RSS Feed
June 10th, 2017 
Awake Goy The Prime Minister has made a pledge that if re-elected, they will take steps to abolish the Human Rights Act. This is allegedly on the basis that the Act is enabling criminals and terrorists to operate freely in our society, and that the Act is preventing any progress in the domestic war on terror.
The Conservatives have a long-standing tradition of openly representing the wealthy, and have been long-time enemies of any progress being made within the concept of fairness and freedom for all.
Following the scene that played out in Europe from 1933-1945, with all its associated horrors, and the tyranny and abuses inflicted on humankind, the idea of protecting rights in Law made headway in 1948 when a Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made.
This led to the European Convention on Human Rights being conceived two years later.
Britain signed the ECHR in November 1950, and became the first state to endorse the convention the following year.
Since then the successive British governments sought to portray themselves as champions of the convention at an international level, and have committed troops, financial aid and weapons, even waged war and deposed dictators in the name of the convention and often cite human rights abuses in the media to justify their intentions.
Whilst championing the convention at an international level, Britain has been very slow in incorporating those same principles into British Law, anyone claiming Human Rights violations having to take the costly route into the Strasbourg courts to be heard.
After signing the convention in 1950, it took British governments until 1998 to finally acknowledge the Convention into British Law and in 2000 it was finally bound into UK law.
In the 17 years since, there has been much media attention and other campaigns, committed to discrediting the Convention in respect to UK law. Ludicrous claims that the Act has started a compensation culture, given criminals and terrorists freedom to act in their crimes. The list of reasons stated is endless, which, of course, are simply lies, when you actually apply the Act to them in Law.
Written into the Act are what are known as Limitations to the act, which can be applied only in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and requires that a definite legal basis applies to the pursuit of that aim.
Any measures in place must be necessary, and proportionate to that aim.
Legitimate aims that are acceptable to the Convention and the Act are:
- Interests of National security.
- Interests of public safety.
- The prevention of disorder and crime.
- Protection of the health, rights and freedoms of others.
Any aims must also be shown to be necessary in a democratic society, and be the LEAST intrusive way of achieving the aim.
Therefore, is it an infringement of a persons human rights if they find themselves arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act after involving themselves with terrorist organisations?
The Prevention of Terrorism Act gives HM government all the powers they need to tackle domestic terrorism, and the Human Rights Act does nothing to prevent them from acting.
It is clear to see that in applying the Act to the problems cited by Theresa May in the wake of recent domestic incidents in the UK that the war on terror is not under threat due to the Act being in place.
And it does not place limitations on the authorities abilities to crack down on domestic terrorism.
The pursuit of individuals or groups, suspected of committing acts which threaten the safety of others or that threaten national security, are permitted and sanctioned by the Act.
Article 2 states the Right to Life, and prohibits unlawful killing so it is clear to see that the claims made by the Prime Minister that they cannot act are untrue.
The Human Rights Act protects the weak and vulnerable, the elderly and the infirm, gives you security in the workplace, and in all manner of ways in everyday life.
The abolition of the Act and the failure to protect the rights of individual citizens who play no part in domestic terrorism. Can it be said to be an abuse of individuals rights in itself?
Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DarkPolitricks/~3/SC0JI997AWE/
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
