As a revert English Muslim living constantly on a knife edge of fear, for my family’ from the kind of abuse and barbarism of the law that Mr. john reid is proposing’ would undoubtedly put many innocent people in harm’s way’ that Muslims who live here in Britain are to be the target of unjust and bigoted attention’ is a separate crime against their humanitarian rights and dignity’ as they are almost all implicated on every turn of a pen ‘not because they are guilty but because we may hold views which would be considered against the foreign policy of this government’ ideas about the present “war on terror” which I might say should really be called the “new colonialism “reinvented’ as it seems most of the allegations against Muslim are somewhat contrived in order to fit a crime which may give more justification to the ongoing program of British and American exploits in “Iraq and Afghanistan.’ if this were black or Jewish peoples it would be easily identifiable as racism'.

Idriss, Manchester, UK

The Human Rights Act of 1998 was brought in by Labour because they had promised it in their manifesto. Nothing to do with Mr & Mrs Blair personally. Writers here who state such nonsense are showing their ignorance. Even if it is revoked completely, which is unlikely, there is nothing to stop Mr Brown from re-instating it. In the meantime, its absence might stop the endless embarrassing and infuriating occasions when suspects are allowed to more or less get away with murder by invoking it. And it just might mean that the present PM takes some of the load off the new PM, by getting rid of the terrorists-in-training inside our land.

Bad enough that this country largely does not "get" what Iraq is about. Now, they want to sit on their soft little hands until the next outrage. Then they'll get out their books and work out quite who has to be looked after by whom, and why the poor souls have done it in the first place! I guess it'll be the wicked government's fault, AGAIN!

Sick!

E Warlow, London, UK

Until the human rights act is re-written so as not to provide shelter for those intent on harming or exploiting our society. We should suspend being signatures to this wishy washy peice of legislation.

s.deering, london, england

The UK government trolls *allowed* the terror suspects to escape, so that Reid could invoke clampdown measures.
These people are taking a page from the Bush/Rove playbook.

Lori Price, Bristol, USA, Connecticut

John Reid should be ashamed of himself.

Totalitarian regimes declare states of emergency to remove basic freedoms from their citizens so that those regimes can cling to power.

There was no state of emergency declared in mainland UK during the IRA mainland bombing campaing (which killed more than Al Quaeda bombings in the UK).

As we approach the anniversary of D-Day, we should fear for our democracy and the basic freedoms we fought World War 2 to protect. We should be ashamed that, with the UK's long history of respecting basic freedoms dating back to the Magna Carter, our govenment should betray us in such a way and be proposing that the Stasi 3 am breaking down of the front door should become the norm evey citizen should expect.

Human rights legislation is there to protect citizens from governments like the Labour government.

Peter, London, United Kingdom

There are a lot of critics of the Charter here. The purpose of the ECHR is to set a benchmark for the just and moral handling of human beings living in the EU. It's not supposed to be easy to work with. It's supposed to challenge those people and processes with a less-than-humane nature. Without setting a higher goal, those people, organisations and states which have a slacker approach to humane handling of people will inevitably decline into despotism and tyranny. Stop whining about how difficult it is to meet the standards and put your energy into working towards them!

The rest of Europe doesn't look in the least ungovernable, although they also are signed-up to the Charter. The difference is, they all have pre-existing constitutions that essentially mirror the Charter, so humane Govt. is viewed as lawful requirement, rather than an obstacle to state-security expediency.

Bruce Haig, Frankfurt am Main,

Yet another beneficial crisis to authorise yet more limitations of our most fundamental rights.

Dreadful as deaths and injuries in terrorist atrocities are, they are nothing new in Britain and less in scale than they have been in many previous eras when our rights were maintained without question.

1,800 people die in this country every day, 200 of them in hospitals due to medical error, infection, neglect and other failures of the system. 10 every day on our roads in spite of - or increasingly because of - the ever increasing number of speed cameras. Tragic as terrorism is for those caught up in it, we must refuse to allow the rights which over centuries made this one of, if not the most, free countries in the world to be removed by our increasingly totalitarian rullers here or even more so in Brussels

Idris Francis, Petersfield, UK

The effect of the Human Rights Act has been to tie authorities hands behind its back. Who asked for this useless piece of legislation. It was just imposed on us. Do the other 26 countries in Europe get the same problems with their judiciary over this legislation. France, who comply with the same European laws, allowed deportation of 25,000 illegals & suspected terrorists in the past 12 months nearly all to Algeria. Britain has the right to protect its borders & people & if European compliant legislation obstruct our legislators from doing this then we have to derogate from it. Our judges have to be told that they must decide cases solely on the legislation & not to keep putting their own interpretation of the legislators intentions. The rights of the innocent must be protected above the rights of any suspect or offender. This country's eagerness to be politically correct & not to upset anyone has backfired big time. The Lib Dems & Tories prefer to play politics with the publics safety

Lynda Plum, London, england

The control orders handed down on these guys is itself illegal. On what basis can you restrain a person or deny him of his basics right for an offence he has not been proved to have commited.
Tony Blair justifies the invation of Iraq on the basis that Sadam violated the rights of his people and he eventually paid the supreme price. Is our government not sliping towards the same direction? Take away people's right and we will become a laughing stock in the world.

Taiwo Onilenla, Milton Keynes, UK

There should be no 'may' or 'might'...just get out of the wretched thing now, thanks to the Blairs it's caused nothing but problems since he brought it in. It was only so she could make a shed load of money and the damage it's done may be irreparable. Maybe then Judges will have no more excuses not to do their job properly.
Blair told us on national TV several years ago (ITV Dimbleby) that he would pull out of it , if it was detrimental to the country and its people, how much more evidence does he need. His wife is behind this debacle and the sooner they are out of our sight the better. You know we are in a mess when Castro says we've lost our standing in the world, all on Blairs watch.
This act was for a time gone by, things have changed dramatically now. Get rid of it, it's making us a laughing stock around the world.

Samantha Jones, Bucks, England

I hope that those of you who cry that the human rights act deprives us 'innocent' people of our rights have actually read the human rights act. So many press states that "Mr X" has got this because of his human rights but doesn’t explain what human right it was or why! If you're son, daughter, wife or husband was suspected wouldn’t you want them protected to some extent? Protected from the politics or an over zealous policeman?

I think those of you who think human rights are a bad idea should really think about this - what right is it that you think is so bad that we should allow the government to opt out? What the right to a fair trial? The right not to be tortured? The right to life? I think there is a real lack of people who actually know what the human rights act means and its impact on those who rely on it.

Without the human rights act and its rule of law England will no longer be a democracy but an evil dictatorship. Please think again

Jemma, London,

In the maelstrom of the events of 2001, and thereafter, many have forgotten that the HRA 1998 is meant to 'bring rights home' to people in the jurisdiction of the UK, whether they be foreign nationals or home-grown British nationals. The Conservative government ratified the ECHR in 1951 ( and was the first to do so in Europe), and the HRA itself, with the support of the labour government, was introduced by a senior judge in 1998. The HRA applies to all, and one must not slip into the language of utilitarianism when interpreting fundamental human rights.

If we are stuck in a rut at the moment, between control orders that fall fould of Article 5, and indefinite detention, then an alternative should and can be found that strikes a balance between national security and fundamental rights. The struggle over what is permissible is what makes a democracy strong and which safeguards all of us.

Jennifer, trainee barrister, London, UK

It is a mistake to assume that Emergency laws will be applied only to the terrorists. Human Right laws and strong judges are our only defence against government's transgressions. Look at all the third world countries who have 'emergency' laws. Do you want UK to follow the lead of those countries? The next thing you would see will be a policeman knocking on your doors asking for money or else he will put you in jail under emergency rule.

masmanz, Boston, USA

This mess exists because the government do not have sufficient evidence that can be presented in court and so a charge cannot be made against these individuals.

What we have then is a number of people who the government claim "are a bit dodgy" and therefore want them to be detained indefinitely in lieu of deportation.

The reluctance to make wire-tap evidene admissable is odd if the evidence was any good.

The conlusion must be then that the Government wishes to detain certain people without evidence of any crime. Usually we invade countries to prevent that sort of thing....

Mike Hinsley, Bristol, UK

The consequences of Labour's abysmal policies on zero border controls and their utter folly on Human Rights have been manifesting themselves for quite some time.
Now, matters are coming to a head; potential terrorists find this country the easiest in the world to grow their 'businesses', they are able to enter and exit the country unhindered and all John Reid and company do is blame the Opposition and the judiciary !
Not fit for purpose ? Not fit for government !

Rick, London, England

The government has already banned free speech with the Anti-Terrorism Act, so it should come as no surprise that basic human rights are close behind. People, it is time to get the hell out of this country. Civilisation hangs in the balance; I for one am not going to be around when it finally topples into fascism.

John Smith, London,

The European Convention of Human Rights is not the problem for allowing the deportation of illegal immigrants and suspected terrorists.
The problem is with the UKs un elected High Court Judges and Law Lords who get great satisfaction in overiding laws passed by a democratic government. Why in France who comply with the same European Laws allow President Sarkozy to deport 25,000 illegals and suspected terrorists in the last 12 months nearly all to Algeria? President Sarkozy does not have to answer to ego crazy judges and civil rights lawyers making mountains of money from taxpayers trying to stop the deportations.
Then you come to our pathetic opposition parties the Lib Dems and Tories who prefer to play politics with the UK publics safety.When is Mr Cameron going to come out of hiding and comment on this issue.Is he wating for his PR team to prepare some spin on it,after all i suppose its not so easy as visiting polar bears ,hugging hoodies and camping out in Birmingham.

Bill Rees, Pieusse, France

why not look at the real picture for all these problems that face the UK, Do you think the muslim terrorist woke up one morning and said 'ok we are going to target the UK now'. this is all to do with the Iraq war, I am totally against these idiots who kill innocent people by strapping bombs to their bodies but UK had and has no business to attack a country that was no threat to us, US is still crying over the deaths of the people on 9/11 and a sad day it was, but how do you think the Iraqi's feel losing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, these people had nothing to do with 9/11.
Britain was and still is a great nation with a lot of respect amongst the muslims countries, but is slowly losing the respect due to its blind following of the US

sajid, LA, USA

The usual scaremongering. If we got out of Iraq and stopped supporting Bush we'd have no problem with so-called terrorism.

Michael Debham, Bedford,

Fact: the UK signed the European Convention on Human Rights (itself derived from the UN Charter) in about 1950. The 1998 Human Rights Act merely incorporated an already existing legal obligation into UK law.

Ken MacIntyre, Leatherhead,

Let us not forget who got us into this mess by signing us up to the Human Rights Charter in 1998 in the first place. It never ceases to amaze me that this government would be so crass stupid as not to realize that my signing us up to the HR act we would give up our right to extradite those deemed to be a threat to our national security. The majority of those already found guilty of acts of terror and those who are under surveillance are Muslims from Muslim countries that have the death penalty. By the terms of the HR charter we cannot extradite them back to their own countries. So we are stuck with them forever under surveillance, and recent events have shown just how reliable that is. What a ludicrous situation.

Paul Bastier, Penang, Malaysia

Once again England is plagued with Blair's (and his wife's )
actions. It was them that brought in the European Charter
on Human Rights and in one foul sweep Made certainly
England ungovernable.

Barry Holmes, Christchurch, New Zealand

it's time to stop jockeying for political gain in this never ending game of one -up manship. Let us spare a thought for the human rights of those who have been and will be violently murdered as they go about their daily lives. Whilst we are at it let us also spare a thought for the human rights of their families and friends. Remember amongst the next batch of victims could be you or I or our loved ones. Principles are always easy until they have to be challenged.

michael dowling, rainham, england

We are defenceless in the face of innefectual government. Courts have always had the power to balance the laws made by governments with what is fair. The penalty for rape was altered 20 years ago to life imprisonment when a judges daughter was raped in Brixton. I'm afraid it will take a terrorist outrage involving the loss of life of a senior judge or QCs to alter the current position.

Chris, London, UK

What another shambolic situation by this government the Home Office
and the justice system in particular, do heads roll and the answer is an emphatic NO.
The 55 people who died in the London bomb attack had Human Rights
and the least we owe these people is the dignity that we the British people
as far as humanly possible never allow this situation to occur again. All those so called professional people who have any input should be ashamed of
themselves. They all deserve contempt from the general public
as they are inept at providing any decent thought or care for the fellow country man or women. That is basic human rights.

David Mackenzie, Birmingham,

Unfortunately the effect of the Human Rights Act has been to tie authorities hands behind its back. Who asked for this useless piece of legislation anyway. It was just imposed on us by Europe. Do the other 26 countries in Europe get the same problems with their judiciary over this legislation. Britain has the right to protect its borders & people & if European legislation obstructs our legislators from doing this then we have to derogate from it (& possibly use the same opportunity to get out of Europe altogether, but just use it for trading). Our judges have to be told that they must decide cases solely on the legislation & not to keep putting their own interpretation of the legislators intentions. The rights of the innocent must be protected above the rights of any suspect or offender. This country's eagerness to be politically correct & not to upset anone has backfired big time. How long will it be before there is a compensation claim against the authorities for not protecting them

Lynda Plum, London, england

If the UK opts out then where does this leave ordinary law abiding citizens. Laws are there to protect the innocent from crime as well as heavy handed governments. Take the basic rights/laws away and we have Nazi Germany or the Stalin’s Russia. I thought the whole reason for the war in IRAQ was to protect our freedoms and not to surrender them

Arthur, middlesbrough, UK