UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Because it doesn't mean we'll shift into a society where we'll revoke LGBT marriage or impose apartheid. The battle to be more tolerant to marginalised groups has already been won, if there is a credible case it will be assessed according to established UK law. The main concern people have that would be regarded as socially conservative relates to immigration and counter-terrorism rather than LGBT rights, minority rights etc.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

and that's why i care so much about you not caring. you are under impression the battle has been won. it hasn't. and the first step to getting it changed is making people realize this.

established UK law is useless on this issue. in many wys, established UK law is the problem. it is not a coincidence that most of the big gains in LGBT rights came from outside the UK not within.

Such as?

[Souseiseki]

and that's why i care so much about you not caring. you are under impression the battle has been won. it hasn't. and the first step to getting it changed is making people realize this.

established UK law is useless on this issue. in many wys, established UK law is the problem. it is not a coincidence that most of the big gains in LGBT rights came from outside the UK not within.

Such as?

legalization of homosexuality in nothern ireland
full legalization of male homosexual acts in england & wales
right of LGBT people to openly serve in military
legal recognition of transgender people as their preferred gender
equal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples

[Wolfmanne2]

Because it doesn't mean we'll shift into a society where we'll revoke LGBT marriage or impose apartheid. The battle to be more tolerant to marginalised groups has already been won, if there is a credible case it will be assessed according to established UK law. The main concern people have that would be regarded as socially conservative relates to immigration and counter-terrorism rather than LGBT rights, minority rights etc.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

and that's why i care so much about you not caring. you are under impression the battle has been won. it hasn't. and the first step to getting it changed is making people realize this.

established UK law is useless on this issue. in many wys, established UK law is the problem. it is not a coincidence that most of the big gains in LGBT rights came from outside the UK not within.

If the established UK law has failed then there is a case for it to be changed. It is not rigid and there can be cases where the law does something that contradicts human nature, which is usually where arguments to change laws come from.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Such as?

legalization of homosexuality in nothern ireland
full legalization of homosexual acts in england & wales
right of LGBT people to openly serve in military
legal recognition of transgender people as their preferred gender
equal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples

How were these a result of outside influences?

[Souseiseki]

legalization of homosexuality in nothern ireland
full legalization of homosexual acts in england & wales
right of LGBT people to openly serve in military
legal recognition of transgender people as their preferred gender
equal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples

How were these a result of outside influences?

european court of human rights rulings

[Wolfmanne2]

How were these a result of outside influences?

european court of human rights rulings

So in the future instead of the ECHR delivering a ruling change will be delivered by MPs working to get something passed.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

How were these a result of outside influences?

european court of human rights rulings

Sources? Were these rights pushed into the law by pressuring the U.K. government?

[Imperializt Russia]

european court of human rights rulings

So in the future instead of the ECHR delivering a ruling change will be delivered by MPs working to get something passed.

Let's consider briefly the fact that the ECHR had to deliver these rulings because MPs couldn't or wouldn't work to improve them at home.

[Wolfmanne2]

So in the future instead of the ECHR delivering a ruling change will be delivered by MPs working to get something passed.

Let's consider briefly the fact that the ECHR had to deliver these rulings because MPs couldn't or wouldn't work to improve them at home.

Well we're leaving the EU now. It's going to be down to MPs now and to the Supreme Court. Don't blame me, I supported and campaigned for Remain.

[Ifreann]

Let's consider briefly the fact that the ECHR had to deliver these rulings because MPs couldn't or wouldn't work to improve them at home.

Well we're leaving the EU now. It's going to be down to MPs now and to the Supreme Court. Don't blame me, I supported and campaigned for Remain.

The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), despite having "European" in the name, is not part of the EU. When you leave the EU you'll still be party to the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), until and unless you pull out of it by repealing the Human Rights Act.

[Wolfmanne2]

Well we're leaving the EU now. It's going to be down to MPs now and to the Supreme Court. Don't blame me, I supported and campaigned for Remain.

The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), despite having "European" in the name, is not part of the EU. When you leave the EU you'll still be party to the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), until and unless you pull out of it by repealing the Human Rights Act.

Oh? Then there's nothing to worry, seeing as I oppose the HRA repeal.

[Souseiseki]

european court of human rights rulings

Sources? Were these rights pushed into the law by pressuring the U.K. government?

most of these are wikipedia links because it provides a good outline of the general topic and it's a lot nicer than making people trawl through the hansard/ECHR rulings. i am aware some people take issue with wikipedia as a source, but consider it a temporary measure.

this post is also written under the assumption that the ECHR ruling against you is a fair bit of pressure.

legalization of homosexuality in northern ireland - the DUP fought against legalizing homosexuality for as long as they legally could. legalization came about as a result of the ECHR ruling in dudgeon v. united kingdom that a ban on homosexuality was unlawful. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and the extent to which one of the major domestic parties opposed it.

full legalization of homosexual acts in england & wales - when england & wales legalized homosexuality some restrictions remained. that is, if there is a third party present in the building it does not count as private and is therefore still illegal. this was overturned in 2000 as a result of a.d.t. v. united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and how the CPS continued to prosecute cases as long as they could, demonstrating it was not a forgotten law that was never used and there was still a sentiment that the law should be enforced. i am not sure if parliament ever addressed this one, but in any case they only rectified the situation after their hand was forced.

right of LGBT people to openly serve in military - the right of LGBT to serve openly in the military was brought as a result of the ECHR ruling in smith and grady v united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and UK high courts had previously held that the practice of banning open LGBT was legal.

legal recognition of transgender people as their preferred gender - the gender recognition act 2004 was passed in response to the ECHR ruling in christine goodwin v united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and the opposite stance of previous UK court rulings on the matter. there were also issues getting some parties to support it with DUP/UPP against it and less than half of conservative MPs voting at all and a narrow lords cote.

equal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples - a home office committee recommend equalization in 1973. legislation was only enacted in response to sutherland v. united kingdom. it failed to pass the lords twice before getting through in 2001. this is considered an example of outside influence because of the lack of action until the ECHR intervened and the extent to which the lords fought it.

Well we're leaving the EU now. It's going to be down to MPs now and to the Supreme Court. Don't blame me, I supported and campaigned for Remain.

The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), despite having "European" in the name, is not part of the EU. When you leave the EU you'll still be party to the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), until and unless you pull out of it by repealing the Human Rights Act.

justice secretary has already said this is their intention

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Sources? Were these rights pushed into the law by pressuring the U.K. government?

most of these are wikipedia links because it provides a good outline of the general topic and it's a lot nicer than making people trawl through the hansard/ECHR rulings. i am aware some people take issue with wikipedia as a source, but consider it a temporary measure.

this post is also written under the assumption that the ECHR ruling against you is a fair bit of pressure.

legalization of homosexuality in northern ireland - the DUP fought against legalizing homosexuality for as long as they legally could. legalization came about as a result of the ECHR ruling in dudgeon v. united kingdom that a ban on homosexuality was unlawful. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and the extent to which one of the major domestic parties opposed it.

full legalization of homosexual acts in england & wales - when england & wales legalized homosexuality some restrictions remained. that is, if there is a third party present in the building it does not count as private and is therefore still illegal. this was overturned in 2000 as a result of a.d.t. v. united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and how the CPS continued to prosecute cases as long as they could, demonstrating it was not a forgotten law that was never used and there was still a sentiment that the law should be enforced. i am not sure if parliament ever addressed this one, but in any case they only rectified the situation after their hand was forced.

right of LGBT people to openly serve in military - the right of LGBT to serve openly in the military was brought as a result of the ECHR ruling in smith and grady v united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and UK high courts had previously held that the practice of banning open LGBT was legal.

legal recognition of transgender people as their preferred gender - the gender recognition act 2004 was passed in response to the ECHR ruling in christine goodwin v united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and the opposite stance of previous UK court rulings on the matter. there were also issues getting some parties to support it with DUP/UPP against it and less than half of conservative MPs voting at all and a narrow lords cote.

equal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples - a home office committee recommend equalization in 1973. legislation was only enacted in response to sutherland v. united kingdom. it failed to pass the lords twice before getting through in 2001. this is considered an example of outside influence because of the lack of action until the ECHR intervened and the extent to which the lords fought it.

The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), despite having "European" in the name, is not part of the EU. When you leave the EU you'll still be party to the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), until and unless you pull out of it by repealing the Human Rights Act.

justice secretary has already said this is their intention

Cheers.

[Ifreann]

The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), despite having "European" in the name, is not part of the EU. When you leave the EU you'll still be party to the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), until and unless you pull out of it by repealing the Human Rights Act.

Oh? Then there's nothing to worry, seeing as I oppose the HRA repeal.

Unless you became the Queen without any of us noticing I don't think your opposition is going to much of an impediment to the Tories.

[Wolfmanne2]

Oh? Then there's nothing to worry, seeing as I oppose the HRA repeal.

Unless you became the Queen without any of us noticing I don't think your opposition is going to much of an impediment to the Tories.

Sous seems to have an obsession about policing the way I think so I hope I have reassured her.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Unless you became the Queen without any of us noticing I don't think your opposition is going to much of an impediment to the Tories.

Sous seems to have an obsession about policing the way I think so I hope I have reassured her.

Rather, correct what she/he (unawares as to what sex Sou is) perceives as thoughts of which are in the need of correction through the art of discussion and presentation of sources and reason.

[Vassenor]

Sources? Were these rights pushed into the law by pressuring the U.K. government?

most of these are wikipedia links because it provides a good outline of the general topic and it's a lot nicer than making people trawl through the hansard/ECHR rulings. i am aware some people take issue with wikipedia as a source, but consider it a temporary measure.

this post is also written under the assumption that the ECHR ruling against you is a fair bit of pressure.

legalization of homosexuality in northern ireland - the DUP fought against legalizing homosexuality for as long as they legally could. legalization came about as a result of the ECHR ruling in dudgeon v. united kingdom that a ban on homosexuality was unlawful. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and the extent to which one of the major domestic parties opposed it.

full legalization of homosexual acts in england & wales - when england & wales legalized homosexuality some restrictions remained. that is, if there is a third party present in the building it does not count as private and is therefore still illegal. this was overturned in 2000 as a result of a.d.t. v. united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and how the CPS continued to prosecute cases as long as they could, demonstrating it was not a forgotten law that was never used and there was still a sentiment that the law should be enforced. i am not sure if parliament ever addressed this one, but in any case they only rectified the situation after their hand was forced.

right of LGBT people to openly serve in military - the right of LGBT to serve openly in the military was brought as a result of the ECHR ruling in smith and grady v united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and UK high courts had previously held that the practice of banning open LGBT was legal.

legal recognition of transgender people as their preferred gender - the gender recognition act 2004 was passed in response to the ECHR ruling in christine goodwin v united kingdom. this is considered outside influence because the mechanism of change was an ECHR ruling and the opposite stance of previous UK court rulings on the matter. there were also issues getting some parties to support it with DUP/UPP against it and less than half of conservative MPs voting at all and a narrow lords cote.

equal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples - a home office committee recommend equalization in 1973. legislation was only enacted in response to sutherland v. united kingdom. it failed to pass the lords twice before getting through in 2001. this is considered an example of outside influence because of the lack of action until the ECHR intervened and the extent to which the lords fought it.

The European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR), despite having "European" in the name, is not part of the EU. When you leave the EU you'll still be party to the European Convention of Human Rights(ECHR), until and unless you pull out of it by repealing the Human Rights Act.

justice secretary has already said this is their intention

And people said I was being hyperbolic when I said I was concerned about Brexit and the HRA repeal leading to LGBT rights legislation being binned.

[The Nihilistic view]

New ICM poll today:

CON: 43% (+2)
LAB: 26% (-2)
UKIP: 11% (-2)
LDEM: 8% (-1)
GRN: 6% (+2)
Tories lead by 17% points

I think the Greens will be very excited - this is the highest they've polled and my instinct is that they are culturally liberal voters disillusioned with the Brexit result. They have likely migrated from Labour and are probably disaffected with the party as a whole rather than the PLP or Corbyn specifically. The Liberal Democrats are stagnant at 8% once again and UKIP have lost support due to infighting. Labour meanwhile has done well, we're staying above the 24%-25% mark so overall a good poll for Labour. In terms of conferences held, the Tories are the winner - they are the only party with a post-conference bounce, which indicates their strategy of listening to the British people and addressing their concerns is working.

Really? That works?

[Ifreann]

Unless you became the Queen without any of us noticing I don't think your opposition is going to much of an impediment to the Tories.

Sous seems to have an obsession about policing the way I think so I hope I have reassured her.

Never mind your hate-crush on Souseiseki. Absent the Human Rights Act, which is probably going to get repealed, the only thing keeping the UK from banning homosexuality again or re-establishing nonsense like it being illegal to have gay sex when there's someone else in the building or making the age of consent for gay sex higher than the age of consent for straight sex is a broadly socially liberal attitude among the voting public. Which you say is going away and being replaced with a socially conservative attitude. So exactly what makes you so confident that the Tories aren't going to take advantage of this trend towards conservatism to do away with the equality for LGBT people that they never wanted to permit in the first place?

[Imperializt Russia]

Let's consider briefly the fact that the ECHR had to deliver these rulings because MPs couldn't or wouldn't work to improve them at home.

Well we're leaving the EU now. It's going to be down to MPs now and to the Supreme Court. Don't blame me, I supported and campaigned for Remain.

I will blame you for the statements you are making right now, which are, as demonstrated by very recent history, possibly even within your lifetime, essentially wishing for pigs to fly as an aeronautical engineer is succinctly explaining to you the lack of aerodynamic lifting bodies on a pig's frame.

[Tananat]

The economic argument for less immigration was lost the moment the Office for Budget Responsibility said that we need millions more immigrants to maintain standard of living and keep debt as a % of GDP from rising to Greece levels. The meme of 'immigration in the tens of thousands' is not only pointless when plans to achieve that have very little probability of success, it is also actively harmful to the economy and therefore the country.

Those wanting less immigration therefore need to justify that wish with different reasoning. A lot of the time, too much of the time, that reasoning boils down to largely racist and xenophobic arguments.

This is over the next 50 years though, a future government can increase the rate of immigration when we need to resolve that issue, plus immigration is clearly causing issues with community cohesion at this point in time. It also still isn't beneficial for low-skilled workers to have their wages stagnating thanks to immigration and the OBR doesn't acknowledge the increased investment in skills and in public services coupled with a reduction in immigration can help towards being less dependent on immigration. With the strain on services immigration is causing right now we need some sort of 'emergency brake' on ongoing immigration.

We'll need to resolve that over the course of the entire 50 years. The OBR prediction is what we need year on year to maintain debt to GDP levels - not reduce in any way, but maintain it. And increasing immigration levels a decade from now or two decades from now or 50 years from now isn't going to cut it, and will just cause further 'community cohesion issues' that you cite as already happening.

Immigration has no negative effects on wages. Immigration hasn't caused strains on services. The OBR doesn't acknowledge increased investment in skills and in public services because there isn't any. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Skills has had cuts of 18.4% since 2010. Education has had 6.4% Work and Pensions had 35%. Where is this increased investment in skills and public services?

Your point on the above things helping to being less dependent on immigration - aside from being wrong - is also irrelevant to what the Office for Budgetary Responsibility was saying, which was that the level of immigration was needed primarily because of declining birth rates and spiralling cost of living. Migrants put in far more to the economy than they take out, and on the whole are largely more educated as well. Those that are low skilled, make up a very small proportion of those coming in - so much so that the introduction of the points based system for non-EU migrants back in 2008, barely reduced migration at all (chart on page 3).

[Wolfmanne2]

Sous seems to have an obsession about policing the way I think so I hope I have reassured her.

Never mind your hate-crush on Souseiseki. Absent the Human Rights Act, which is probably going to get repealed, the only thing keeping the UK from banning homosexuality again or re-establishing nonsense like it being illegal to have gay sex when there's someone else in the building or making the age of consent for gay sex higher than the age of consent for straight sex is a broadly socially liberal attitude among the voting public. Which you say is going away and being replaced with a socially conservative attitude. So exactly what makes you so confident that the Tories aren't going to take advantage of this trend towards conservatism to do away with the equality for LGBT people that they never wanted to permit in the first place?

Because this trend is more based around the idea of controlling borders and ensuring stronger community bonds through a more interventionist state. Polling indicates that people still have liberal attitudes towards gay marriage (60%+ support it in the UK for instance). Everyone here has completely changed what I've said to say the gains that have been made will be reversed. It's clutching at straws. Additionally there are far too many Tory MPs who support gay marriage that it would virtually be impossible to repeal it - Cameron's modernisation program has been successful in regards to this and other things such as justice reform (for instance a move to a focus on reform rather than punishment).

Well we're leaving the EU now. It's going to be down to MPs now and to the Supreme Court. Don't blame me, I supported and campaigned for Remain.

I will blame you for the statements you are making right now, which are, as demonstrated by very recent history, possibly even within your lifetime, essentially wishing for pigs to fly as an aeronautical engineer is succinctly explaining to you the lack of aerodynamic lifting bodies on a pig's frame.

It isn't this at all, more that the circle jerk that exists here means that a statement can suddenly be turned into 'you hate gay people', which is completely contradictory to my posting history.

[Wolfmanne2]

I think the other thing about the Great Repeal Bill being proposed is that it'll codify EU law concerning human rights and other areas into British law, which will then be assessed to see what will be scrapped and what will be kept. There's been indication that much of the Social Chapter will be retained - in regards to EU laws relating to LGBT rights I think there will be a lot of raised eyebrows if they are weakened, so in that respect it is a nonissue. If they are, opposition internally within the Tories and from the PLP would ensure a swift u-turn.

[The Nihilistic view]

I think the other thing about the Great Repeal Bill being proposed is that it'll codify EU law concerning human rights and other areas into British law, which will then be assessed to see what will be scrapped and what will be kept. There's been indication that much of the Social Chapter will be retained - in regards to EU laws relating to LGBT rights I think there will be a lot of raised eyebrows if they are weakened, so in that respect it is a nonissue. If they are, opposition internally within the Tories and from the PLP would ensure a swift u-turn.

The crucial thing for me about these things is that such laws will be interpreted along with the customs and values of Britain through our common law and jury trial (where applicable) system rather than European ones. Which even for a law that says exactly the same thing is vastly preferable and also brings with it potentially a swifter parliamentary redress if something is regarded unjust in the law by a large majority.

[Imperializt Russia]

Never mind your hate-crush on Souseiseki. Absent the Human Rights Act, which is probably going to get repealed, the only thing keeping the UK from banning homosexuality again or re-establishing nonsense like it being illegal to have gay sex when there's someone else in the building or making the age of consent for gay sex higher than the age of consent for straight sex is a broadly socially liberal attitude among the voting public. Which you say is going away and being replaced with a socially conservative attitude. So exactly what makes you so confident that the Tories aren't going to take advantage of this trend towards conservatism to do away with the equality for LGBT people that they never wanted to permit in the first place?

Because this trend is more based around the idea of controlling borders and ensuring stronger community bonds through a more interventionist state. Polling indicates that people still have liberal attitudes towards gay marriage (60%+ support it in the UK for instance). Everyone here has completely changed what I've said to say the gains that have been made will be reversed. It's clutching at straws. Additionally there are far too many Tory MPs who support gay marriage that it would virtually be impossible to repeal it - Cameron's modernisation program has been successful in regards to this and other things such as justice reform (for instance a move to a focus on reform rather than punishment).

I will blame you for the statements you are making right now, which are, as demonstrated by very recent history, possibly even within your lifetime, essentially wishing for pigs to fly as an aeronautical engineer is succinctly explaining to you the lack of aerodynamic lifting bodies on a pig's frame.

It isn't this at all, more that the circle jerk that exists here means that a statement can suddenly be turned into 'you hate gay people', which is completely contradictory to my posting history.

You'd do well to note that was neither what was said nor implied.