No

The current legal system has built a framework around the current legislation and new legislation would send that into chaos. Britain helped draft the European Convention on Human Rights. Changing a system that works is like cutting your nose off to spite your face because you don’t like anything to do with Europe.

The human rights act enshrines internationally recognised human rights which are essential to the establishment of democratic governments operating subject to the rule of law.

The human rights act ensures that everyone is equal under the law. This is crucial for a country and for democracy. Without this act people would be treated much more unfairly than they already are.

The human rights act ensures that everyone is equal under the law. This is crucial for a country and for democracy. Without this act people would be treated much more unfairly than they already are.

The current Human Rights Act has been in place for obvious reasons, to ensure everyone gets the same rights and are not discriminated.

The conservative party will use their legislative control to disadvantage the working class, and decrease human rights. They are already proposing changes which directly decrease the rights we have as workers and citizens, like our right to protest and our right to strike. This would only be the beginning

With our current government position on immigration I think we need things like the Human Right Act to protect everyone, not just immigrants from the government.

The Human Rights Act 1948 was established based on the British Government's charter on human rights. It seems draconian to devolve rather than evolve on the basic rights of human beings in an LGBT and anti-racist society. The incumbent government have extremely few supporters of this policy except for those convinced by right wing press.

The Human Rights Act is the basis for legal frameworks and democracy within the UK, any attempts to remove it will only force more power away from the people and create a larger problem regarding equality.

This would harm ordinary people and lead to the roll back of democracy. A retrograde and regressive step that would put us on the same tier as Putin.

Its a fairly simple stance. Retaining the Human Rights Act upholds global reputation, legal consistency, and vital individual protections, fostering a balanced citizen-state relationship while safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms.

The US 2nd Amendment kills thousands annually but legislation prevents it from changing and saving lives.

One compelling aspect to consider is the positive impact of the Human Rights Act on vulnerable populations. For instance, since its implementation, the Act has played a crucial role in cases involving discrimination, protecting individuals from unfair treatment based on characteristics such as race, gender, and disability. By maintaining a legal framework that aligns with international human rights standards, the Act contributes to fostering a more inclusive and equitable society.

Moreover, statistics on the reduction of police abuse and misconduct cases could be highlighted. The Human Rights…  Read more Act has been instrumental in holding authorities accountable for their actions, thereby promoting transparency and accountability within law enforcement. This not only safeguards citizens' rights but also contributes to building trust between communities and the authorities.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is a masterpiece of legsilative drafting in so much as it does what it was intended to do well. It balances the need for courts to protect minority rights, with the Sovereignty of Parliament to breach the Convention when it considers it imperative to do so. The current government would not be able to draft a better balance between those competing concerns, and the international backstop provided by the ECHR is crucial.

The only countries to ever leave the ECHR was Greece when they were living through a military coup and Russia when they invaded Ukraine. I do not believe, as a country, that we have a justifiable reason to leave the ECHR.

Human rights cannot be something that we decide to take away on a whim. We cannot guarantee 100% that a person in prison is guilty, so taking them away from criminals because "they don't deserve it" doesn't work.

despite the claims theese havens reduce the use in the streets, the addicts are still using, theyve just made nationalised crack dens.

By having the right of food, water and shelter, this reduces the national and potentially global problem of homelessness as they then have somewhere that is welcome to give them shelter.

Suella Braverman believes in criminalisation of homelessness and has wildly exaggerated the dangers posed by illegal immigrants to the UK's stability; should she be in charge of our human rights legislation, all hell would break loose and our civil liberties would suddenly be negotiable.

Law makers should be allowed to create viable laws that are in line with an agreed constitution that values equality and egalitarian principles as decided by the people (via referenda)

America's bill of rights has still led to numerous human right violations such as slavery,murder of innocent people and gun contoversies such as school shootings.

The UN and HRA were created following WW2 to try and ensure it never happened again. Britain was one of the leading designers of the act.

Human rights are basic rights who gives people the right to move freely, that act is part of our democracy

This is not a statistics based argument. The point of the act is to safeguard British values but the statistic that is relevant is that countries with greater human rights protections do far better in terms of happiness, economic development, etc than those without.

The UK government seeks a policy to force illegal, 3rd party, deportations when it already cannot enforce existing rules.

The human rights act ensures that everyone is equal under the law. This is crucial for a country and for democracy. Without this act people would be treated much more unfairly than they already are.

The mostly universal Human Rights Act helps lots of people make sure they have their basic rights as a human so it should not be abolished.

I believe it is important for people to have freedom to express obnoxious and opinions which I believe is wrong in a non-violent and non-treateng manner. I am opposed to suppression of minorities. That is a fundamental basis on which our democracy is based and the UK was closely involved in drawing up the human rights act which has been adopted by much of the rest of the world and the abolision of it would damage our credability as a country and lead to abuse of power by government.

One of the rights is the right to a fair trial. If the act was to be replaced that granted more control, certain types criminals could be charged without a fair trial..

It is too restrictive, there are elements that are good, and we could adapt it for better us for UK so law makers have real power to change things for the better

The simple point is it contradicts freedom of speech, people have their right to their own opinion especially if it is based on religion and belief

Putting the legislation surrounding basic human rights into the hands of the UK which is horribly disproportionate wouldn't make anything better

The Human Rights Act is causing the UK more problems than it should. For example, the GFA prevents us from leaving the ECHR as they’re all interconnected. This is causing a security issue as we cannot deport illegal migrants of which there have been over a hundred thousand in the last few years. Therefore, we do not have a country if we cannot control who comes into it. Britain needs no lectures from anyone on human rights, so it is my belief we can make an updated human rights act outside of the EU and the ECHR.

Too many rights so would prefer a mixture of authoritarian and democratic structure to ensure more discipline

We can create a culture of human rights in the UK, Uphold civility and moral standards and bring order.

The human rights act is a fundamental agreement that we made as a country wanting to uphold the beliefs of the people. By abolishing it we dishonour our promise to uphold the freedom of all people.

The human rights act ensures that everyone is equal under the law. This is crucial for a country and for democracy. Without this act people would be treated much more unfairly than they already are

The human rights act ensures that everyone is equal under the law. This is crucial for a country and for democracy. Without this act people would be treated much more unfairly than they already are.

HRA is part of an international treaty.
Parliament can overturn any UK law with a simple majority in HoC

Abolishing the human rights act would open Pandora’s box for abusive parents, underprivileged families whose children would genuinely benefit from living in another home and people with unsteady access to food and water. If you have the cells to feel pain and the ability to recognise reality correctly you should be granted basic rights.

The human rights act ensures that everyone is equal under the law. Any change currently proposed only positively affects big business profits but negatively affects society as a whole.

The human rights act shouldn't be abolished purely due to the fact that it protects protected things.

Human rights are protective to us an individuals the people of the UL are sovereign and that is important

I fled my place because of totalitarianism in my country. I cannot allow any more human right breaches.

People who have committed unforgivable crimes with no remorse should have no right to any form of humane treatment when they lack humanity themselves

57% of people wish to stay part of the ECHR. A "British Bill of Rights" would lack popular legitimacy, and is such an important issue that a clear majority of voters would have to want to leave it for it to be even considered.

- The Human Rights Act is a controversial piece of legislation that has been in force in the United Kingdom since 1998. It was introduced by the Labour government of Tony Blair, and it has been criticized by some on the right for infringing on the rights of the British people.
- Another criticism of the Human Rights Act is that it is too vague. The Act does not define what human rights are, and it leaves it up to the courts to decide what they mean. This has led to some inconsistency in the way the Act is interpreted, and it has also led to some cases where the courts have made decisions that many people believe are wrong.

I’m not asking for people to agree with my view, I’m just throwing out there my opinion and answer. But I do agree on people who have committed bad crimes and done terrible things should be stripped of any human rights.

for example the dictatorship in north Korea as their leader has changed there law and restricted them a lot including hardly any food and low paying jobs