Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
youveryniceman

strict liability breaches human rights act?

7 posts in this topic

surely strict liability would breach article 6 of the human rights act-right to a fair trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt in my mind that the current use of "terror" & "terrorist" by states is just spin. Fairly random & infrequent acts of violence do not induce terror. They are traumatic and very sad for those caught in them, but I don't see any medium term effect on behaviour.

Rulers, States, governments, theocracies have long used terror as a deliberate instrument of control. And the principle element is uncertainty of law and capriciousness in the enforcement agencies. I doubt the last eleven years of legislation has been deliberately planned to create a police state, but we have

Anti-Stalking law only ever used against political protesters

Anti-Terror laws used to remove an old man from a meeting, arrest trainspotters and by councils to hound public over rubbish.

Knife laws which provided a policeman with an excuse to arrest a middle aged gent with a corkscrew in his brief case.

"Strict-liability" would have delighted any tyrant in history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no doubt in my mind that the current use of "terror" & "terrorist" by states is just spin. Fairly random & infrequent acts of violence do not induce terror. They are traumatic and very sad for those caught in them, but I don't see any medium term effect on behaviour.

Rulers, States, governments, theocracies have long used terror as a deliberate instrument of control. And the principle element is uncertainty of law and capriciousness in the enforcement agencies. I doubt the last eleven years of legislation has been deliberately planned to create a police state, but we have

Anti-Stalking law only ever used against political protesters

Anti-Terror laws used to remove an old man from a meeting, arrest trainspotters and by councils to hound public over rubbish.

Knife laws which provided a policeman with an excuse to arrest a middle aged gent with a corkscrew in his brief case.

"Strict-liability" would have delighted any tyrant in history

The problem is that the majority of people are not prepared to see the potential evil in some of the laws that are enacted or the consequences of those laws being turned against them. They think: "That seems a good idea. If I don't break the law what have I to worry about?"

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Rev. Martin Niemoller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
surely strict liability would breach article 6 of the human rights act-right to a fair trial.

It need not be...Since you are merging two unrelated concepts IMHO

Once a law is enshrined, it does not matter whether the law is unfair or not...It is the law

A fair trial simply means that under existing/current law (whether good or bad) that all parties are treated 'equally', in simple terms given 'a fair crack of the whip' without any bias or prejudice etc by the courts etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that the majority of people are not prepared to see the potential evil in some of the laws that are enacted or the consequences of those laws being turned against them. They think: "That seems a good idea. If I don't break the law what have I to worry about?"
Except they'd be incorrect, as the problem with strict liability in this case is that the person doesn't know for sure if he's breaking the law or not.

They'd have to think: "That seems a good idea. If I never do anything that would result in the possibility of unknowingly breaking the law what have I to worry about?"

It's like trespassing. If there's no fence, no signs and no markings indicating that I just entered someone's acres without permission, did I trespass, or did I just get lost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite - except that trespass is a civil case not criminal (unless of course he strayed onto government property in which case "Terrorism" laws would be invoked these days!)

The failure of Parliament is not to see that the criminal law must be certain and address actual harm done.

"Sending messages" should have nothing to do with it and is one of the factors bringing contempt upon law and lawmakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The failure of Parliament is not to see that the criminal law must be certain and address actual harm done.

"Sending messages" should have nothing to do with it and is one of the factors bringing contempt upon law and lawmakers"

Absolutely spot on! It is typical of Labour's soundbite politics and wooly thinking that the Home Secretary of Great Britain thinks that "sending messages" is something that you do by statute law.

If you want to send messages launch an advertising campaign like they do every Christmas about drunk driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0