|low graphics version | feedback | help|
|You are in: Talking Point|
Monday, 9 October, 2000, 10:23 GMT 11:23 UK
Is the Human Rights Act right for the UK?
The introduction of the Human Rights Act is being hailed by some as the most important British legal development for centuries.Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.
UK citizens will no longer have to go directly to the European Court of Human Rights to seek redress, a situation that has existed since 1966, and now can go directly to the courts to ensure their basic human rights are met.
Home Secretary Jack Straw said the legislation would protect the weak against the "overweening power of the state".
But will this system work in the UK, with its history of unwritten laws and conventions? Will people take advantage of the new system by clogging up the courts with minor cases?
Oswald Forster, England
All a bit confusing this, isn't it?
On the one hand the Government is trying to limit the automatic right to trial by jury, in order to ease the pressure on the courts, but on the other hand they introduce this new bill which everyone thinks will have the opposite effect!
The unbelievable ignorance and stupidity of some people when it comes to human rights is quite astounding. The typical British attitude yet again comes out that greedy lawyers and busy courts are more important issues than celebrating an act which will go some way to preventing some of this century's worst man-made nightmares. After WWII and the Holocaust who in their right mind can oppose human rights?
Richard Stott, Scotland
The Human Rights Act represents a strong step forward in Britain producing a written constitution. This is good because it enables anybody with access to it to know exactly what rights they have and free debate from constitutional ambiguity. However, neither the Government nor the British people must consider this Act or the European convention a definitive guide to human rights. Cases such as the Scottish couple wishing to determine the sex of their child indicates that, in Law, a rule is only that; the application of those laws requires interpretation, involving the courts. Do, however, these courts provide a free forum for the assertion of these rights?
Thank goodness we have a reality check now. Only a few months ago the government pushed through the RIP bill, which would prevent people arrested under it to appeal and it reversed the burden of proof. Now we can feel slightly safer from any over zealous petty official.
Chris Davies, Hong Kong
I believe that the human rights act is a massive step in the British judicial system. However, it requires careful monitoring to ensure that the intolerant is not tolerated.
However, what seems not be debated, is whether the actual "rights" enshrined in the act are sensible and reasonable, particularly in respect of "religion", which is not properly defined. For instance if I invent a religion which requires me never to do any work, and to be supported by the state - would my "right" to practice my religion be upheld by the Act? Is this request any less reasonable than those from other religions that happen to be older?
Dave Harvey, UK
The introduction of the human rights act is long overdue. It's about time this country stopped living in its dark past with laws dreamed by those with dubious personal interests at heart.. We are all human and we all have rights.
It took the European Court to rule
that for a parent to beat a child
with a garden rake was a violation
of human rights and should be
unlawful. No civilised person could
oppose the Convention becoming
part of our law.
The purpose of the HRA is for the
rationalising of justice and rights within
the United Kingdom. The Act may be
seen as a method to take small segments
of power from the European Court and
use it as a yard (or metre) stick by which
we make judgements and determine if
these judgements are just.
I think that this is just another example of Tony Blair and the Labour party pushing anything European on the British people with out finding out what the affect on the British people will be. Tony Blair should know by now that the people of Britain want to be in Europe for trade etc, but we don't want to be run by Europe.
Andrew Dickinson, UK
The act has good intentions. The question is do the lawyers have good intentions. I suggest that all legal work carried out under this act should be paid for at the average wage. Will the lawyers agree, or are they preparing to ride the gravy train?
With the recent conjoined twin trial here in the UK how would the weaker fair under the new act? I am being suspicious in thinking the courts decision was pushed through quickly to mean that the act wasn't in force at the time of the case. Food for thought!
Paul R, UK
Can we have a bill now that makes sure people exercise their responsibilities as much as their rights.
It's official now:
Practice at home what you're preaching abroad
See, good things come from the continent as well!
As a Journalist covering international affairs from United States to Caracas and some Latin American countries, I share the same arguments raised by the Tories. The Human Rights Act will overcrowd your courts with banal cases. The common law is enough good in order to resolve must human rights cases.
The introduction of this Act is excellent. The law used to say you were innocent until proven guilty, recent motoring laws regarding speed cameras requires you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. This law restores rights, and hopefully those convicted without proof will be able to sue the government for lost earnings, higher insurance costs and defamation of character for wrongful conviction.
I think that the adoption of this Act/law is a regressive step for Britain.
English Law has always appeared largely based on common sense and remarkably free of double talk.
I find that the problem we have at the moment is that everyone is interpreting what the Human Rights Act means instead of reading the document and understanding what it means. I can see initially a lot of cases that go to court which will then prove a precedent and things will calm down. The Act is nothing to worry about nor is it as great a step forward as most people think in terms of people's rights within the UK.
The Human Rights Bill presents a danger of turning Britain into a suing society. Government at all levels will find it more difficult to implement policy decisions as the state can effectively be taken to court. It is another example of the system being brought into disrepute from the forces beyond our shores.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no court can save it. While it lies there, it needs no Constitution, no law, no court to save it." - Justice Learned Hand
I don't believe there are people posting here who are opposed to the introduction of a law which is intended to guarantee that all people are treated with equal rights. It's also amazing how the media has tried to portray this law as negative in every way! This law has "not" reduced society to rubble in the other countries in which it is enforced, and it will not do so here!
Michel van de Geijn, The Netherlands
How people can object to human rights being enshrined in the U.K. is beyond me. If the government wants people to obey they law they should be setting a good example.
Accept the Human
Rights Bill and say good-by to British independence.
At last, we now have something official to fall back upon when treated in a degrading or tyrannical manner (and government agencies are not, thankfully, excluded). I hope this Bill is used to fight against the oppression of GM foods and the much-dreaded RIP Bill.
Whose rights are protected?
What happens if someone's "rights" contradict someone else's?
What of organisations that wish their employees to follow their
beliefs (religious groups, ethical employers)?
Who exactly are we protecting from who?
Who will protect us from lawyers out for "easy money"?
Since Human Rights legislation was introduced in Scotland there have been hundreds of extra cases introduced only about 20 of which were admissible in court. If people spent more time fulfilling their responsibilities as constructive members of society we would have no need of this new Act, which is open to abuse and could result in violations of other equally important rights which aren't enshrined in the legislation.
This is good news. Maybe in the not too distant future we'll be dragged into the twentieth century by having proportional representation at all levels of government. Only then will all our views be heard and we'll be treated as citizens and not as ballot-box fodder by the politicians.
In April this year I was falsely accused of a minor offence. Despite a total absence of absence I was arrested and charged for something that did not even happen. I was subsequently acquitted after opting for jury trial (a right which will be taken away if Straw has his way). However, the police are still illegally holding my fingerprints, mugshot and DNA - despite the fact that I have no convictions, no charges outstanding and no previous trouble with the police. Liberty tell me there are 50,000 other such examples of records being illegally held. The rights granted to us in the Magna Carta are being taken away one by one. The Human Rights Act goes some way to restoring the balance. I applaud the enlightened people who have brought it in.
The HRA is a significant threat to democracy in this country. By explicit statement is seriously restricts the abilities of democratically elected governments to set laws for the protection of the population. In doing so it effectively restricts "freedom of expression", "freedom of self determination" and a whole host of the other so-called rights it aims to protect. In other words it is self-contradicting.
Colin Wright, UK
The act is going to make it difficult for churches and other Christian organisations which might not be able to employ only committed Christians or refuse to employ people living in immoral relationships. The act should have included exclusions for religious organisations and those holding to a particular moral ethos.
English rights have always been negative - we can do anything unless explicitly outlawed. This principle, so eloquently championed by Isaih Berlin, has proven the best defence against despotism over the centuries, and I think we are taking a big risk here. The most likely single outcome is the enrichment of lawyers, not improved rights.
It's about time our human rights were enshrined in law.
I advise everyone to read the articles of the Act, linked on this page, before saying whether or not this is a good or bad thing. The rights protected seem good but they are all subject the whatever laws govern the land at the time of a case and open to interpretation in court. This isn't as strong as the USA's bill of rights so as a citizen one shouldn't feel overjoyed about this.
Whilst this sounds like a great idea in principle, I believe we shall see the courts inundated with compensation claims as the greedy and avaricious try to bleed the nation for every penny they can. We have a legal system that has worked, not perfectly, but very well for centuries. This act will undermine this system and eventually disrupt the very fabric of our society. Why can't the Eurocrats leave us to manage our own affairs, and they can then concentrate on getting themselves out of the mess that the rest of Europe is in?
See you in court!!!
At long last we have an Act in British Law that begins to treat British people as citizens instead of subjects of the Crown!
For anyone to suggest that we should not have a human rights act simply because we're "better than most" is outrageous. The human rights record in the UK is comparatively good but very far from perfect. ANY violation of human rights should be unacceptable in civilised societies.
As for the courts being "overwhelmed", surely it is far better to have busy courts rather than fail to deliver justice.
Dan Vesty, UK
Of course it's right. I hope it will mean that the families of those who have contracted CJD will be able to sue beef farmers for compensation.
Clearly, much of the European human rights laws were drafted to ensure that Nazism would never again be allowed to degrade human beings. For example, the right to marry is a direct result of the law in Germany that banned Third Reich citizens from marrying Jewish partners. Such laws are necessary if not essential in some countries, but their introduction in Britain is a disgrace to all those who served in two wars to ensure that our islands would never yield to Nazi inhumanity.
02 Oct 00 | UK
Human rights enter British law
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Other Talking Points:
Links to other Talking Point stories
|^^ Back to top
News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy