The British Bill of Rights- Shock & Horror!

Tonight, I read an article on www.guardian.co.uk entitled 'The Human Rights Act is a British bill of rights'... It discusses within the fact that Conservative Party- in their manifesto, pledged to get rid of the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a Human Rights that are wholly British made by Parliament and maintained by the Courts...

 

To those of you who are unsure- the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed so that the UK would become a part of the European Convention of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms (ECnHR) which was established in the 50's.  By passing the Act, Britain permitted Parliament to bow its head in way of submission to Articles that we have all come to know so well such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture and even things such as the right to private and family life. It also meant that this convention law was now our own law and that a higher court above our own Supreme Court (was House of Lords) could effectively have the last say.

(refer back to blog: Soering v UK to see this in action)

 

The ECnHR is not a part of the European Union (yes they do share the same word European but never mind)... so for the UK to leave the convention, all they would, in effect, have to do is to repeal the Act of Parliament that says they are part of it. There is no beaurocracy nightmares as if we were leaving the whole of the EU- and those in favour of the EU needn't worry- the UK wouldn't be excommunicating itself from the fold (again).

 

In fact, it is easy to understand why alot of subjects and might I add, tax-payers might want the HRA 1998 to slip away as quietly as it came, and I found my evidence for this in the comments left by the dear old Guardian readers:

 

"The H.R.A. has become a tool for criminals and terrorists to avoid atonement for their actions and or claim loads of taxpayers money in compensation for their punishment. Its also been used by illegal immigrants to this country to avoid deportation.
Its become a joke"

 

"I am not an expert but I am aware of one thing.
Foreign nationals currently in the UK, who are either reliably suspected of or guilty of, serious crime including terrorist activity, cannot be returned to their own countries to face justice because of the HRA.
That needs to change and I will vote for anyone who will do it."

 

So perhaps this was a clever trick that every other party seemed to miss when creating their manifestos- "I will vote for anyone who does it."

And when the costs of an average prisoner are far higher than that for a school child- why should the tax payer have to fork out for foreign criminals who fled to England. Through the leniancy and loopholes of the ECHR, the UK taxpayers are essentially footing the bill for murderers etc- where, if they were to return to their own country, would be liable to pay the death penalty or come under degrading treatment.

 

Contrary to what a few people did comment- Britain did not have a Bill of Rights which protected individuals from the State- the Bill of Rights 1689 was created to protect Parliament and the Magna Carta was to protect Parliament from tyrannical Princes of Old.  Yes, these do seem to have worked well enough for now... but what would happen if the rights of UK subjects were to fall into the hands of Parliament?

 

One comment said it would be a good thing because then the rights could be ammended to suit Britain (and presumably the British tax-payer) however surely this would be counter-intuitive to having human rights? A Bill of Rights- if their were to be such a creature- should be...untouchable?.... the rights within should be absolute (with some exceptions of course) and there should be a predictability about them so that subjects could go about their lives safe in the knowledge of where they are and aren't protected by the sanctity of these possible rights.

 

On that note, surely then, it is a good thing that the UK is signed up to the ECnHR? Because having the European Court of Human Rights means there is an...independant adjudicator if you will (just like Deal or No Deal) who can insure that there is no foul play on behalf of the government... I don't know about you, but I feel safe in the thought that if the UK were to breach these rights, they would recieve a slap on the wrist and a (rather) hefty fine as a result- but if there was no such body....

 

Could it see Parliament getting too big for its boots?...and us..the individuals trampled underneath with no appeal above the Supreme Court.

 

I believe the phrase would be- "You're on your own kid." and somewhere in Europe, a sarky pro-human rights reporter would write the words -you made your bed and now you can lie in it.-

 

The Secretary of States rousing speech on Leveson

 

So, it is clear that the media, after recieving a horrendous slap on the wrist by Parliament will now be forced to take responsibilities for their dodgy dealings all in the name of searching out the latest scoop.

 

The Leveson Inquiry (13/07/2011) is headed by Lord Justice Leveson and is a response to the uncovering of "phone-tapping scandals" over the last few years- where journalists and media moguls endorsed tapping into the mobile phones of current celebrities to learn secrets; or of the families of victims in current or past court cases which inevitably dragged the elephant into the room that is the right to privacy and family life. 

 

We are now at the point in which the Leveson Inquiry is producing its findings and recommendations- that the British Press should either a) be regulated through Statutes and Parliament or b) through tough self-regulation.

 

The House of Commons has since been debating the merits of either outcome- and the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, followed by a murmur of agreement on both benches stated that come what may '[the outcome] must be effective; it is a common ground and we must put aside the politics and turn our focus on the principles'...She is apparently rallying the parent that is Parliament to join forces- no matter what disagreements they may have elsewhere in policies- to come together and chastise the naughty child that is the errant media.

 

There was certainly a definitive air in the Culture Secretary's address as she stated that 'status quo was not an option' and that 'we will not accept a puppet show with the same people pulling the same strings'- she certainly was not going to let it slide- and for once, it seemed like there was quite an agreement- that huge corporations who have monopolies on everything and seemingly everyone, who are chaired by the same faces time and time again should not be able to just apologise, return to the comfortable leather seats and continue the malpractice that lead to 'suffering'.

 

However, with the future implications evidently at the forefront of her mind, Mrs Miller clearly was not in favour of a wholly statutory set of rules that would bind the media for example when she said that 'such legislation could have a profound effect on our ability to safeguard the freedom of the press in the future'- something which, Britain can stand proud to maintain- and it is clear that, should statutes regulate the press and prevent all manner of things from being written and the ways in which it is obtained, then surely it would devaluate its own permission of the freedom of the press!? There would be no freedom.

 

To paraphrase the Secretary, media is a form of free speech but as with all privileges there comes responsibilities- and that could include the responsibility not to abuse that privilege that could be so easily taken away!!! the responsibility to be ethical and moral in their practices and to not interfere in peoples lives in a way that could be considered traumatic...

 

So alas, as the inquiry rumbles on, it seems that so far, the outlook appears to be some form of self-regulation that will cause the media to sit up and take notice, pull up their socks and not push the boundaries so far that they accidentally fall into the phone lines themselves.

 

 

Useful Links:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9775000/9775019.stm

the debate from the House of Commons if you want to hear it from the MPS mouths!

 

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ far more highbrow- the actual website covering the inquiry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking easier to read if you dont have the attention span of a law student.