Response Paper and Human Rights
rovacs, 16 Sep 2006 15:12:38
Can anyone see anything addressing issues raised pertaining to the Human Rights Act act and the Convention in the Response paper? Rabinder Singh is mentioned in another context and there are a few words merely stating that the Church of Latter Day Saints said the law might offend against the ECHR in respect of it being cruel punishment etc-but on the issue itself, I see nothing! There seems no "response" on this in the response document. If I`m right it hasn`t even been addressed. As this is such a huge issue and was a big element in many responses ,R Singh`s being entirely on the subject,this seems a huge omission(did they feel they could ignore his paper because it technically doesn't jump thru the hoops given to the respondees?)-and we know why they run away from it!
It also appears to break the Code of conduct over consultation responses in that it defies Criteria 4 which says feedback must be given on the responses.They can`t deny it was a major concern with respondees.
Is this because the actual responding document does not allow the issue to be discussed under an appropriate heading,so they have used this excuse to excluse material specific to the HRA and Convention issues. Yet the Consultation Paper does devote a whole paragraph to the ECHR,and mentions the relevant Articles. So it allows for no opinion on these very specific human rights issues-the HRA and the Convention in the response by skewing the questions to respondees? That some had raised issuies of freedom etc is mentioned in the Response,but the obligations of HMG to observe human rights thru membership of the Convention and the HRA ,which are so relevant to this are ignored in the Response. If this is so it seems an even more significant bending and trickery in the Consultation over this legislation.
The questions for respondees from the CP 2005
Current Legislation (Page 7)
1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to
be strengthened?
Evidence of Harm (Page 9)
2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you
think that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant
that it should not be tolerated?
Content of Material (Page 11)
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?
Options (Page 12)
5. Which option do you prefer?
6. Why do you think this option is best?
Penalties (Page 14)
7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
If anyone has spotted stuff in the Response which I have somehow missed please let me know!
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 16 Sep 2006 20:44:38 ***
Teddy, 16 Sep 2006 17:14:12
I think the "Church of Latter Day Saints" were saying that the legislation is necessary to UPHOLD human rights! On the basis that the material in question shows "cruelty", in their view...
T.
Author wrote:
> Can anyone see anything addressing issues raised pertaining to the Human Rights Act act and the Convention in the Response paper? Rabinder Singh is mentioned in another context and there are a few words merely stating that the Church of Latter Day Saints said the law might offend against the ECHR in respect of it being cruel punishment etc-but on the issue itself, I see nothing! There seems no "response" on this in the response document. If I`m right it hasn`t even been addressed. As this is such a huge issue and was a big element in many responses ,R Singh`s being entirely on the subject,this seems a huge omission(did they feel they could ignore his paper because it technically doesn't jump thru the hoops given to the respondees?)-and we know why they run away from it!
> It also appears to break the Code of conduct over consultation responses in that it defies Criteria 4 which says feedback must be given on the responses.They can`t deny it was a major concern with respondees.
> Is this because the actual responding document does not allow the issue to be discussed under an appropriate heading,so they have used this excuse to excluse material specific to the HRA and Convention issues. Yet the Consultation Paper raises does devotes a whole paragraph to it the ECHR and mentions the relevant Articles. So it allows for no opinion on these very specific human rights issues-the HRA and the Convention in the response by skewing the questions to respondees? That some had raised issuies of freedom etc is mentioned in the Response,but the obligations of HMG to observe human rights thru membership of the Convention and the HRA ,which are so relevant to this are ignored in the Response. If this is so it seems an even more significant bending and trickery in the Consultation over this legislation.
> If anyone has spotted stuff in the Response which I have somehow missed please let me know!
> The questions for respondees from the CP 2005
> Current Legislation (Page 7)
> 1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to
> be strengthened?
> Evidence of Harm (Page 9)
> 2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you
> think that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant
> that it should not be tolerated?
> Content of Material (Page 11)
> 3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
> 4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?
> Options (Page 12)
> 5. Which option do you prefer?
> 6. Why do you think this option is best?
> Penalties (Page 14)
> 7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
> If anyone has spotted stuff in the Response which I have somehow missed please let me know!
rovacs, 16 Sep 2006 17:26:37
Yes-I'm just saying that all we have is this passing not very relevant reference about it! I'm sure it was brought up in relation to the relevant HR Articles by lots of respondees-this has been suppressed/ignored-disgraceful.
Author wrote:
> I think the "Church of Latter Day Saints" were saying that the legislation is necessary to UPHOLD human rights! On the basis that the material in question shows "cruelty", in their view...
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > Can anyone see anything addressing issues raised pertaining to the Human Rights Act act and the Convention in the Response paper? Rabinder Singh is mentioned in another context and there are a few words merely stating that the Church of Latter Day Saints said the law might offend against the ECHR in respect of it being cruel punishment etc-but on the issue itself, I see nothing! There seems no "response" on this in the response document. If I`m right it hasn`t even been addressed. As this is such a huge issue and was a big element in many responses ,R Singh`s being entirely on the subject,this seems a huge omission(did they feel they could ignore his paper because it technically doesn't jump thru the hoops given to the respondees?)-and we know why they run away from it!
> > It also appears to break the Code of conduct over consultation responses in that it defies Criteria 4 which says feedback must be given on the responses.They can`t deny it was a major concern with respondees.
> > Is this because the actual responding document does not allow the issue to be discussed under an appropriate heading,so they have used this excuse to excluse material specific to the HRA and Convention issues. Yet the Consultation Paper raises does devotes a whole paragraph to it the ECHR and mentions the relevant Articles. So it allows for no opinion on these very specific human rights issues-the HRA and the Convention in the response by skewing the questions to respondees? That some had raised issuies of freedom etc is mentioned in the Response,but the obligations of HMG to observe human rights thru membership of the Convention and the HRA ,which are so relevant to this are ignored in the Response. If this is so it seems an even more significant bending and trickery in the Consultation over this legislation.
> > If anyone has spotted stuff in the Response which I have somehow missed please let me know!
> > The questions for respondees from the CP 2005
> > Current Legislation (Page 7)
> > 1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires the law to
> > be strengthened?
> > Evidence of Harm (Page 9)
> > 2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative effects, do you
> > think that there is some pornographic material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant
> > that it should not be tolerated?
> > Content of Material (Page 11)
> > 3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
> > 4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of such material?
> > Options (Page 12)
> > 5. Which option do you prefer?
> > 6. Why do you think this option is best?
> > Penalties (Page 14)
> > 7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
> > If anyone has spotted stuff in the Response which I have somehow missed please let me know!