Britain is leading the charge against basic human rights

[Razgovory]

If they don't have an expectation to be seen, they wouldn't spend so much money on clothing.

[Sheilbh]

Huh.  And you don't mind the NSA stuff either

I don't think either come close to human rights issues. Civil liberties at best - and even then they're a piss-poor example.

[Valmy]

Huh.  And you don't mind the NSA stuff either

I don't think either come close to human rights issues. Civil liberties at best - and even then they're a piss-poor example.

I am well aware we could not disagree more on this issue.

So what is it that Britain is doing that goes beyond this sort of thing?

[Jacob]

So what is it that Britain is doing that goes beyond this sort of thing?

I'd guess attempting to withdraw from the European Human Rights Convention and the European Court of Human Rights and replace it with a homegrown British Human Rights act taking local sensibilities into account and avoiding pesky oversight by someone not answerable to Her Majesty's Government.

The report by Amnesty International mentions that, as it happens.

[Sheilbh]

The Tories want to abolish the Human Rights Act which doesn't give courts the right to overrule Parliament but requires that they interpret legislation in accord with the European Convention on Human Rights (and they should take a more purposive approach to interpretation), if that's impossible then they issue a declaration of incompatibility. When that's happened the government has changed legislation to make it compatible with the HRA.

The Tories have this mad idea that this has somehow led to unelected judges (often European judges) overruling Parliament which is nonsense and constitutionally not very possible. So they want to abolish that and pull the UK out of the ECHR which is part of the Council of Europe and includes countries like Turkey and Russia and was written by British lawyers after WW2. Despite the fact that the UK has the best record of big European countries in terms of cases the European Court of Human Rights takes, and finds against that country.

They want to replace it with a British Bill of Rights (you'll note, of course, that we already have a Bill of Rights and the rather more famous one across the Atlantic explicitly allows judges to overrule the legislature - but today's Tory party is incredibly ignorant and indifferent to our constitution, see the EU referendum bill, fixed term Parliaments etc) which leads naturally to Lord Bingham's question of which of the European Convention's human rights would Britain be opting out of precisely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

But we've got a weird tabloid-driven panic about the whole thing

[Jacob]

From the report on the UK:

In October, Prime Minister Cameron confirmed that, if elected, a Conservative Party government would repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, with a view to limiting the influence of the European Court of Human Rights. Draft proposals threatened significant restrictions on rights.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/europe-and-central-asia/united-kingdom/report-united-kingdom/

[Valmy]

So what is it that Britain is doing that goes beyond this sort of thing?

I'd guess attempting to withdraw from the European Human Rights Convention and the European Court of Human Rights and replace it with a homegrown British Human Rights act taking local sensibilities into account and avoiding pesky oversight by someone not answerable to Her Majesty's Government.

The report by Amnesty International mentions that, as it happens.

Yes I read the article Jake.  I was wanting to know what specifically bothered Sheilbh.

But withdrawing from treaties and wanting sovereignty protected does not necessarily mean you are going to abuse human rights.

[Valmy]

But we've got a weird tabloid-driven panic about the whole thing

Sounds depressingly familiar.

[Valmy]

If you say so.  Calling for UN interventions in these three circumstances seems pretty shark-jumping.  If they mean more interventions in general well...even that is precarious.

I'll give you that it's somewhat idealistic to hope and call for that the UN live up to its lofty ideals of protecting and promoting human rights and intervening to prevent atrocities and genocide.

I don't rate that as shark jumping, though. Amnesty International's entire purpose is to call for groups, governments, and organizations to live up to the lofty ideals they claim to have regarding human rights et. al., and to call them out where they fall short.

I just want to note that I was only in disagreement with AI on this one issue.  It is Yi saying they may or may not have jumped the shark.

[Sheilbh]

In terms of particular annoyances at human rights I'm very pissed off at the commercial arm of the Ministry of Justice (WHAT? ) doing deals providing British expertise in punishment services to, say, Saudi Arabia:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/ministry-justice-contract-saudi-arabia-prison

[Jacob]

Yes I read the article Jake.  I was wanting to know what specifically bothered Sheilbh.

Fair enough. I just offered my guess before he answers

But withdrawing from treaties and wanting sovereignty protected does not necessarily mean you are going to abuse human rights.

That's definitely what Cameron is arguing. And you're right, it doesn't mean you're going to abuse human rights.

But withdrawing from international institutions and frameworks certainly makes it easier and more tempting to do so. The whole point is to have an external body to give you a check. And withdrawing from those conventions smacks of being a tinpot dictator or Putinist pseudo-democracy. You can come up with reasons that you think justify violating international human rights conventions, sure; but redefining them so you can say "sure we're violating 'International conventions' but by our own convenient definition, everything is A-OK" is pretty shady IMO.

Dismantling and/or withdrawing from institutions that promote accountability is a step in the wrong direction.

[Jacob]

In terms of particular annoyances at human rights I'm very pissed off at the commercial arm of the Ministry of Justice (WHAT? ) doing deals providing British expertise in punishment services to, say, Saudi Arabia:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/ministry-justice-contract-saudi-arabia-prison

[crazy canuck]

However, who gets to decide if a certain situation involves genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity? 

Yeah, that is what I thought when I heard the news story.  So instead of there is going to be a veto on whether an event falls within those categories.  Not much progress.


The real problem is that the UN was created to deal with a Cold War world.   It doesn't function particularly well in the present circumstances.

[crazy canuck]

Yes I read the article Jake.  I was wanting to know what specifically bothered Sheilbh.

Fair enough. I just offered my guess before he answers

But withdrawing from treaties and wanting sovereignty protected does not necessarily mean you are going to abuse human rights.

That's definitely what Cameron is arguing. And you're right, it doesn't mean you're going to abuse human rights.

But withdrawing from international institutions and frameworks certainly makes it easier and more tempting to do so. The whole point is to have an external body to give you a check. And withdrawing from those conventions smacks of being a tinpot dictator or Putinist pseudo-democracy. You can come up with reasons that you think justify violating international human rights conventions, sure; but redefining them so you can say "sure we're violating 'International conventions' but by our own convenient definition, everything is A-OK" is pretty shady IMO.

Dismantling and/or withdrawing from institutions that promote accountability is a step in the wrong direction.

On the other hand there is no chance that any Canadian jurisdiction would think it proper that its Human Rights Code be interpreted in accordance with the law in a foreign jurisdiction.  I am not sure what is so terrible about that.

[crazy canuck]

In terms of particular annoyances at human rights I'm very pissed off at the commercial arm of the Ministry of Justice (WHAT? ) doing deals providing British expertise in punishment services to, say, Saudi Arabia:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/ministry-justice-contract-saudi-arabia-prison

The contract is "to conduct a training needs analysis across all the learning and development programmes within the Saudi Arabian prison service".

Why is that so terrible?