How to vote out the laws you hate - the Govts invite

[PeckhamRose]

Here

[Marmora Man]

There's also a thread I set up in the Drawing Room - to date with no conversation.

[PeckhamRose]

Ah, I see! Well I was thinking about the drawing room and did not notice your post!! Sorry. I thought not everyone goes to that room thinking it too serious or highbrow or something and that Lounge attracts more passing traffic.

Still, the more that know the better!

[Marmora Man]

Absolutely.

Are you pursuing humanist issues - greater tolerance / removal of religious strictures?

[Santerme]

NuLab must hold the record for the amount of new legislation entered onto the UK's statute Book, most of it inspired by Brussels - all of it administratively expensive and of little value to us.

Now we get to vote on what to repeal.....here goes

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Unless I'm missing some glaring reason that the local district council should be able to view my internet activities.

Human Rights Act

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act....a wonderful piece of political craftmanship which is actually akin to the Enabling Act in Germany in 1933 as it allows the Govt to create law without it passing through both Houses of Parliament.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994...denies the right to silence effectively.

Crime and Security Act 2010....... allows, inter alia the Police to take fingerprints without your consent in respect of a mere caution!

Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010

The Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010 has to represent the nadir of New Labour?s politically-correct legislative agenda!

Since 'slavery' is defined under section 1(3) as including inter alia 'domestic servitude', it leaves open the possibility that marches and demonstrations in protest of poor pay and conditions' by Trade Unions and others may now legitimately be described as 'celebrations' in respect of 'anti-slavery' day!

[ruffers]

Didn't we recently have an election where we went through a long process to give someone the authority to make these decisions for us? Now you're in power have the balls to take those decisions, take responsibility.

[RosieH]

What ruffers said.

Man up Cameron. This isn't the fucking X Factor.

[JohnL]

It's the old hunting of the fox he wants to repeal - but is worried about the feeling about it in the country.

He should just do it and hunt the bloody thing if he has to.

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What ruffers said.

>

> Man up Cameron. This isn't the @#$%& X Factor.

[Marmora Man]

Democracy is about participation not abrogation. Just because a governmenthas been voted it doesn't mean we can or should forget about it until the next election. I applaud this idea to keep us involved.

[Santerme]

Totally agree MM

We had zero participation this last, seemingly endless, number of years and now we have a complete nanny state, overseen by ZaNu Labour, who eroded freedoms and passed legislation much of which needs root and branch demolition.

[taper]

HRA is largely a good thing. Don't believe the tabs. I'd get rid of whatever law it is that requires schools to have an element of religious service and education.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think it's a great idea to ask us what we'd like to get rid of, unfortunately like all politicians that put out to consultation they'll ignore anything that doesn't suit them or their policies.

I don't think we can repeal European legislation can we? As for the barely significant issue of fox hunting....if the upper classes want the right to tear foxes to pieces then the working classes should be allowed to let their dogs tear each other to pieces. Both equally cruel and both of which should stay banned.

[taper]

"ZaNu Labour"

Oh dear.

[Santerme]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "ZaNu Labour"

>

> Oh dear.

Do you have an issue you would like to discuss, or just make unilluminating comments?

[Santerme]

Actually, I modify my position on HRA 1998, either it ought to be strenghtened to be effective or abolished...

It is a triumph of form over substance since it creates the illusion that your rights are actually protected!

You will find that a matter of practical reality, that if you look closely enough, the Act does no such thing!

[taper]

Lazy hyperbole, Santerme, whatever you think of them. Doesn't do a great deal for your argument. Beneath one of the most astute people on the Forum.

[taper]

On the HRA, I'd go with strengthened to reflect how the Courts have interpreted it. I'd prefer a written Bill of Rights, in which case you probably could abolish it.

[Santerme]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lazy hyperbole, Santerme, whatever you think of

> them. Doesn't do a great deal for your argument.

> Beneath one of the most astute people on the

> Forum.

I stand rightly chastised...

[Santerme]

I think that there are quite a few who have absolutely no idea whatsoever how the Human Rights Act 1998 actually works.

It is held up as a token.

What is often the case is that the rights incorporated under section 1 of the Act give the court no power other than to make a declaration of incompatibility with Human Rights and no power whatsoever to disapply the law found in confict.

Such judicial declarations are extremely rare.

[RosieH]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Democracy is about participation not abrogation.

> Just because a governmenthas been voted it doesn't

> mean we can or should forget about it until the

> next election. I applaud this idea to keep us

> involved.

Perhaps I'm just desperately cynical, but I see this as cheap entertainment tactics that gives them cover for anything controversial and will bring out the single issue voters (read fox hunters) in droves.

[ianr]

Santerme wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is often the case is that the rights incorporated under section 1 of the Act give the

> court no power other than to make a declaration of incompatibility with Human Rights and no power

> whatsoever to disapply the law found in confict.

What is always the case is that the section gives to all courts the power (in fact the obligation) to apply all domestic law so as to be compatible with ECHR rights and authorities, and to higher courts of appeal the power to make a declaration of incompatibility where that is found to be impossible.

Are you seeking to imply that that such incompatibilities are often found?

> Such judicial declarations are extremely rare.

A default inference from that might well be that there are very few cases where domestic legislation is found to be irretrivably incompatible with ECHR law. Or are you suggesting that courts often find an incompatibility but decline to make a declaration of that incompatibility?

Whatever, I think it would help understanding of your argument if you cite some cases where you think the outcome of the workings of the HRA have been unsatisfactory.

[ruffers]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Democracy is about participation not abrogation.

> Just because a governmenthas been voted it doesn't

> mean we can or should forget about it until the

> next election. I applaud this idea to keep us

> involved.

True, but leadership is about leading, taking difficult decisions which may turn out to be unpopular and, in a political context, facing public vote on whether those decisions turned out to be right. As Cameron said in his first statement as PM -

""I came into politics because I love this country, I think its best days still lie ahead and I believe deeply in public service, and I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges, to confront our problems, to take difficult decisions, to lead people through those difficult decisions so that together we can reach better times ahead."

These kind of requests for opinion seem to me to be an attempt to dilute responsibility should the decision eventually taken turn out to be wrong or ultimately unpopular.

[Santerme]

Ianr....I fear I am a barrack room lawyer in this respect.

I have been having this discussion elsewhere.

It is my belief that courts will bend over backwards to find that Human Rights have not, in fact, been violated.

On the odd occasion that they do, the law found in violation continues to apply until Parliament amends the law which it is often not inclined to do.

A contemporary example.

In September 2003 an 'Arms Fair' took place in London's docklands.

The Police used Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 against those who legitimately protested against the holding of the Arms Fair.

In fact, the Police regularly use section 44 to stop and search just about anyone and some concern was expressed that these stop and search powers were both disproportionate and were being applied directly against anyone who expressed dissent over government policy.

Indeed, Walter Wolfgang, ejected for heckling Jack Straw was a victim of the powers used by the Police using section 44 Terrorism Act.

In his reports for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, Lord Carlile, the government appointed independent reviewer of into operations under the 2002 Act expressed concern that these powers, intended to combat the threat of terrorism were being increasingly abused.

He was ignored by the Government.

Two of those who had been stopped under section 44 took the governnment to Court on the grounds that the powers were being used ultra vires the intention of Parliament to stifle the freedom of expression under Article 8 of the Convention.

The High Court, The Court of Appeal and the House of Lords all dismissed the applicants arguments advanced under the Human Rights Act.

Not to be deterred, the two individuals took their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom which was handed down on 12th January 2010.

If your attention span is up to it, it is actually worth reading.

Unsurprisingly, the court, even taking into consideration the large 'margin of appreciation' traditionally allowed to signatory states, emphatically denounced the United Kingdom and found unanimously, a breach of Article 8.

It demonstrates the undue deference our courts accord the government in cases under the Human Rights Act and their reluctance even within the limited powers they have under it, to find the government in default.

They do so, only in extreme circumstances in order to avoid a constitutional clash with the government.

A Bill of Rights is undeniably a better solution.

[DJKillaQueen]

These kind of requests for opinion seem to me to be an attempt to dilute responsibility should the decision eventually taken turn out to be wrong or ultimately unpopular.

Maybe conversely it's an attempt to stay in touch with public opinion although untimately (I agree with you in that) they will pick and choose which public opinions they act on, as long as they compliment party policy and then refer to them as evidence to counter future accusations that they are not in tune with public opinion.

[ruffers]

Techie criticism of the actual site here and some nuggets of suggestions so far for light relief.

http://yourfreedumb.tumblr.com/