Re: Which is exactly why it is higher on May priority list
Most people don't have a problem with human rights law. Nobody has ever argued against the Human rights that have been floating around in the UK since the Magna Carta and the (1689 english) bill of rights etc. Most people are pissed off with an incompetent implementation of the 1998 Human Rights act, and to be fair I agree that it was incompetently implemented into UK law.
In the UK all of our law is based on a restrictive basis. Your inherently free to do anything, with the exception of very tightly defined laws which create things that you are forbidden to do.
Most EU countries invanded by the Emperor Napoleon use his system of law which starts off on the basis that the individual has no rights and laws create rights for the individual. In this sort of system, the human rights act creating such rights as "you have a right to a family life" was designed to ensure that future dictators on the Europeon continent would be constrained at least somewhat by their legal systems and grant to europeon citizens the rights enjoyed by Englishmen for most of the last millenia. It was in fact written by a committee of British civil servants precisely to this end.
However, by adding blocks of continental type law into the UK law books it ends up clashing. For instance, prisoners coming out and saying that being in prison is a violation of their right to a family life does quite understandably grate with the majority of the population, especially when they murdered people (violating their "right to life") to end up in prison. This is the much maligned part of the act:-
Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life
1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
That's the much maligned "right to a family life" as found on the UK's law books. It's written absurdly poorly and is far to vague. It should have been written along the lines that:-
"There shall be no monitoring, recording, or interference with an individual's privacy in a public or private space without their consent, and there shall be no entry to property to search an individuals property without a court order or the individuals consent"
Doing this in a specific manner would have frankly solved the problems of the rather negative publicity when people jailed for murder or terrorism cry "you can't do that, it's against my human rights!" which tends to inflame public opinion against the act as after a number of well publicised uses of the act in this manner it's hardly surprising that people think it's just a charter for criminals which has no positive influence for the general public.