More MPs who don't understand what the Human Rights Act does
The overall issue here is that some people are saying that swearing an oath or pledge to the Queen and her successors is a breach of human rights for people who aren't CofE, or are Republican, or various other things. However, leaving the details of that to one side:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7562949.stm But Mr Carswell told the BBC the case illustrated why Britain should adopt its own "bill of rights" and drop the Human Rights Act.
As I've ranted about before, the Human Rights Act does not give British citizens new rights. Repealing it will not take away those rights. It will simply prevent people accessing those rights in UK courts, and they'll have to get the European courts to intervene. Result? Time, money, inequality - someone poor without a cause celebre is unlikely to be able to do this.
However, this was on the Today programme. The presenters should know what the Human Rights Act does, and what repealing it won't do. They should be able to challenge speakers who talk about repealing it (just as they challenge people on all sorts of other points).
Nor will a Bill of Rights cause the ECJ or ECHR to look more favourably on Britain, or alter its ruling. Essentially the only times they bend for national laws are for countries where the constitution is so heavily embedded and unbreakable that it provides protection to the country's citizens. Westminster can overturn any piece of UK law (including "devolved" Scottish law) with a simple Act, and no-one is talking about a British Bill of Rights that will actually bind Parliament's hands by completely shaking the constitutional foundation of the country.
People suck.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7562949.stm But Mr Carswell told the BBC the case illustrated why Britain should adopt its own "bill of rights" and drop the Human Rights Act.
As I've ranted about before, the Human Rights Act does not give British citizens new rights. Repealing it will not take away those rights. It will simply prevent people accessing those rights in UK courts, and they'll have to get the European courts to intervene. Result? Time, money, inequality - someone poor without a cause celebre is unlikely to be able to do this.
However, this was on the Today programme. The presenters should know what the Human Rights Act does, and what repealing it won't do. They should be able to challenge speakers who talk about repealing it (just as they challenge people on all sorts of other points).
Nor will a Bill of Rights cause the ECJ or ECHR to look more favourably on Britain, or alter its ruling. Essentially the only times they bend for national laws are for countries where the constitution is so heavily embedded and unbreakable that it provides protection to the country's citizens. Westminster can overturn any piece of UK law (including "devolved" Scottish law) with a simple Act, and no-one is talking about a British Bill of Rights that will actually bind Parliament's hands by completely shaking the constitutional foundation of the country.
People suck.