Reply to post: Re: Since when...

Re: Since when...

"

Since when...

...did human rights groups exclude crims, terrorists and evil people?

"

In fact the HRA is *only* for people who the government say are *suspected* of being one of the above.

People who the government have no interest in do not require the protection of the HRA, just as people who are not sick or injured do not need the NHS. Therefore *all* the cases that involve Human Rights involve people who the government (or its agents) have a malevolent interest in - and in many of those cases the government will *claim* that their interest is because the person is a threat. It is the job of the ECHR to find out whether the government's claim is or is not justified. This is why the perception is that the HRA is used to protect criminals and terrorists, when in fact it's purpose is to protect people who are *not* serious criminals or terrorists, but who the government would like to interfere with despite having no *legitimate* cause to do so.

Domestic laws are to protect you from the illegal acts of other citizens. The Human Rights Act is to protect you from illegal acts of your own government. Many people do not understand that distinction. If your neighbour hits you over the head for no reason, that is not a violation of your Human Rights, but a violation of domestic law. If a policeman (who represents the state) hits you over the head for no reason, then it is a violation of your Human Rights.