Human Rights Act - Has it gone too far as Jack Straw Believes?

December 8, 2008 11:57am CST
The HRA (UK) was enshrined in law in 1998. It guarantees individuals certain basic rights of protection from the government. Not surprisingly the government does not like individuals having protection from them and hence have been trying to destroy it since it became law. What do people think? Should we have the right to protection from the government? All of us, including convicted criminals? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/08/human-rights-act-straw
1 response
@mac1946 (1602)
• Calgary, Alberta
8 Dec 08
I am glad to see at least one western country has some protection from the government,In Canada,we have no such thing,the government controls it all,if you try to take them to court for anything,you just loose your money for one,as they have all the tax money from the people to fight you with. It is also the same with the police,if you see them breaking a law that you can be charged with,try taking them to court,even if you win the case,the police will hound you forever more. As for the convicted criminals,the revolving door policy of our courts allow to many serious criminals back onto the streets,to plan more trouble before being taught correction,so I would have to say that depending on how serious the crime to how much protection is given. I do fully beleive that all persons charged with a violation of the laws must be concidered inocent until proven guilty,but once convicted,they loose their rights as citizens untill proven to be rehabilitated. I hope this is what you are looking for,great discussion.
@Random28 (158)
8 Dec 08
Sounds like Canada is nearly as bad as UK! Even with the HRA it doesn't guarantee compensation just the cvhance to challenge some of the unfair laws made by the government. The criminal justice system is something else and whether prison worls or simply delays criminals - 70+% reoffend - a life changing event is needed to make them realise that there is something better.