Theresa May is trying to take away your human rights. What a piece of… work… she is

Theresa May says UK should keep evaluating EU membership regardless of referendum outcome. Doesn't she look a lot like Margaret Thatcher these days? [Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA].

Theresa May says UK should keep evaluating EU membership regardless of referendum outcome (Doesn’t she look a lot like Margaret Thatcher these days? Maybe it’s the relentless determination to attack anyone who isn’t a multi-millionaire) [Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA].

The Conservative parasites have been trying to cut back your human rights for years, so this should be no surprise to anybody.

But it is a proposal that the British public firmly oppose.

As a campaigner in this year’s Welsh Assembly elections, This Writer has had to put people right when they say they want to stay in the EU because of human rights protections, so it is a huge miscalculation for Mrs May – the woman who originally dubbed the Tories “the nasty party”, by the way – to tell the country she wants to pull us out of the ECHR as well.

But it make matters very simple for us.

Brexiters (including many Conservatives) want the UK out of Europe so you will not be protected by EU legislation on working conditions, including restrictions on the number of hours you should work, health and safety, and holiday and sick pay.

Conservatives want the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights – a treaty that was drafted by representatives of this country, by the way – so your human rights will no longer be protected either. If you don’t know what they are, check here.

Theresa May would leave you entirely vulnerable to commercial rape by the corporations who fund the Conservative Party. Do you really want that?

Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has claimed in comments Labour has condemned as appalling.

The home secretary’s remarks on Monday triggered an immediate response from the shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, who described the intervention as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”.

Lord Falconer accused May of “sacrificing Britain’s 68-year-old commitment to human rights for her own miserable Tory leadership ambitions”.

The home secretary said that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.

Source: UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May | Politics | The Guardian

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


9 thoughts on “Theresa May is trying to take away your human rights. What a piece of… work… she is

  1. mrmarcpc

    She like all the tories want to be out of Europe so they can install their own British system of laws that screw us so we don’t have any rights at all.
    What happened to her campaign in finding out what happened to abused children by politicians, notice that’s fallen by the wayside, she’ll been told to tow the pervy, party line or else!

  2. robert fillies

    When it comes to human rights the tories want to take us [ the plebs] back to the days when we didn’t have any.

  3. paulrutherford8

    Many people still only associate human rights with terrorist or criminal appeals, and don’t realise how they protect ordinary, dare I say it… ‘hardworking people who do the right thing’.

    Some who I speak to about our Bedroom Tax case [and the others], don’t know that our case is based on Human Rights legislation, and without these rights, we probably wouldn’t have a case at all, because the government could literally do what they like.

    Human Rights are vital to everyone’s lives and must be protected at all costs.

  4. Harry

    So why don’t the British people say no Mike? I am aghast at the apathy toward the great crimes in progress. Rope and Pitchforks are still available aren’t they? These creatures we are permitting to rule over us are now, on top of murdering us, and making huge swathes homeless via imposed poverty, are trying to get a statute whereby a ten year prison sentence is imposed for downloading copywrited material.
    Ten years Mikw!!!! A murderer gets out in Ten years. Rope Pitchforks and lamposts….No time like the present.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Conditioned helplessness.
      People believe nothing they do can make a difference, so they do nothing.
      It’s pathetic but it’s what is happening.

  5. casalealex

    The Human Rights Act 1998 (c42) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

    We already have our own The Human Rights Act 1998 – so why do we have to now have – The Proposed British Bill of Rights is a proposal of the Conservative Government, included in their 2015 election manifesto, to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a new piece of primary legislation. The proposed reform is being overseen by the current Conservative Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove.

    What’s the difference?

    Specific details on the specific legislation at this point are unknown, due to sparse information being published as of yet, however, some proposed differences between current legislation and a “British Bill of Rights”, have already been made apparent, due to the way in which the Westminster system operates.

    Currently, in order to change the text of the European Convention on Human Rights, there must be broad to unanimous agreement between member states of the Council of Europe. With a “British Bill of Rights”, however, rights would be set forth by the UK parliament or by another body directly on its behalf, operating under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The ability to alter what constitutes a “right” would thus ultimately rest with the current parliament of the time, even if had previously delegated that authority to another body.

    As a result of this difference, European courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, would not be able to impose their decisions on the UK over the objections of the UK parliament. However, because under UK law, no parliament may bind the actions of any future parliament, such a bill would give a sitting UK government the power to make any Human Rights Bill comply with their actions, rather than their actions being bound by a Human Rights Bill.

Comments are closed.