Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Coalition government reconsidering Tory plans to scrap Human Rights Act

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Justin Hinchcliffe 19 May 2010, 3:05pm

    Ms Green, will you PLEASE stop these daily anti-Conservative/government ‘stories’? This site is fast becoming, politically, the gay equivalent of the Daily Mirror

  2. That’s funny Justin, because if you read the comments on this site you’ll see that Pinknews comes in for a lot of stick for being too pro-Tory as well. Just out of interest, in what way is this story anti-Tory? Do you dispute the fact that the Conservative election manifesto promised to scrap the 1998 Human Rights Act?

  3. Rob Hedley 19 May 2010, 3:12pm

    ‘Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill said his organisation was more concerned about “what it does, not what it’s called”.’ – sound familiar!? I think this must Stonewall’s stock answer.

  4. sod off stonewall

  5. No. 3 Rob Hedley, what else can we expect from full equality hating StonewallUK, an organisation that supports opression by opposing same-sex marriage equality, ditto Cameron. StonewallUK does NOT speak for all of us.

    Interesting isn’t it how the current law prevented an Al-Quaeda suspect from being deported back to his own country for fear of torture, execution or both, yet there was NO public outcry from Labour or Tory when gay asylum seekers from islamic countries are repatriated against their will to face an uncertain fate, but told to act straight and keep a low profile. Nick Clegg should and MUST oppose any watering down of the current law at all costs.

  6. I think any move to detach ourselves from European control has to be a good thing. Human rights are all very well, but what happens when one persons rights impinges on anothers? Who’s right is right?

    The fact that known terrorists are not allowed to be deported is totally farcical, and demonstrates not only the utter stupidity of this act, but the impotence this country has to do anything about it. I think it better to draw up a similar act that is ratified by our own British parliament, and then we can tweak it accordingly, instead of having to go cap in hand to Brussels to ask some fcuking Belgian’s permission.

  7. Patrick James 19 May 2010, 4:06pm

    Justin Hinchcliffe writes:

    Ms Green, will you PLEASE stop these daily anti-Conservative/government ‘stories’? This site is fast becoming, politically, the gay equivalent of the Daily Mirror

    It’s very difficult to see how this story could be written in a way so as not to upset Justin’s sensitivities.

    In general I think that PinkNews is nothing like questioning enough of the Conservatives and I hope that it becomes more questioning of the Coalition government.

  8. “The fact that known terrorists are not allowed to be deported is totally farcical”

    Agreed. I think it’s the misuse of the Human Rigts Act that’s the problem – or maybe misinterpretation? Some people have taken against it because stories like this frequently appear where an ‘aggressor’ (I use that term widely and loosely to mean ‘not a victim’) can be rewarded, yet real victims, who maybe don’t have such good lawyers, suffer.

  9. Patrick James 19 May 2010, 4:28pm

    Røb_N writes:

    I think any move to detach ourselves from European control has to be a good thing.

    Describing the European Parliament as “European control” is really daft. The parliament is a product of the actions of its member states.

    I would very much like to see the UK playing an important role within the European Parliament.

    Røb_N writes:

    Human rights are all very well, but what happens when one persons rights impinges on anothers? Who’s right is right?

    Well, that is why you have conventions of course. That is why you things like the Human Rights Act, so that conflicts of interest can be resolved.

    If you don’t have a Human Rights Act or similar then you will have the conflict problem that Røb_N is “concerned” about.

    Røb_N writes:

    The fact that known terrorists are not allowed to be deported is totally farcical, and demonstrates not only the utter stupidity of this act, but the impotence this country has to do anything about it.

    It is very dangerous if a society starts to throw away human rights protection on the basis of scares such as “known terrorists are not allowed to be deported” etc.

    Røb_N writes:

    I think it better to draw up a similar act that is ratified by our own British parliament, and then we can tweak it accordingly

    It is the “tweak it accordingly” that I think will set off the alarm bells for many people.

    Røb_N continues:

    instead of having to go cap in hand to Brussels to ask some fcuking Belgian’s permission.

    I want the Belgian to remain :)

    I grew up in Northern Ireland and I have a very good experience of how the UK can behave when it feels human rights can be abandoned.

    It is a common belief amongst right wing people that human rights obstruct the fight against terrorism but this is totally wrong. In Northern Ireland the massive infringements upon human rights prolonged the violence in the province. It would be impossible to find a commentator today who would say otherwise.

    Reading through Røb_N’s posting is an illustration of what is required to be a UKIP supporter, which I believe is Røb_N’s position.

    UKIP requirements as follows:

    1 Total ignorance of the nature of British Society and its history
    2 Total ignorance of the European Parliament
    3 Regular reading of Daily Mail
    4 Fear
    5 Loathing

  10. Stonewall are a contemptible shower of homophobic scum.

    they are an embarrassment to the name Stonewall.

    No wonder Britain is now behind Portugal and Mexico when it comes to LGBT equality.

    Stonewall – Britain’s self-proclaimed leading LGB (but not T) advocacy group – are opposed to legal equality for LGBT people.

    They are opposed to same sex couples being allowed to marry.

    Stonewall are homophobic scum. Under no circumstances should anyone donate money to them

  11. Leave Rob_N alone. He’s still bitter because Farage didn’t take the Buckingham seat. I know I am.

    Like Patrick, I too would be worried if every country had human rights “tweaked” to accommodate their current political needs.

  12. Hodge Podge 19 May 2010, 5:16pm

    “what happens when one persons rights impinges on anothers? Who’s right is right?”

    Well, both. The terrorists should be tried and locked up, until they’re dead if necessary. The problem here is phone tapping evidence isn’t permissible, which it should be for very serious crimes when a warrant has been obtained. There are some things that should not be done to ANYONE, and we must not allow them to be done either.

  13. Patrick James:
    Describing the European Parliament as “European control” is really daft. The parliament is a product of the actions of it’s member states.

    Of which we are only one of 27 member states. That might be democratic to you, but I see it as taking power out of my own country and giving it to others. Is Great Britain so incapable of determining it’s own legislation that it has to delegate it to a bunch of faceless, unelected Eurocrats in Brussels? If your answer is “Yes”, then blame democracy, at least we had some say in who makes our laws. The last Labour government managed to impose a new law at a rate of at least one a day for the thirteen years whilst they were in power, yet they had to continually kowtow to the EU, and managed to slip us in while nobody was looking and make us a member without any British citizen having ever been asked, and their foregone guarantees that there would be a public referendum on the matter that mysteriously vapourised along with many other promises once B-liar got his foot in the door of Number 10.

    Røb_N writes:
    Human rights are all very well, but what happens when one persons rights impinges on anothers? Who’s right is right?
    Well, that is why you have conventions of course. That is why you things like the Human Rights Act, so that conflicts of interest can be resolved.
    Ah right. So allowing known terrorists planning to maim and kill to remain at liberty is all part of those conventions is it?

    If you don’t have a Human Rights Act or similar then you will have the conflict problem that Røb_N is “concerned” about.
    I fully agree that the UK should have a full and comprehensive human rights act (or whatever they want to call it) – But it should be written and defined specifically to work within the UK, and not have to accommodate some dodgy scenario in Azerbaijan or wherever.

    It is very dangerous if a society starts to throw away human rights protection on the basis of scares such as “known terrorists are not allowed to be deported” etc.
    I fully agree, one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, but nevertheless, it needs to be reassessed and amended to stop this constant abuse of the system. We have a perfectly acceptable and democratic legal system, from Magistrates, to Crown courts, to Law Lords. The fact that defendants continue to then appeal to the European Courts, who then bounce this stuff out with a Gallic shrug makes a mockery of the British legal system that was around when they were still decapitating anyone with an education.

    Rights come with responsibilities; If you wish to be part of civilised society, you have to agree to be a responsible member of that society, and you will be afforded those rights accordingly. The moment you decide you are not part of it, you should equally forgo those said rights. As far as I’m concerned, you try to blow up innocent people, you lose ALL rights, and can rot in a hole in the ground. In fact, yet more “human rights” imposed by the EU, I would go so far as to string them up via a short rope.

    I think it better to draw up a similar act that is ratified by our own British parliament, and then we can tweak it accordingly.
    It is the “tweak it accordingly” that I think will set off the alarm bells for many people.
    I’m sure it will. However, as I said before, are we so totally useless that we cannot define our own laws?

    Røb_N continues:
    …instead of having to go cap in hand to Brussels to ask some fcuking Belgian’s permission.
    I want the Belgian to remain.
    Well if you think so much of the EU, and so little of the UK, why don’t you do us all a favour and fcuk off and live over there?

    I grew up in Northern Ireland and I have a very good experience of how the UK can behave when it feels human rights can be abandoned.
    It is a common belief amongst right wing people that human rights obstruct the fight against terrorism but this is totally wrong. In Northern Ireland the massive infringements upon human rights prolonged the violence in the province. It would be impossible to find a commentator today who would say otherwise.

    Well, whatever you say, Britain ruled Northern Ireland because the majority of it’s population demanded it. Had it been not the case, it would have become part of the Republic, or possibly a state in it’s own right. That is one massive argument that will never be settled, and I am sure the UK also screwed up, but I would rather admit to our own government fcuking up their own country than some unelected consortium that most of us never wanted in the first place doing it for us.

    Reading through Røb_N’s posting is an illustration of what is required to be a UKIP supporter, which I believe is Røb_N’s position.
    UKIP requirements as follows:
    1 Total ignorance of the nature of British Society and its history

    I have a very firm understanding of what British society is, and have always been a devoutly patriotic person.
    2 Total ignorance of the European Parliament
    I frankly don’t give a flying raccoon’s arsehole about the EU. It should remain as a simple trade agreement and should never have become the bloated fiasco it has become.
    All I do know is it costs this country £4m A DAY to subsidise this bunch of self-serving wankers.
    3 Regular reading of Daily Mail
    I wouldn’t wipe my arse with any tabloid newspaper. I read The Daily Telegraph.
    4 Fear
    I am only afraid that lefty, nest-feathering sycophants like you get the upper hand.
    5 Loathing
    I loathe people like you.

  14. Simon M No. 10, absolutely right. In fact, the Stonewall Society in America, the birthplace of Stonewall, actively supports full marriage equality. It should sue StonewallUK for the use of its name and put them out of business once and for all. It doesn’t deserve to exist and should be shunned as an organisation supporting oppression against the very people it claims to defend and support. I had a couple of email exchanges with them a couple of years ago. Their response was, NOT interested, marriage equality is not important, not a priority. They’re a disgrace and not fit to represent us.

  15. Some people are just displaying their ignorance here. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or Brussels.

  16. David:
    I stand corrected for not knowing that they were two separate entities. However, my argument still stands that Britain’s inherent control of it’s own destiny is being devolved to faceless bureaucrats in countries other than my own.

    If my country has to go to hell in a handbasket, at least I should have the comfort of knowing that I, or my countrymen voted for the people that fcuked it up.

  17. Hello i am one asylum seekers here in Uk beacuse i was decrimination ,i was sexual abuse and beat from the poeple in my own contry beecuse of my sexuality ,i have about 1 an half year here in uk and for first time after 26 year i feel myself ,for the first time i know who i am and how is to live in fredom ,how is to have freinds and to feel happy ,i was hoping soon to remain here in uk and finally to have right to work and stady here this is my dream and what happen now ?? beacuse of one member of al Qaida wich i definitly i ma agains him to leave him to live in freddom i must put in prison for what i made i want every people in uk to feel safe and free to live life ,but i feel so low and is so unfair to change human right act beacuse of him i feel victim for the second time in my life i just hope this is not gonna happen its m only hope to live my life how i want to live ,freedom is the most iportant things in this life just if u lost u know how much it worthit,story of my life is to long to write here what i past thrue i hope no body gonna have the life i had ,and i hope i ma not gonna be victim of terrorisem beacuse the onnly hope for me is to live here is impossible to go back in my own contry for mee, sorry about my english is not perfect but i hope u understand me what i try to say and thenk you everyone for the suuport so far

  18. Read Nick Clegg’s brief speech on constitutional reform here:

    http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=New_Politics:_Nick_Clegg%27s_speech_on_constitutional_reform&pPK=2c639a58-0da9-40c2-9ea4-3ac96cc7daa3

    Hardly what I call caving in to the Tories.

  19. Pumpkin Pie 20 May 2010, 3:51am

    I am very happy with this. Protecting the Human Rights Act from Tory meddling was one of my biggest concerns in this election. Glad to see the Lib Dems have remained firm on the matter.

  20. You really couldn’t make it up. Five minutes in government and the plan is to remove public protection, our basic human rights.
    It will then be so easy to bring in archaic laws and discriminate against us and others. But why would we expect anything different from a Conservative government full of closet gay haters and an inexperienced lapdog by the name of Clegg.

  21. J Carter: “Five minutes in government and the plan is to remove public protection, our basic human rights.”

    That’s right, continue snivelling into your cornflakes now that your beloved Labour party is in tatters. Just don’t misquote the news. They DID NOT say anything about “removing” anything, just taking it out of the hands of European idiots and putting it where it should be, on the British statute book.

    Or do you seriously think it is acceptable to allow murdering Islamic nutcases to walk our streets?

  22. I’d rather have the guy in a high security British jail than anywhere else. If there’s evidence against him that he’s a terrorist, put him on trial, that’s the traditional British way, not deporting him to where he might be able to bribe or break his way out, and can plot and plan acts of violence.

  23. Paperwall? Scissorswall? Stonewall? …how unimportant are the names we call things? What about Pebbledashwall?

  24. Jock S. Trap 20 May 2010, 10:25am

    What about every UK citizens, gay, straight… Human Right to be safe from the threat of terrorism anywhere? Why does that come second to a known terrorist Human Right to kill, maim? I’m all for the Human Rights Act but not at the expense of peoples lives. Can’t help thinking we need a revised Human Rights Act that serves the innocent not the guilty.

    As for Stonewall, they don’t claim to speak for all gay people just as much as Peter Tatchell doesn’t yet both have their supporters and those that don’t. I for one fully support Stonewall and am no fan of the latter. Having said that we would probably be much worse off without either.

  25. Mihangel apYrs 20 May 2010, 10:35am

    but, Jock S Trap, they’re not guilty of anything, no court has found them to be so. Just what is alleged, conjectured, opinion; effectively hearsay. If our much-vaunted security services cannot get the evidence legitimately then none of us are safe anyway. Oh wait, what about the 90 min dossier et al.

    Unless human rights are unconditional they can be removed from anybody for any reason a govt likes.

    And as has been quoted, anyone who gives up freedom for security deserves neither.

  26. Rob – the headline says about scrapping it plus many tories and the right don’t care about human rights for anyone, if people cared then why was it the EU who says people need equal human rights and not the UK gov?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all