[logifail]

> The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force just over 20 years ago in October 2000, vastly improving protections for human rights in common law, statute, EU and international law

Q: For whom?

[lin83]

People the British government don't like and who they have subjected to torture and extra-judicial killings, the biggest example being people in Northern Ireland opposing Union with Great Britain.

[cuteboy19]

thats not the biggest example. the list is quite long and it wont even make the first page.

[Dylan16807]

Oh?

Keep in mind this isn't about all their violations, but the ones that were still ongoing in significant numbers around the year 2000.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Human rights apply to all humans, but of course putting them in law mainly benefit the people who otherwise wouldn't have them respected. Anyone disadvantaged in society, in general.

[lapser]

I'm trying to understand what you're trying to get at. Do you believe the wrong people get the wrong rights by the UK subscribing to the Human Rights Act? Do yoy believe the HRA isn't enough? I'd love to know!

[logifail]

I was asking in good faith in response to the parent writing about the HRA "vastly improving protections".

From wikipedia:

"Many rights established under the Human Rights Act 1998 were already protected under UK law"[0]

Genuinely curious who we think has benefited most from the protections afforded by the act, and why they weren't protected beforehand?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

[brtkdotse]

For humans, it’s right there in the name /s