Just an example of how this act does not promote human rights but destroys them, heres article 4 (picked at random).
Article 4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
1 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3 For the purpose of this Article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
Section 1 is compatible with inalienable human rights as understood for at least a couple centuries or so and best described in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Article 4:
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Section 2 is where it gets a little dense: According to the EU, "forced or compulsory labour" is NOT slavery nor servitude.
The reason why they create this new distinction becomes clear when we see how Section 3 allows the EU or its client states to be the masters of this non-servitude form(?) of "forced or compulsory labour".
I just picked this Article at random, most of the so called convention rights are like this. Basically granting you what you already have, but declaring that the powers that be can now take them away. The right to life for example in Article 2, now the Human Rights Act grants you what you already had before it was granted, but again affords the EU and its client states to take away your right to life.
The Human Rights Act should be thrown in the bin, and more reliance should be placed upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the Queen has also agreed to be valid. Im not saying the UDHR is perfect, but which bowl would you rather eat from, a soup bowl with a couple of scratches on it, or a toilet bowl covered in shit?
