna be pissed.
Ah yes. Too many rights.
I mean, the government just wants to make 1984 and V for Vendetta based on a true story. Seems like a grand idea to me!
Well V for vendetta was published during Thatcher's time and was speaking out against the politician who he thought was a supreme fascist and that her conservative party was dedicated to ushering in a new era of totalitarianism in the UK. Looks like he might not of been wrong and BoJo and crew are here to finish her work.
@@TheNovahnite so. truss is an emperor clone for real?
@@TheNovahnite His books do have an unnerving habit of coming true.......
V for Vendetta is already based on a true story. Specifically, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. You should probably know that; it's your history!
@@kennyholmes5196 i member the 5th of november
The first issue just makes sense, especially post brexit. It's almost contradictory in a sense. However making it so the supreme court can't over rule is a massive alarm bell all by itself. the third point at face value seems logical too. However glancing deeper to see they want to define definition to escape culpability is yet another alarm bell. But the biggest one of all is repealing the human rights act.
Before this was even a thing they've tried to suppress the right to assembly and protest as something unlawful when its a human right. So lord knows what they will want to sneak in there. Or more likely keep out.
It's not an EU bill, much of it drafted by UK lawmakers. If they disagree with parts of it, there were other ways of dealing with it. There was no need on any of the 3 reasons. Either something shady is going on, or they're incompetent. And honestly, with this govt it's hard to figure out which is true.
They want to unpick Labour intrusions into the lives of people. It's not too difficult to understand. Blairs introduction of the supreme court, the HRA, Terrorism Act 2K, the EHRC and unrestricted free movement have not been good things for the UK, especially in the eyes of social conservatives. I don't know if you think life before Blair was some kind of barbarous despotism, but the repeal and redefinition of these regulations is very much 'small c' conservative thinking.
But it makes sense that a lower court looks at the ruling on an higher court and adjusts their interpretation of that law. Otherwise every case that is ruled differently by the lower court will be repealt by the higher court. The UK is part of the ECHR so it's obligated not to act contary to it.
ECHR is not an EU court. It is a court created by the European Convention treaty which the UK remains a part of.
Bye bye social benefits ♿ and🤰 maternity/ sick🤧 leaves:" No economic and social rights".The conservative dream comes true!
"You all have too many rights" doesn't sound like a convincing argument to me
A privilege is an already owned power, a right must be given. The state is often the only entity with the power and willingness to enforce a right. If a state is weaselling out of an obligation to enforce a right, it's abandoning people to rights violations, even if it's legal for the person to enforce his own rights. For example, if a state does not enforce minimum wage, workers will be underpaid, even if they can sue employers. If a worker could sue his employer despite risk to his own job, he'd already have the economic leverage to get better than minimum wage in the first place.
In short, a state not obliged to enforce a right is effectively removing the right.
"A privilege is an already owned power, a right must be given." That's not correct. A 'right' is something that _everyone_ is assumed to have, by dint of simply being a person (or a citizen, in the case of citizen's rights rather than human rights). A 'privilege' is an unearned advantage that _some_ people are given over others (e.g. being a member of the royal family grants certain privileges that are not open to non-royals).
In reality, there are no 'rights', there are only restrictions on the state. For example, the 'right to a fair trial' is a restriction on the state from conducting unfair trials. The 'right to free speech' is a restriction on the state from prohibiting speech, without very good cause (e.g. laws against fraud, defamation, perjury, etc.). The 'right to life' restricts the state from carrying out executions.
Once you realise that 'rights' are restrictions on the state [edit: specifically, they are _protections from_ the state], it becomes very obvious why the Tories are against human rights.
That is incorrect, the rights are inherent, the privileges are given.
@@meatpuppet5036 'Rights' are not 'inherent', they are granted by law. If they were inherent, they wouldn't need legislation to exist and be enforced.
@@Grim_Beard They don't need legislation to exist. They need legislation to take away.
To quote Lord Mansfield: The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory.
@@Pax.Britannica I've already explained why that's wrong. 'Rights' _don't_ exist without legislation to protect them. The legal protection is what _makes_ them 'rights'.
A lot of stuff that has come out of brexit has angered, worried, and saddened me. This is the only one that outright terrifies me
This is a scary time. Interpreting the right to life as not having to keep you alive is their huge step into removing the need to have an NHS.. This government is dangerous nd anyone that voted for them, and you as dangerous
Human rights are better defined as special privileges conferred on some at the expense of others. A positive right to life places the cost of your life, however poorly you have lead it on the productive healthy members of society.
@@desbowman9497 doesn't matter how many mistakes you make in life, everyone has the right to Healthcare and medicine.
A country always suffers if it's citizens are unhealthy or sick. Good Healthcare is a no-brainer and it's so extremely privileged to have any other position.
@@desbowman9497 oh, so a society that is as powerful as never before thanks to tech cannot even be asked to protect their members lifes at the most basic level? what are we modernizing for?
@@desbowman9497 You just explained why there's a government at all. Or why the first human species started grouping up. Kindly remove yourself from any society please.
I've news for you. ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE DANGEROUS AND THEY COLLECTIVELY ARE TAKING US ALL DOWN THE ROAD TO A VERITABLE NIGHTMARE, AND WE ARE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.
Ordinarily something like this would still be controversial. A government which had people's best interests at heart that considered reform of a fundamental piece of legislation such as the human rights act would be far more open about the kinds of changes they were making and why.
This government isn't just making changes but rewriting the entire legislation with worse standards than before. Nobody believes that they're trying to make the current legislation more ambitious in scope of what constitutes human rights. They are worsening the specific standards that currently restrict their ability to completely fleece the population.
Here's a useful lesson that American's learned a while back, and need to keep relearning over and over again: it doesn't matter who is in power or how the system is set up... GOVERNMENT NEVER TRUELY HAS THE BEST INTERESTS OF ITS PEOPLE AT HEART, only its own interests.
I hope that other nations can realize this before they destroy themselves too.
Human rights do tend to get in the way when you want to drown refugees at sea.......
When refugees should declare refuge in the first country they arrive in. Not migrate across a continent and engage in illegal activity to gain access to another country.
@@adamross6474 Then you ask why they feel the necessity to make dangerous journeys to get to another country
@@emilyscloset2648 they were already in a decent country but decided the fuckin' idiots in the uk will give us a better life. I've no sympathy whatsoever.
Or they could stay in one of the strings of safe countries they've crossed through prior to the UK. It would do some good to sink a few of them with excessive force, might send a clearer message.
Sounds like most of these replies are from people who would happily sell away their own human rights as long as refugees get it worse.
Wow, the Tories aren't even hiding their motives anymore.
With a 70 seat majority in the House, they don't need to. Shortsightedness is (sadly) a typical British disease ! Who voted these arseholes into power ? To any TORY Government, the rank & file are seen only as slaves or cannon fodder !
@@willieckaslike I agree with this.
The sad truth: there is no viable party opposition. In addition, the legacy media is mainly owned and the alt-media is censored; when people are intentionally made voiceless the divisions become glaringly apparent.
@@RustyOrange71 they would not got into power if the Labour party had not turned there backs on there people that voted to leave the eu I think it was about 80% of labour that wanted to leave the majority of conservative wanted to stay in.
In short the helped UK setup an institution dictating other countries how to deal with human rights. But now want to change it for UK does not like what the UK has done and calling it foreign interferance. How twisted can it be.
Abolishing humans is the absolute goal of the UK government. It would make ruling the septered isle much less messy.
This feels like a very quick move to facism. The 'objections' are just the political class annoyed they cant tighten control over the rest of this country. The curtailing of rights is generally a bad thing. Hope this helped 👍🏻
Boris Mussolini over there doesn't need any more ways to destroy our liberty.
makes sense, People have too many rights these days with being allowed to protest whatever and such. If the government wants to arrest people protesting the last thing they would need is those people protesting to be able to vote afterwards.
Its actually really clever, remove prisoners rights to voting and remove/reinterpret "freedom of expession" while making certain protesting illigal. Possibly one of the most clever ways of exerting control over a popualtion ive seen.
The freedom of the press to publish whatever they want is another issue I'd love to see tackled. How can we have a free press when they publish something I don't agree with! Anything that paints the government poorly should be illegal!
Dude, people in prisons are citizens as well and are effected the same way, if not more so, by political laws and interpretation. Shouldn’t they have the right to vote?
Control is what they are after
@@andmos1001 OFC not! If they vote they will probably vote against the people who made those rules. If someones arrested for protesting the govenment decidions or lieing or coruption, the last thing they should do is get a vote.
Unless you are shouting death threats at Starmer, apparently that form of protest is OK
Ah yes, nothing says you're in for a good time quite like a government deciding that they want to get rid of anything forcing them to actually look after their citizens...
Dear TLDR, would you please cover two possible topics sometime this week or next week.
1- BJ’s Monday accusation against Sir Keir (we all know what that is), and its fallout.
2- The pros and cons of the controversial Bradwell B nuclear plant project (I have some mixed feeling toward this project, mainly because of Chinese involvement).
Whereas, I have some mixed feeling toward this project, mainly because of Tory involvement .....
As someone who lives just a few miles from Bradwell - number 2, definitely! Though I must say that a local Bradwell accident isn't my biggest concern, more the bigger long term motives of the Chinese state
They covered the first one briefly in a video the other day talking about if Boris lied in the commons.
“Conservatives” and “Human rights” are two terms that usually do not go hand-in-hand. Let’s see what happens.
Repealing human rights in a time when right wing extremism is on the rise.... What could possibly go wrong
While most of the world have seen the rise of leftwing extremism running riot. But of course these sicko supporters of it just refuse to see it. The left and liberalism are killers and need dealing with ... PERIOD!
@@antwilco5674 Ah yeah, turn fascist and violate human rights because you are scared leftist will turn fascist and violate human rights. I think you are the psychopath here mister Hitler.
Kristallnacht?
@@Chris-rp9df Yup that's socialists for you.
@@antwilco5674
Because Hitler and the Nazis left wing views are well documented in the history books?
well that's a helluva title
I find this deeply worrying
It is very weird to me, as a European law student studying constitutional law and the ECHR, that things that are absolutely taken for granted everywhere in Europe (like the obligation of judges to follow the ECHR, the primacy of the ECHR over internal law, basic judicial review of internal laws etc.) are considered "controversial" in the UK. Really makes you think, not even Russia or Turkey openly claim that the ECHR does not apply internally, but the UK sort of does
Taken for granted??????? Any thoughts on how we got here at all and why? Just think back appr. 80 years and reconsider.
@@ai-d2121 Yes. I am talking about today, not 80 years ago. 80 years ago the UK used to stand for something as well, doesn't mean it still does
Well we have a perfectly good judicial system to interpret our own laws, there is really no need to follow the ECHR.
@@samreynolds9436 Except for the fact that your government is constantly breaking the law and trying to overrule judges.
@@samreynolds9436 swallow your pride for two minutes and see what’s actually happening in our country.
The current Tory government looks at North Korea and thinks:"Look, that is how we want to run this country and all those people in North Korea look so happy".
Personally, I’m horrified by this move by the government. I strongly suspect that they have anterior motives for doing this. And they’ve made that fact pretty overt, both by Raab’s horrific statements that he doesn’t believe in rights (I don’t remember the whole thing, but the point is he’s got the wrong attitude) and by the fact the tories have made no secret of their contempt for migrants, the disabled, the poor, and a lot of other people based on policies they’ve enacted since they gained power in 2010. They’re whole philosophy that the government has little to no positive obligations I find backwards and totally opposite to what governments are supposed to do these days.
It's literally one of the reasons they wanted out of the EU. It's hard to strip workers of their rights and make absolute bank on it when a higher authority tells you that you can't do that. But, if my dad is anything to go by, then the loss of our rights as humans and workers, lower living conditions etc is all okay because Boris makes it okay to say bad things about brown people.
You remember that time before 1998 when British people suffered horrible humans rights abuses under a tyrannical government.
I agree with what you're saying, but it's ulterior (meaning hidden), not anterior (meaning at the front) motives
@@mikemartin6748 we still had the European one it just wasn't included in domestic law, a better date would be before the 1940s
@@mikemartin6748 no
"Common-sense Moral Institutions"? That's a sinister phrase.
The government needs to check their own common sense. The only reason why the government is trying to scrap the bill is so that Government can pass legislations that violates human rights without it being strike down by this Court. Let this be a message that the government is not there to protect you!
Thatcher said back in the 80s. "society does not exist". This is what she meant. Its everyone for themselves, survival of the fittest, winner takes all. first move is to convince everyone you're about to exploit that everything is fine everything is ok.
"Society doesn't exist" more-so in Western countries (I'm from the UK), we're generally more selfish than other nations.
“Tories repeal human rights” in my mind is a bad enough headline that I wouldn’t bother. With all the negative press the conservatives are getting, I think this’ll just sink them further
I think a worse headline would be
"Johnson. Raab and Patel decide what rights you do have".
What makes you think it will make it to a headline , MSM will likely never report it
to quote from star trek tng: "rights, rights, rights. I'm sick of hearing about rights." I guess the British government is quoting that, too. :D
3.26 - had to rewind to check 'Dominic Raab doesn't believe in economic or social rights' I bet he'd want them if his were threatened
I don't believe in gravity, excuse me while I float away...
well, when do we see a Brexit to leave the UN? So they can decide all laws by themselves and are no longer bound by international law, which the UK citizen didn't vote for.
I mean the US did this already...
Should do NATO at the same time. We can be free of all rights, support or friends, tear down our own laws, set fire to the Magna Carta.
Shhh! You'll give them ideas!
Good idea!
International law is not enforceable anyways, and your laws should be made by local officials anyways.
Otherwise you could just choose to live your life by Chinese law.
So their two best arguments are that it doesn't let them torture people and it limits their ability to suppress voters rights, not a very strong stance imo
The Magna Carta may well still be on the statutes but Thatcher repealed all it's provisions, it's now essentially a Minima Carta, even a Tabla Rasa
The only country on the planet to introduce repeal of human rights by legislation - says it all. When this is paired up with current Bills e.g. the Police, Health, Borders, Freedom and 'Online' Bills you are talking about a Police State.
The Soviet Union was under the ECHR, if they could manage a police state without violating it, then so could we. There's a lot more to removing it than what you think.
If you are old enough, you would have known that when a bill called X, it usually has nothing to do with X, especially if its over 100 pages long.
How much do you want to bet there is a clause that makes YOUR protest illegal?
I'm diverting from Conservative to Labour. I want a big red button that says "undo all the things the prime minister of 2020 did"
"I don't believe in Economic and Social Rights" absolutely horrid.
I don't want to see what "innovative policies" brought about by a "loosened" stance on human rights without an "positive obligation" and "harder for claimants to argue" against, because they are "inflated" due to such inflamatory additions, like abolishment of death penalty or torture, actually means. WTF is wrong with people.
??? Both this law and the police bill that was offered a few days ago are so bizzare and undemocratic. I don't understand how a person who believes in basic democratic and western values could seriously write something as bizzare as "rights inflation" down and be completely serious.
for those wondering: the 'economic and cultural rights' that raab is complaining about are called positive rights, and include the rights to healthcare, education, and applied equality among many more. telling for the tories
This is BY FAR the best video on the topic. And it's up to date. Can't ask for more, Thank you so much.
Most of their suggestions sound reasonable, it's just a shame the last seven years have left me incapable of taking anything the government says at face value.
Also the requirement for showing "serious disadvantage" to take a human rights violation to court seems unambiguously bad.
'We view this as only a small violation of your human rights so we'll let it pass' seems very abusable.
M8 whenever a country starts messing with human rights, its not just a slippery slope, it always has led to the deterioration of democracy overall
How can the Right to Life being interpreted as simply "we don't actively try to kill you" as opposed to "we'll try and make sure you don't die" be reasonable? With the first interpretation you could argue to disband the police force and let serial killers loose on the streets but because the government aren't the ones holding the knife when you're stabbed in the street it fits with the first interpretation
@@gizmoftw782 I'm arguing for them...
@@seancorrigan3531 ah missinterpretation on my part, my bad
for 1,2,3 see "We would like to violate your rights, and be free to treat you as less than human, but this law slaps us down every time we try to"
The bit that concerns me the most is that instead of just amending the current HRA with provisions that would broadly achieve their aims, they want to repeal it and replace it with a new law, which is really hokey. If they're completely re-writing the law, they could change all manner of things that could make it a lot harder to preserve human rights, and a lot easier to violate them. Honestly, I think the best strategy is baking human rights statutes into the constitution, because it makes it a lot more difficult for an opportunistic government with a strong majority to just change things however they please.
It sets a dangerous precedent, that the government can just change human rights laws if it so pleases them, and its something I don't think a government should be able to do without a strong majority of all people in support.
Leaving the Union? Let's leave it to a vote.
Want to change human rights? Can't let the plebs vote on that, only us insanley rich MPs with insanely rich connections should have a say.
@@alr68 exactly. Here's a thing people don't understand: let's have them vote on it. What about this thing they understand perfectly? No, they couldn't possibly have a say
Complaining that courts have too much power has to be the largest autocrat red flag there is. Like, paint-the-moon-red-large.
There have been pro-autocratic legal coups by executives and legislatives, but never by the judiciary of a country. Most of the time, the judiciary is the key stumbling block within the system keeping autocratic tendencies at bay. Strange that they would feel so threatened by it now, isn't it?
Glad to see conservative lawmakers are hard at work creating the perfect dystopia, appreciate the effort.
You can’t change the people around you, but you can change the people you choose to be around. “Boris”
💯
This is clearly a sign of British government aspiring to increase its powers and decrease its responsibilities. 1st criticism they had was basicly foreign laws shouldnt have ruling over ours. And 2nd criticism is that they wanna pass laws that contradicting human rights. First, ECHR is an international treaty, Council of Europe court is not a part of EU. So, there is no foreign intervention. There is an international supragovernmental intervention to put checks and balance to the governments. Governments are immensly strong compared to its citizens/individual humans. ECHR is placed there to balance this power difference by forcing governments to protect the people against the governments and other big powers. That is why governments shall not be allowed to pass laws against ECHR treaty. It is a very logical protection mechanism against power abuse by governments. Last and 3rd criticism is very similar to other 2. Shifting power from parliement towards courts in defining rights has resulted in democratic deficit? It is like saying rule of law, penalties on killing and the existence of courts resulted in deficit in personal liberties, because now we cant kill freely? Well yeah, that is the whole purpose of it. To limit your power as a government. You shall not make any law or decision that breeches human rights! Last sentence in 3rd criticism is just a manipulation tactic. Human rights inflation, lost touch with common sense, extending beyond oversight and control? Nope it is exactly within the scope of oversight and control and you have no point beyond words like inflates human rights, lost touch with common sense... These controversial rulings are not wrong, they are controversial. For example, it was all in your capabilities to record the guy all the time to show you did not tortured him to get the info. If you tortured him, then you are the enemy of human rights and you should not be trusted. You need to be out in control by international laws. One last point, they wanna avoid positive obligation? That also shows they have no interest in you living a good life. They want to take all your tax money and use it in things they like. ECHR forces them to use at least some of the spending into ensuring the rules stated by ECHR. How is that a bad thing? When a countries citizens prosper, the country will prosper... Removing positive obligation in time will make citizens live worse lives, draining people's resources to existing powers and weaken the nation. How is that a good thing! I cant believe how people dont get irritated even by existance of such an offer by their governments. UK is slipping down in this century...
This is horrifying!
none too surprised by this "level up".
It's interesting to see someone that has vast social and economic privelage argue that people have to many social and economic rights. I believe I that in his world, people that aren't privelaged don't deserve rights at all.
And that's why we need a written constitution. One that can't be changed or amended without a referendum.
This bill would make sense in the context of the other bills being pushed through. For example, the new policing bill will substantially reduce our right to protest and the chances are that the existing rights bill would supersede those changes. I'm sure there are plenty of others but it's important to be in no doubt that the purpose of this is to reduce our rights. Like it or not, with the current tory government, we're heading in the direction of a police state.
Sadly I agree with you. :'(
We've already been a police state for a while
HRA is fine, it's how society has evoled and its for polatitions to adapt to HRA. Also courts are what keeps government in line. (make a case for each problem and work through it.)
It’s terrible & full of illusionist rights & not absolute rights, we don’t have a right to free speech due to the lack of absolute rights.
We need a new bill of rights, but it needs an absolute right to free speech, proper self defence rights, proper protesting rights e.t.c. basically an American system that cannot be infringed upon.
That part about the positive obligations was scary. So the government has no obligation to try keep you alive. Now that is alarming. What exactly would we need a government for then?
A simple clause stating something like : Where the Human Rights Bill doesn't contradict the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Bill would still be in effect, and where the two bills contradict each other, the Bill of Rights takes precedence, would solve all legal issues. The only reason to scrap the Human Rights Bill is to restrict and/or reduce the rights of the British people.
Don't worry guys, Johnson has a Final Solution ready for this problem, he'll fix it, he'll fix everyone...
After other Bills to Interpret 'Rights Inflation':
- Protest Crimes
- Nationality & Borders
I'm slightly concerned to say the least...
Also did he announce the ability to be harsh on Drug related crimes with Nationality only after MP's Toilet Scandal? 👃🏼☄️👀
I guess the EU told Borris Johnson "Don't step out of this house if that's the clothes you're gonna wear" and Parliament is saying "I'll kick you out of my home if you don't cut that hair".
His mom probably "busted in and said, what's that noise?"
But try as hard as he can, he is not the Beastie Boys.
I mean, the idea of removing the current act and replacing it with another one, doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, there are plenty of reasons why that might be reasonable. Removing the courts ability to have an opinion on new legislation and how it affects Human Rights is a very big red flag, especially since it's non-binding anyway.
Because you have no rights in the new normal
Tories 🤮 - appointing Dominic Raab, a JUSTICE SECRETARY who doesn’t believe in human rights 😳. You couldn’t make it up 😔😔😔.
Edit - I forgot we’re talking about Tories 🤮🤮.
I wrote a blog about tory extremists wanting to remove the udhr around 12 years ago.
The government can strip themselves of their human rights if they want
i haven't heard of any controversial judicial rulings where a judge overstepped their boundary in keeping the government in check, so i can only assume the reason why they care so much is that they want to pass legislation that would clearly violate human rights and dont because they will be help accountable by the judicial branch.
I think under the eighth circumstances and right leadership, scrapping the Human Rights Act in exchange for a Bill of rights could be good.
Question is, do we trust the current government to do that?
Sounds like they wanna replace the thing with a blank piece of paper.
Raab's role should be renamed "The Injustice Secretary".
First to go were the frendships.
Second are the human rights.
Third will be the economy.
Fourth will be Scotland.
Not without a section 30 order it won't.
So the second concern is that even though Parliament knowingly passed these things that took some power away from them it's bad because it takes power away from them and that's against the concept of Parliament, even though Parliament presumably knew what they were doing at the time, and now everything tastes like pennies
Our human right is not to be held in contempt by the government and that laws designed to protect human life should not to be violated by the government.
"Innovative Solutions" oh god some 1984 bs
I still fail to see why a human rights act would be controversial, especially one written by the UK in the first place. How could they not have evil ulterior motives for changing it?
As a law degree holder, I support reforming the HRA and am a big fan of the idea of a codified constitution.
Problem is, I don't think that this particular Government want a codified constitution, given that it would confirm what powers they're allowed to have and not leave them any wiggle room for interpretation...
Any government that is more worried about their people having too many rights than safeguarding those rights, should not exist.
This was a major selling point for the Brexit Campaign, and is the major reason I voted remain. Anyone who voted leave has no right whatsoever to whine about this: THEY made it happen.
They aren't complaining.
As per normal, is a subset of "remainers" stomping their feet and sulking that the UK public didn't vote the way they wanted them too.
And as the video says. The ECHR and EU are different things.
@@danielwebb8402 The facts I have stated are correct.
@@TheBaconWizard
You've met lots of leave voters who are whining about the changes to the human rights act??
Ah yes. Less human rights. That’s the sure fire path to progress!
If the government isn't doing anything _for_ you, what would its function be?
Government exists to serve the collective of a region.
International trade, protecting the citizens and the like are its _only_ functions
Then how has it got it so spectacularly wrong for so long?
Sounds like the people of the UK need to adopt a written Constitution that can't be rewritten at the whim of Parliament.