British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

So yesterday the Tories opened the frontal attack on UKIP by aiming to appease the deserting vote by stating they will effectively leave the European Convention of Human Rights (introduced by Churchill, no not the insurer) by introducing a British Bill of Human Rights.

So what do you want in it that isn't in the European Convention of Human Rights? Or, what part of the ECHR do you specifically not want in the BBHR?

The problems tend to arise not from the contents of the conventions, but from the occasionally perverse interpretation/implementation of the conventions by the European Court and the fact that an article in the conventions binds us to that court.

Maybe I'm in a minority but I'm quite happy with the ECHR. I quite like the fact that the Government can be brought to account when attempting to introduce draconian laws.

As for a British Bill of Rights, it was discussed yesterday on a BBC website Have Your Say, where the best comment I thought was;

"I'm pretty sure a 'British Bill Of Rights' would soon see a flood of legal challenges, similar to those already brought under the ECHR.

It's the nature of that kind of legislation, lawyers probe & test the boundaries.

Elements of the US constitution still regularly come under legal challenge more than 200 years after its creation."

So I think we'd be in the same boat as we are now, but it would be easier for the Government of the day to "ammend" anything in it that was inconvenient at the time.

"British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it"

I am more curious as to what the Tories don't want in it and if they have a fair point, why not just propose amendments to the current model of the treaty?

The right to die at a time of my choosing.

The only thing people want is right to sue in the Strasbourg taken away. I don't think anyone objects to the rest of it.

Seems fair enough to me.

We definitely need the right to freedom of speech strengthening as it's being eroded all the time. Freedom of speech should include hate speech as it does in the USA.

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow

As it is now

Thanks for the reactions. So it does indeed appear that the main culprit in this is that the court, instead of being aloof and independent in London somewhere is aloof and independent in Strasbourg.

I can appreciate that sentiment but I do wonder what the practical difference would be - on top of that, the way things were worded it makes it seem like the one thing the Tories want is to introduce political influence on what should be done with what is decided in that court - do we really trust our politicians that much? I don't.

So yesterday the Tories opened the frontal attack on UKIP by aiming to appease the deserting vote by stating they will effectively leave the European Convention of Human Rights (introduced by Churchill, no not the insurer) by introducing a British Bill of Human Rights.

 

So what do you want in it that isn't in the European Convention of Human Rights? Or, what part of the ECHR do you specifically not want in the BBHR?

I think the Human right act came into force in 1998 and I didn't notice the world getting any better, it just carried on as it had always done. So I doubt life would be any worse if it was scrapped, it might even be a little better if extremists and criminals didn't couldn't use it bash our government with.

The reason why people oppose Human Rights act is the problems with it. for example giving criminals right to vote. Not being able to deport Abu Hamza etc.

it seem like the one thing the Tories want is to introduce political influence on what should be done with what is decided in that court - do we really trust our politicians that much? I don't.

Precisely. Presumably why the treaty was formed in the first place.

I don't trust the British Government to form any such bill without it simply being a way to conveniently remove from the poor and the powerless the ability to stand up for themselves against the rich and powerful.