Thursday, September 24, 2015
SNP grievance merchant Nicola Sturgeon is said to have shown “international leadership” by Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty over Conservative plan to scrap Human Rights Act 1998, Chakrabarti shows complete ignorance of Scottish politics, SNP Government had to be forced to reinstate human right to a fair trial in Scotland
How much do you know about Human Rights?
One of the things I say to people when talking about Human Rights is this, ‘I want’ isn’t the same as ‘I am entitled to’.
In the main Human Rights are a good thing and a cornerstone of a decent society, most people have heard of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and also the European Court of Human Rights. To a lesser extent, they will also have heard of the UK Supreme Court.
The European Court of Human Rights and the UK Supreme Court have many passed judgments which I would agree with, on twitter today, I mentioned to someone the Cadder Case which was ruled on by the UK Supreme Court which led to the Crown Office in Scotland being forced to restore human rights back to people accused of crime. The Crown Office and the Appeal Court in Edinburgh thought that ‘gifts’ of rights by the Crown Office were the same as human rights. The UK Supreme Court came to the conclusion that they were not, and forced the Scottish Government to do a climb down.
On this issue, the SNP Government, the Crown Office, the Police and Appeal Court got it all wrong, if you google my thoughts on the Cadder Case, you will see that from quite early on, my view was pretty clear, these organisations were interfering in the rights of an accused to have a fair trial. In short, they were legally trying to rig the proceedings instead of ensuring a level playing field.
Is it important to have a level playing field in a trial of an accused person?
Yes, if you believe in democracy it is, if justice isn’t a cornerstone then effectively there is no democratic society and we are living under a dictatorship.
The SNP don’t believe in human rights, laughingly this is borne out by their deeds on the matter, as I pointed out there was the shameful incident of the Cadder Case, but another equally bad piece of judgment was the SNP’s next attempt in trying to scrap corroboration in a trial. The idea is simple; take an emotive issue such as rape to justify lowering the bar of proof to convict people. So, if you don’t blindly follow their dogma you can be tagged as supporting rapists and being uncaring towards someone who is a victim of crime.
Here is a thought, when is someone legally recognised as a victim of crime in a court?
Is it when an arrest is made of the person or person they accuse?
Is it when the Crown Office represents them and takes their case forward?
Before you answer this, remember until a person is found guilty, they are presumed innocent, and if they are presumed innocent, then the status of the alleged victim is that of a witness.
In order to capture the women’s vote, the SNP decided to attempt to woo women by using several political carrots, one of them was the scrapping of corroboration. It was a cynical attempt to win votes on the back of rape and unworthy of any government to involved themselves in something so low and underhanded.
The issue proved so toxic that the SNP kicked into the long grass as people spoke out about this human rights abused attempted by the SNP and the resultant publicity scared off the SNP.
So much for concerns for women victims it seems; votes were more important as the SNP tried to foster the illusion of competent government.
Prime Minister David Cameron doesn’t like the Human Rights Act 1998 which was brought into being by the Blair Government. He wants the Human Rights Act replaced by what he calls a British Bill of Rights, so the question which springs to mind is this, would a person lose any of the current human rights they now enjoy? If the answer is yes, why would anyone agree with a British Bill of Rights in the first place?
The problem with the Human Rights Act 1998 isn’t the Act itself, it is the people who are judges and how they view the act. Is it right that a foreign murderer, rapist or paedophile can use human rights legislation to remain in the UK? The answer is clearly not, under 8.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the State has the right to remove from society any person who is a danger to the State or the people. This is generally ignored in favour of judges allowing criminals to claim another human right, the right to a family life. If this right actually held any water; no person who is convicted of a serious crime should be locked up because imprisonment is denial of the right to a family life. However we do lock people up and we do have the right to deport them.
We don’t have the right kind of judges.
In Scotland, SNP grievance merchant Nicola Sturgeon has seized on the fact that the Conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act. Any excuse for a fight with Westminster and to push independence, incidentally most of her supporters are just as ignorant on human rights as she but without holding a law degree. So, we have Sturgeon saying it is "inconceivable" MSPs will agree to the Human Rights Act being scrapped in Scotland.
If Westminster wishes to scrap a Westminster made Act, they have the power to do so, if David Cameron decided to scrap a Bill made in Holyrood by the SNP would Sturgeon just accept it or would she scream about tampering with ‘our parliament’ and disrespecting ‘our democratic will’.
Think about that for a moment.
To a selected audience of what is term ‘civic leaders’ in the Pearce Institute in Govan, Sturgeon said that David Cameron's plans to repeal the legislation were "wholly unnecessary".
Although I have a deep held personal dislike of Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell as I consider them to be trash, Sturgeon on this occasion is right. What is needed however and something which is beyond her Dreghorn ned like mentality is that the EU needs to reform the European Convention on Human Rights. It is due a review something which I have previously blogged on and comment on elsewhere in the past.
In case, anyone missed the main point in the last paragraph, I will trot it out again, Nicola Sturgeon on this occasion is right, before you get to het up, she is only partially, busted watch syndrome; sooner or later something out of her mouth is bound to be right given the law of averages.
The European Court of Human Rights hasn’t "devalued" our human rights as David Cameron claims, as an example a guy can still stick his penis into the mouth of a dead pig. And that is seen as the human right of freedom of expression, however most people tend to do it in an indoor setting perhaps surrounded by a few close university friends.
The Act isn’t the problem, it’s the judges!
At present a minority of Tories oppose the idea, along with the Labour Party and other opposition parties. In a matter like this, there should be universal consensus as much as possible however, it doesn’t seem likely and if the Human Rights Act 1998 was scrapped by the Conservatives, I would suggest a future Labour Government would simply bring the Act back, this to me doesn’t sound like good law making or indeed good parliamentary business practice.
In Scotland, there is the 1998 Scotland Act, which states all legislation passed by Holyrood must be compatible with the ECHR; however an amendment could be brought in to change the wording of the Act to say ‘British Bill of Rights’.
“Responsibility for the Human Rights Act rests solely with the Westminster parliament, but European Convention rights are embedded into the devolution settlement and human rights itself is a devolved issue. That means that any attempt to repeal or amend the Human Rights Act is likely to require the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament. It is inconceivable – given the breadth of the support which the Human Rights Act commands across the Scottish Parliament – that such consent would be granted.The Scottish Government will certainly advocate that it is not granted.”
The key word of that diatribe is ‘likely’, this is her opinion, and my opinion is this, consent is not required by the Scottish Parliament, Westminster Acts currently on the books and passed by the Scottish Parliament don’t require consent. I see this as another feeble electioneering con trick on the gullible who parked their ass at the Pearce Institute in Govan to listen to Sturgeon witter on about something clearly out of her depth and scope.
“The Scottish Government will also oppose any weakening of human rights protections – not just in Scotland, but across the whole of the UK. Human rights, after all, are not English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish rights. They are universal rights.”
Ohhhhh….. someone has read a law!!!!!
Joining Sturgeon at the Pearce Institute in Govan was Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty; Liberty is as much a farce as Shami Chakrabarti herself.
Ms. Chakrabarti said:
“The First Minister of Scotland shows international leadership today. She vows to defend the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the vulnerable against the powerful everywhere – including refugees. Her message leaves no room for doubt. Policies of divide and rule must not succeed in stripping us of our universal rights and freedoms.”
This statement shows clearly that Ms. Chakrabarti knows nothing of the political scene in Scotland or of Nicola Sturgeon who surrounds herself with some of the most nastiness human rights abusing scum in British politics. Was she blind to the SNP Government’s actions in the Cadder Case or the attempt to subvert a fair trial re corroboration?
“The First Minister of Scotland shows international leadership today”.
Sniff, sniff, did a cow shat in the Pearce Institute in Govan because I think I can smell stomach turning bullshit that makes you want to vomit so hard you think your arse is going to be coming out of your mouth.
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University