Scrapping the Human Rights Act: Why The Government Want Change - TLDR News

For years the Conservatives have taken issue with the Human Rights Act, and now with the UK out of the EU and their powers increased, they're looking to do something about it. So in this video we'll examine the criticisms of the act and what the Conservatives want to do to change it.

TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.

TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!

////////////////////////////

[ludre]

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.

[duineganainm]

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

[firefang]

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 :)

[sacredgeometry]

Great! Someone that "doesn't believe in economic and social rights" is exactly who you want rewriting a countries bill of rights.

[largeladsteve]

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

[johnhobbes]

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.

[alanlittle]

They have so much contempt for us, that they don't see us as deserving of human rights.

[VictorECaplon]

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!

[HeadedNinja]

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.

[Sigismundism]

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

[youknow]

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.

[macbitz]

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.

[florinadrian]

What? The government won't be able to torture people at will? Down with the human rights!

[yuvalne]

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?..

[somethingsomethingsomethingdar]

Article one: The prime minister shall have the unalienable right to party within number 10 regardless of current laws….retroactively.

[tejashdasgupta]

Tories be like: Geneva convention more like Geneva suggestion

[helgelk]

"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.

[WhichDoctor]

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

[theMoporter]

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.

[etialpti]

"You all have too many rights" doesn't sound like a convincing argument to me