Talk:Human Rights Act 1998

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sorry to leave this half done, will be back to it, I think it'll end up as a really good article when finished, it's bang-on with the mission, specifically authoritarianism and how the right-wing hate it. Please, please join in, make the criticism sections better, add new ones, have fun! Back soon! DalekEXTERMINATE 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So you gonna get back to it? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

ECHR rights in HRA[edit]

While this might only be useful as a historical relic soon, I've added in the rights guaranteed in the Human Rights Act.
I'd like to elaborate on this later on, adding in more information, especially including legal cases which relied on the HRA/ECHR. — Unsigned, by: Rhysmorgan / talk / contribs 14:55, 13 May 2015‎

I don't think they'll actually go through with it. It seems like they haven't really thought about it too much. Came across this article that goes through all the problems it would throw up just with regards to devolution. Best bit - "So to put it shortly, repeal of the Human Rights Act would require the consent of the devolved regions and the Republic of Ireland." (emphasis added). That's not to mention all the other roadblocks they'll run into trying to repeal what is possibly the closest thing the UK has to an entrenched Act of Parliament. Pascal yuiop (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Actual implementation[edit]

Who wrote this garbage? I haven't taken it down straight away because it's a long piece and I want a discussion, but seriously, "Thus it is near impossible to actually make a claim under the Act in the UK. It's as if the Act exists for window dressing up the UK justice system."? Then why have there been hundreds, if not thousands, of cases involving the Human Rights Act, and even more concerning the ECHR before the HRA came into force. This is nonsense. Pascal yuiop (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The first question is going to be for evidence of your claims. If it's complete nonsense that should fairly easy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's start with the first paragraph. Without any sources, claims everything is a human rights issue. Which is patently false, because there are many cases where human rights are not in issue. Yes human rights are universal, but this doesn't mean that every legal claim is a human rights claim. The universality of human rights means that those rights belong to every human being and can be relied on anywhere in the universe. Secondly, I have no idea why this author is so fixated on fucking claim forms. Spoiler - they are of 0 value. Next: Often, the term "appeal" is used when the individual is appealing not asgainst the ruling of a court but against the ruling of a minister. This appeal usually lies to a specialist tribunal. Basic stuff, man. Why the fuck is Sirros v Moore being cited? How is that relevant to the HRA? Also, and as an aisde, I find it laughable that the quote included is from Lord Denning, possibly the worst appeals judge this country has had in a while. And again, if "it is near impossible to actually make a claim under the Act in the UK" why are there so many cases where someone has made a claim under the Act? Why are so many people calling for its repeal? Finally, why the bible quote? This section has no sources and is ignorant of basic legal concepts. If no one objects, I intend to delete it outright. Pascal yuiop (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted this section after receiving no reasons why it should stay. Pascal yuiop (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)