h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>So be a good little victim of instant self-gratification and have patience.

Oooh! 'Ark at 'im!

Actually, Math, I don't expect a detailed breakdown. I'm only teasing. I *suspect* that your knee jerked the first time I mentioned the HRA, hence your coming out with an irrelevant mini-tirade. I *suspect* that you might not have known what the bleedin' thing actually says before you went off on one. Don't worry, though. You're not alone in your ignorance. Just a shame that you seemed to have unwittingly acceeded to the campaign of misinformation and general rubbishing aimed at allowing the government to backpedal on it.

But do read the Schedule. I feel reasonably confident that, knowing your standards and beliefs, you'll find little to object to.

Hi Eddie

Actually my pet assumptive one, I opposed the act when it was a white paper, read it thoroughly and pestered my MP into near apoplexy about it. Being a Liberal Democrat he caved into his wishy-washy humanist leanings.

I haven't read the Act itself for about 18 months. I've been saying I'd rework the blasted thing for years, but never got around to it. Your recent prattling has encouraged me to have another go.

The basic assumption of the Act is that humans have these special 'rights' - which is about a illogical as you can possibly imagine. So instead of having god-given rights our society is now attributing near sacred status to a bunch of rights written by lawyers...hmm...and why wouldn't I think that was a good thing?

We have no rights. We are just one more evolutionary cul-de-sac that nature hasn't got around to cleaning out yet. We are, according to your previous statements, just electrically-stimulated, permabulating bags of chemicals with no net worth or purpose other than to be born, grow, breed and die.

How do you apply such irrational concepts as 'Dignity' to such beings?

The problem with the Act is that it legitimates a general response of "you can't do that to me", rather than "I should not do such things to you". The first response suits the financial needs of lawyers, the other is good citizenship, and if applied well would make them redundant. Now I wonder why lawyers campaign for rights not responsibilities?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Well...of course, as an atheist humanist I think this is utterly wrongheaded of you. I fully accept the tension between 'rights' vs 'duties'. However...the walking bags of chemicals called humans are the *only* entities to which we can grant rights. No other entity is capable of granting another entity a right. Ask a cheetah what rights a zebra has? Or, come to that, what are the duties of a cheetah towards zebras? You're not going to say something drippy like 'the environment' or 'the planet' has rights, are you?

Human Rights, as understood in the Act, are merely a consensual expression of the duties of *our government* (as our elected proxy)towards us (collectively). We ought, surely, to hold it to those duties? So that's why I really can't understand why you went off on one. They are nothing whatsoever to do with the behaviour of individuals towards one another. Within certain bounds, that's a matter for ethics, not law.

I can understand why Lembit might have thought you were a bit mental.


(btw - I'm overdue an apology to emr for the usual thread drift)

Hi Eddie

Humans cannot 'grant' rights, and those countries that try to are generally ridiculous. For the majority of the human population the only 'right' seems to be to starve to death or wait for a western bomb/bullet.

I hadn't got you pegged previously as a muddle-headed, liberal idealist - but hey I've been wrong about you before .

However much you might like to think that the HRA binds our government, the way they see it is as a trojan horse to bring in their agenda of politcal correctness. Remember these are the 'rights' that various arms of government have used to outlaw Baa-Baa Black Sheep and the use of the word 'Christmas'.

As for Lembit thinking I'm mental - you are probably right. However, given his recent behaviour, I'm not sure he's overly quaklified to judge. Except, perhaps under the banner of "It take's one to know one".

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Arms of government? Really? And were you marching in protest?

" the way they see it is as a trojan horse to bring in their agenda of politcal correctness."

Crikey Math, wouldn't have pegged you as one to fall hook line and sinker for the PC Police myth the Daily Hate likes to propagate.

"have used to outlaw Baa-Baa Black Sheep and the use of the word 'Christmas'."

Or is it the Sun?

"Humans cannot 'grant' rights, and those countries that try to are generally ridiculous."

So there is no point in trying to make are laws better? I suppose as a Druid you would like us to give up society and go back to the land?

Hmmmm.....

Hi Eddie

"Crikey Math, wouldn't have pegged you as one to fall hook line and sinker for the PC Police myth the Daily Hate likes to propagate."

I'd have to read it to fall for it.

Perhaps because I do a lot of work on Corporate Social Responsibility, and am responsible in my company for such matters as EU Law, the Environment and Employment law I see the actual effects in action. Also my partner is deeply involved in education/health and see's the stupidity there.

"So there is no point in trying to make are laws better? I suppose as a Druid you would like us to give up society and go back to the land?"

Is it me or are you tired? You'd not normally try as daft a debating strategem as that.

I do believe that this conversation started because I was arguing the present laws were ridiculous and needed to be improved...? Whereas you were happy with the New Labour status quo.

Hmmmm............?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Math,

As far as I can see, you're putting all the standard, reactionary arguments against the HRA. But you show no evidence of having understood its basic principles. Once again, I repeat - It says nothing, absolutely nothing, about how you or I should behave towards one another. Rather, it puts limits on the laws that may be passed. and on the interpretation of laws that have already been passed. Since it's those laws which potentially limit our behaviour, it gives more freedom, not less.

(Caveat: At least it would if our hipocritical govt. that signed up to it could be persuaded to take it seriously. Which was my original point).

So where an earth are you coming from with all this irrelevant, reactionary guff about the trojan horse of political correctness? It seems to me that this is precisely the sort of nonsense that's being put about by those sinister forces with an anti- Human Rights agenda.

But slippery slopes aside - maybe you do need to home in a bit more keenly on your objections. Precisely *which* or its Articles do you object to? There's not many of them. It will only take you a couple of minutes to (re-)read.

Hi Eddie

Please show me one government that at any time voluntarily allowed a curb on its power? Can you give me any good reasons why this one took the non-binding EU Charter and made it law?

Perhaps before you champion the HRA you should consider its real purpose. Don't look at me, I haven't found it yet and that is what disturbs me so.

Show me the freedoms this Act has given us, the real freedoms, not the philosophical ones. This government is not hypocritical, it has purpose and has shown that in the nature of the laws it has also passed, supposedly to protect us and our 'freedom'.

Before you accuse me of being a reactionary you should think these things through.

As for my critique of the HRA I have said before you will need patience.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hmm. Cast your mind back. I was suggesting that the principles of Human Rights - which I think were well expressed in the International Convention - are worth fighting for. And, as it happens, I think that trying to hold the government to the HRA - which is their adoption of the Convention, is a reasonable, pragmatic tactic. We should be against unconstitutional things like ASBOs, detention without trial, etc. etc.

Your reaction to this was that the whole concept of Human Rights is political correctness gone mad.

This struck me as irrelevant to the topic in hand. I still can't see were you're coming from. You're not making yourself in any way clear.

<<(btw - I'm overdue an apology to emr for the usual thread drift)>>

I was wondering when someone would say that.


No, do carry on as usual.

And still he avoids the questions...

Hi Eddie

I find your faith in these ideals touching - and you think I'm the one who believes in faeries?

Please explain the rational argument for these ideals. And I mean rational, not some humanocentric sentimentality.

Hey I'm enjoying this - I'm being more rational than the rationalist

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hey emr, while Eddie has an apoplexy, this is your opportunity to drag the subject back on course...

How about this.

Humans organise themselves into societies, with governments

>

Individually we have very little ability to stand up to the excesses of government

>

Ergo it is in the interests of all to agree to legally limit the power of the government in how it treats individuals


Seems pretty logical to me Math. I dont know how Ed rationalises it but this is how I do it.

Hi FB

Okey dokey, if you are picking up the banner then you answer my questions above.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Nuh-huh. I'm still waiting for one single relevant criticism of the HRA. That's what we were talking about. It's a damn crafty game to try and side track us into irrelevances once again.

So...*WHICH* of its Articles do you disagree with. It's a simple question.

"Hi FB

Okey dokey, if you are picking up the banner then you answer my questions above.

Blessings,
Matholwch."

Errr Isn't that what I did Math?

Hi Eddie

Crafty? Moi? I'm flattered.

Right, you want relevant criticisms. I tend to judge a law not by its words but how it is used, and why it was proposed in the first place.

I do not believe that a government that has shown itself so controlling would pass a law that did not serve its purpose. As you said, they did not need to bring this into statute.

I cannot see any good reasons why this one took the non-binding EU Charter and made it law? Which is why I asked you if you could and I was missing something.

This Act has given us no real freedoms. Instead it has been used as a banner under which to further restrict our society. You have seen the knock-on effect of this even here, under the wing of the mighty BBC, bane of Governments. The sacred voice of John Humphries stilled and pilloried, increasingly draconian forum rules etc...

So what is its real purpose? It hasn't, despite your fervent wishes, directly inhibited them at all. We still have extended detention without trial and anti-terror legislation being used to stifle free speech.

You might be in love with the HRA, but it is an utter failure.

As I said it places no responsibility on the people to treat each other with dignity or respect, but instead enshrines 'rights' that are abused by every lawyer that can find a way to make money out of them.

The gutter press love it as they can now use it to pillory any public figure that shows themselves to be the least bit human. The French think we are nuts, and I cannot but agree with them.

I have heard no practical or rational defence of the Act from you. Just a touching belief in its supposed philosophy. Show me why it is good and how it is improving our lives...

Meanwhile I will continue to deconstruct and remodel it.

Blessings,
Matholwch the rationalist >

Math. You been to the "Straw Mans R Us" big sale?

"I cannot see any good reasons why this one took the non-binding EU Charter and made it law? Which is why I asked you if you could and I was missing something."

Well firstly it had nothing to do with the EU. Surprised seeing as you investigated it and campigned so much on it Math. The HRA actually came from the European Convention on Human Rights, which was in fact nothing to do with the EU. It was (if memory serves correct) a body set up in the wake of WW2. A peculiar time in which most European governments were for some unfathomable reason acutly aware of the problems of a situation in which governments had no contriction on how they treat individuals.

In actual fact the UK government signed up there and then in 50s and agreed that people could challenge the law their since then. People went to the European Court of Human Rights long before the HRA and when they won the govt had to change the law. The HRA just codified one of our legal international treaty obligations into domestic law.

"This Act has given us no real freedoms. Instead it has been used as a banner under which to further restrict our society."

What utter tosh Math. Please how exactluy had the HRA restricted our freedoms? I just cannot see it. Not least because the government is trying to get aorund the damn thing in order to do irts worst abuses of power. THe HRA contrains how they can act.

"We still have extended detention without trial and anti-terror legislation being used to stifle free speech."

Yeah, but they didn't get what they wanted. And we hardly live in a police state. So you cannot protest right next to parliament. "Oh no the brown coats are coming". I dont like the anti terror laws. But they are harsdly a portent of us slipping inot a police state, except in the imaginations of the Socialist Workers Party.

Also before the HRA do you think you had *any* legal right to the Freedom of speech Math? If so I would be very interested to know which bit of legislation gave it to you. Because as far as I know we never have had. In fact pre 1998 thje only thing that gave UK citizens (or as we more accurately were then "subjects") the right to Freedom of Speech was in fact.... "da da daaaa" The European Convention on Human Rights..... which would later be codifiesd into UK law as the HRA.

"As I said it places no responsibility on the people to treat each other with dignity or respect, but instead enshrines 'rights' that are abused by every lawyer that can find a way to make money out of them."

Again Math it seems like you have been Reading the "Daily Mail" rather than the act. Ed has asked you specifically which bits of the HRA you object to specifically. From what in the act are you talking about? The act really details the relationship between the state and citizens, rather than citizen on citizen or citizen on organisation.

So anyhow once again a sensible rationale of the act.....:-


We live in a collectivly organised sociecty

>

In that society we organise a government in order for it to best function

>

As the government has a monoploy on arms and force all individuals have virtually no power against the state

> Therefore it *logically* follows that it is in all of our interest to legally limit the extent to which the government can use its power on us.

Hi FB

I wonder how long before I get accused of trolling...

A simple critique of your primary argument based upon history, not semtimental liberal values:

1. We live in a collectivly organised sociecty.
2. In that society the powerful organised a government in order for it to best serve their needs (actually read the Magna Carta someday).
3. As the government has a monopoly on arms and the judiciary all individuals have virtually no power against the state, which is exactly what it desires, and is why the Americans tried to be different (and failed).

Therefore it *logically* follows that it is not in their interests to legally limit the extent to which the government can use its power on us.

So why the HRA? Yes, I know the European Charter was created by the convention after WW2, forgive an old man's slip of the keys. But the question remians what exactly does the act do to serve the interests of the powerful.

My only conclusion is that it was a sop to the increasingly well-educated and liberal middle classes, and the ragged remnants of the left. It has, in actuality, had alomost no effect whatsoever on the legislative plans of the government. The HRA is camouflage.

And before you accuse me of being a Daily Mail reader, again, I cannot see Cameron's Highlanders being any different when/if they get into power. In fact they'll probably be worse - they are certainly a less capable gang of lawyers and toffs than New Labour.

And your touching little belief that we don't live in a police state is quite absurd. Think on these few defining characteristics of a police state:
1. Unlimited surveillance by state agaencies.
2. Limits of what you can say, where, about whom and to whom.
3. Limits on the right to protest. If two people are 'alarmed or distressed' by your meeting or march it is now a public order offence.
4. The characterisation of sections of society as 'terrorists', so as to make easy scapegoats.
5. The prosecution of illegal wars to distract the population.
6. The introduction of new forms of language in education to change how people think - in '1984' Orwell called this Newspeak, now it is Politically Correct. When PC began to fail they introduced laws to enshrine it, and encouraged minorities to use them.
7. The use of detention without charge or trial, for the 'publics protection'. The government shall shortly mount another attempt to extend this to three months.
8. Armed police on the streets.
9. Interference in education to promote views and revise history to favour the government's decisions.

Recognise any? I'll remind you of them when we share a cell for incitement to religious hatred, or perhaps profanity, or even unlawful assembly.

My politics lie with truth and justice, not with any party. I expect that I will continue to be a right royal pain in the ass for a long time to come.

If you don't think your phone is tapped try having a jokey converstaion with a friend about downing an American airliner over New York and count the minutes until there is a polite tap at your bedroom door. Ever heard of Echelon? I have, I used to feed it.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Anarchist .

Well this is fun....

"In that society the powerful organised a government in order for it to best serve their needs"

"herefore it *logically* follows that it is not in their interests to legally limit the extent to which the government can use its power on us."

Hmmmm right so what you are saying is that Inaliable human rights were not in the interests of the Norman aristocracy and therefore are not relevant today?

I am really at a loss as to understand what the hell you are going on about Math (which I am prepared to admit may well be my failing and not yours).

I would say that the nature of our society has moved on in the last 800 or so years. We now have this thing called "Democracy" and ideas of "universal sufferage". These things have (whether you admit it or not) proufoundly affected the nature of the relationship between the individual and the state.

Whithin a liberal democracy there is a bargain between the state and the individual. We accept that in your words "As the government has a monopoly on arms and the judiciary all individuals have virtually no power against the state" and in exchange we expect security and for the rights of the individual to be respected. The HRA is an attempt to codify that.

In fact to take your "Magna Carta" thingy on. The whole way in which Britain transformed from a Monarchy to a Democracy was entirely based on the Liberal idea of the protection of property. The idea that the "state" had no claim upon private property and therefore the necessary changes in the way Britain was governed to prevent the state form doing this is how our democracy was borne.

"But the question remians what exactly does the act do to serve the interests of the powerful."

Again I am really not sure exactly what you are saying here. The whole point is not to so serve the "interests of the powerful" but rather to act as a counter balance.

You may well have the delusion that we live in some sort of a facist dictatorship in which the government acts at will but in truth our system means the government has to act within the constraints of the law.

For example because of the HRA, it is now illegal for the government to pass a law stating that it is ok to torture terror suspects. Are you against this? Do you not think it is a good thing that our government is limited in this way?

"It has, in actuality, had alomost no effect whatsoever on the legislative plans of the government. The HRA is camouflage."

I beg to differ. Our government desparately wants 90 day detention. It has been thwarted in this attempt inpart because of the HRA and the convention on Human Rights. The fact the Government has lost on this issue indicates to me at least that we do still live in a democracy.

Onto your Police State diatribe I find it hard to discuss this with you. You evidently do not share any common understanding with me as to what a "police state" entails. As we do not seem to even be speaking the same language on this point I feel there is little value in us discussing it. Suffice to say in *my* idea of a police state you dont get to go on at length about why you live in one on a public forum.

"My politics lie with truth and justice, not with any party. I expect that I will continue to be a right royal pain in the ass for a long time to come."

Fine, but where it comes to this bad boy I think you are basing your views on misconception and lies.

Onto the HRA exactly which provisions do you object to?

Is it the right to life? The right no to be unlawfully killed by the state?

The prohibition of bieng tortured? Are you against that?

Is it the prohibition of slavery you object to?

Or do you have a beef with the right to a fair trial?

etc etc.....