15 4 mins 14 yrs

THE SEPERATION of morality and law in the 1960s has led to some strange judicial rulings. This time, a High Court judge has decided that military personnel ought to be covered by the Human Rights Act, even on the battlefield. The ruling was handed down during a request for military inquest guidelines in a case relating to Pte Smith, 32, who died of heatstroke in Iraq in 2003. According to the solicitor representing Pte Smith’s family, British soldier’s would now have the same human right as any other Britons and must be properly eqipped when sent into battle. Splendid show. Now if the Judge could explain how a soldier’s right to life, enshrined in the HRA, can be guaranteed on a battlefield we’ll all be the wiser.

The Human Rights Act, Tony Blair’s ‘proudest achievement’ in politics, was long intended to replace Christian morality in law and justice. This foreign and explicitly anti-British Act, the benchmark against which all existing and future laws must be judged, is the new morality. No legal principles, even secular ones, can exist seperate from any standards. God’s morality was abolished, and so the liberal establishment which despises us and has no feel for our culture adopted a secular legal deity – the Human Rights Act. But a prior benchmark exists for the military by which we may judge their treatment. It was drawn up by serious people in serious times who knew their’s country’s history. It’s called the Military Covenant and can be summed up thus:

When you join the military you give up certain freedoms and put the needs of your country first. You will be bound by service, duty and an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. You will be called to do harsh tasks and you will have to make sacrifices. In return you will the very best training and equipment and your families will looked after.

You may be required to fight your country’s enemy and you may die. In return you will be sent home, your grave will always be tended by those who care for what you did and you will always be remembered.

This covenant is all that the Armed Forces need. They have always abided by their side of the bargain, even if successive governments have repeatedly failed to uphold theirs. From training time and budgets to battfield equipment, casualty evacuation and post-trauma care, leave time and rehabilitation, this government especially has torn up the covenant and spat on our best. Ultimately, however, we are to blame. The British people have smugly elected to government clear and obvious enemies of our nation and those who hate the military. Never once has Blair or Brown stood at RAF Brize Norton to see the the return of the body of a fallen British soldier. They can’t say they don’t know where it is: Blair especially went through the place every week while he took the Queen’s Flight off to exotic locations.

Either the HRA applies in its entirety to the Armed Forces, which is a nonsense, or not at all. For a court to cherry-pick certain rights for application whilst leaving others out would also be absurd, because they are intended to be universal rights. Of course, we wouldn’t be here if Britons hadn’t been so feckless and voted for those who hate us over a decade ago.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

15 thoughts on “More (Un)predictable Consequences of the Human Rights Act

  1. "THE SEPERATION of morality and law in the 1960s"

    Morality and law were separate long before the 1960s. Many immoral things are legal and many moral things are illegal. Furthermore since people do not agree as to morality – not even Christians agree as to Christian morality – it is not possible for them to be the same thing.

    "Now if the Judge could explain how a soldier’s right to life, enshrined in the HRA, can be guaranteed on a battlefield we’ll all be the wiser."

    This is possibly the lamest argument you’ve ever come up with. Since the HRA only applies to public bodies what makes you think it guarantees immortality?

    Are you also under the impression that the HRA can guarantee life off the battlefield? Perhaps you can explain how the laws against murder guarantee the right to life on the battlefield or anywhere else?

    " This foreign and explicitly anti-British Act, the benchmark against which all existing and future laws must be judged, is the new morality."

    No it’s just a new law.

    " God’s morality was abolished"

    It is utter hubris for you to claim to know ‘God’s morality’.

  2. Pete the armed forces aren’t against this. Infact one commentator says it’s a pity it’s come to late for the young man involved. I know what you’re saying about the covenant being broken, but it’s been broken by successive governments for a long time, surely this is a step in the right direction. A little of using their own stick to beat them with? NO?.

  3. I’m not sure that the High Court judgment referred to is an unpredictable consequence of human rights legislation.

    It’s just a question of time before the Human Rights Act is discovered to apply to all human activities in which moral judgments are made by institutions that can be sued for negligence, malfeasance, etc.

    A couple of considerations which energize the search for new "rights", are the so-called "compensation culture" and the aversion to risk that sometimes finds its most egregious expression in the Health and Safety regulations.

  4. Alex,

    "It’s just a question of time before the Human Rights Act is discovered to apply to all human activities"

    No that’s not possible since not all, and not even most, human activities are performed by public bodies.

    Have you even read the HRA?

  5. The HRA is detached from all reality and those pompous clowns who proclaim its infinite virtue fool themselves. Pete is right, the HRA is anti-Christian and I OPPOSE it. Nothing good can come from it, it is a whingers charter and a blessing to terrorists. What else to expect from leftists?

  6. Frank:

    Maybe I should rephrase my words thus: It won’t be long before all human activities for which institutions are legally or morally responsible are discovered to fall within the scope of the Human Rights Act………….(Perhaps I ought to have make the irony in my previous formulation a bit more obvious.)

    In answer to your enquiry. No, I have not read the HRA in its entirety. I don’t have a lawyer’s mastery of it; merely the knowledge of an interested layman.

  7. Frank O’Dwyer –

    No it’s just a new law.

    From the Department for Constitutional Affairs (‘Justice, rights and democracy’!):

    2. What does the Human Rights Act do?

    ii. It says that all UK legislation should be given a meaning that fits with the rights, if that’s possible. If a Court says it’s not possible, it will be up to Parliament to decide what to do.

    I also refer you to the words of Lord Justice Laws in City of Sunderland vs Thoburn, where he stated that the Human Rights Act is an Act of constitutional significance and of more importance the mere ordinary legislation.

  8. Pete,

    "The Human Rights Act … was long intended to replace Christian morality in law and justice. This foreign and explicitly anti-British Act

    XD! Where do you think Christianity came from, Shoreditch?

  9. Dawkins –

    First came the morality, then did Britain 1100 years later.

    But I’ll tell you exactly from where Christian morality is derived. It’s derived from God.

    And everyone knows that God is an Englishman.

  10. Pete,

    "But I’ll tell you exactly from where Christian morality is derived. It’s derived from God."

    It’s this why it varies from century to century and from country to country? Yea, even from person to person.

    What a schizoid deity you have there!

  11. Pete Moore,

    "I also refer you to the words of Lord Justice Laws in City of Sunderland vs Thoburn, where he stated that the Human Rights Act is an Act of constitutional significance and of more importance the mere ordinary legislation."

    So it is an Act (law), as I said, and not ‘the new morality’ as you said.

    Morality does not come from laws. We have churches and philosophers and our own reason and consciences for morality. I have not been obliged to change my moral code because of the HRA and neither have you and neither has David. None of us are even subject to the HRA.

    It is your notion of using the law to force others to abide by your religious code that is immoral. You have no right to do that – and I don’t care what you think God thinks about it.

  12. Frank O’Dwyer –

    Morality does not come from laws.

    You’ve clearly forgotten who you’re talking to – as if I don’t know that morality does not come from laws! When we were civilised our laws were derived from Christian moral ethics, but as I said, God was abolished. You can believe that in heralding the HRA as the new morality (and the governing class does believe that laws shape morality), I was interpreting the beliefs of those who inflicted it upon us. In fact I also stated:

    God’s morality was abolished, and so the liberal establishment which despises us and has no feel for our culture adopted a secular legal deity – the Human Rights Act.

    As the extract from the Department of Constitutional Affairs shows, I was right.

  13. Pete Moore,

    "When we were civilised our laws were derived from Christian moral ethics, but as I said, God was abolished."

    If God has been abolished why are there still churches?

    As I already pointed out, even Christians do not agree about morality. When was there ever a law requiring you to give everything you had to the poor, for that matter? That must form no important aspect of Christian morality.

    Anyway if it is indeed true that the British people were once so backward as to demand that their government force their religion on others, then the HRA must have been sorely needed. After all you are free to do the former but not the latter. That really is a fact, and has been a fact since well before the HRA.

    After all Britain signed the UNDHR didn’t it. Even Christians must keep their promises I suppose.

  14. Pete Moore posted:
    When we were civilised our laws were derived from Christian moral ethics

    Pray enlighten us as to the period of this nirvana. Did it coincide with the time of the slave trade perhaps? Before the leftist human rights busybodies abolished a perfectly respectable (untaxed) trans-atlantic trade in human misery capital? Surely Wilberforce was the evil ancestor of the Human Rights Act?

  15. Peter,

    Ah yes, but that was when God approved of slavery. He changed his mind later on.

    He used to believe in hanging, drawing and quartering too. Now he only approves of hanging and other "civilized" methods of putting chaps to death.

    Not everywhere, mind you, only where Christian morals are most vaunted: the American Bible Belt and suchlike enlightened places.

Comments are closed.