Making it safe to be gay. Providing support for victims of domestic violence. Being free to express yourself and your beliefs. Providing access to education for every child. Ensuring injustices dont go unheard in the courts. The right to protest. Protection and security for all human life. Helping families seeking asylum. Supporting people with disabilities whose dignity has been violated. These are just some examples of the things that the UK's 1998 Human Rights Act protects.
But on June 22, Dominic Raab, the Secretary of State for Justice announced plans to replace the UKs Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights.
He said at the timethat the new bill would curb abuses of the system and reinject a healthy dose of common sense [into it] by strengthen[ing] traditional UK rights such as freedom of speech under attack, from expanding privacy law to stifling political correctness and recognis[ing] the importance of jury trials in the UK.
Human rights organisations and lawyers alike, however,have argued that rather than further safeguarding human rights, this new bill will actually diminish them.
The Law Society, an independent body which represents solicitors in England and Wales, said this bill represents a lurch backwards for the British justice system, while Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UKs Chief Executive, has describedthe bill as a giant leap backwards for the rights of ordinary people. Liberty, the UKs largest civil liberties organisation, has even gone so far as to dub it the "Rights Removal Bill.
Heres what you need to know, and how you can help take action to ensure our human rights in the UK are protected and not abused.
Remember a few weeks ago when a plane full of refugees and asylum-seekers narrowly escaped deportation to Rwanda?
The 11th hour decision to keep the plane grounded on June 14 was made because of a last-minute ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
In a nutshell, the UK Supreme Court was overruled by the European court.
You might be thinking? I thought Brexit meant wed opted out of all that? The ECtHR (despite having the word European in its name) is not a European Union institution and so Brexit did not affect the UKs relationship with it. Were still part of Europe after all.
The Conservative Party has long wanted to reform the Human Rights Act. Their plans to scrap it were in their 2010and 2015party manifestos. But the issue was catapulted into the foreground by the ruling in June because of the governments attempt to remove asylum-seekers to Rwanda for processing and claiming asylum.
Why? Because getting rid of the Human Rights Act is a one-way ticket to get the ECtHR off the UK governments back. In short, it would mean the UK government would have the final say on human rights issues, not the ECtHR.
Dominic Raab has describedthe change as affirming the supremacy of the Supreme Court, [and] being explicit that the UK courts are under no obligation to follow the Strasbourg case law.
This would prevent, for example, a similar intervention from the ECtHR if the government were to attempt to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda again.
Why the change?
The UK government says they want British courts to have supremacy over the ECtHR in order to, for example, deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda.
Who will be most affected?
Refugees, asylum seekers and migrantsbecause the new Bill of Rights will allow them to be deported more easily.
What are human rights organisations saying about this?
Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officers at Liberty, has said: Refugees and migrants, already disadvantaged, will find it harder to defend their basic rights and challenge deportation.
He added that this bill will mean that the European Court of Human Rights cant act in emergencies to protect us from situations that put us at risk of serious and irreparable harm.
Why the change?
Currently, the Human Rights Act empowers ordinary people to challenge abuses of their rights in British courts.
But the government wants to introduce a permission stage that will require people to prove theyve suffered significant disadvantage before they even get to court.
They say this is to ensure that spurious and trivial cases that dont merit court time or public resources do not undermine public confidence in human rights.
Who will be most affected?
People with learning disabilities and their families are often dependent on a range of public bodies to uphold their human rightsand the new changes introduced could weaken their protections.
This change would also make it much harder for children to access justice, according to the Children Rights Alliance for England, as they are more reliant on their parents or carers to help them make such decisions. In particular, this change would negatively impact societys most vulnerable children such as children in care, child witnesses, children in custody, and refugee children.
What are human rights organisations saying about this?
Writer, lawyer and activist, Talina Hrzeler arguesthat theres no such thing as trivial human rights and that this change opens the floodgates to more disastrous violations.
Liberty says that requiring people to prove their case before theyve even got to court is incredibly difficult when youre up against the power of the State and will ultimately meanthat justice may only be available to people who can afford it.
Even the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) argues that introducing additional criteria for bringing a human rights claim will make it harder for ordinary people to access justice and hold the state to account.
Mary Woodhall, a self advocate and member of Learning Disability England, has said that this change is making some people with learning disabilities feel isolated, scared and left out.
Why the change?
Dominc Raab claimsthat democratic debate in this country has been "whittled away by wokery" and space needs to be created for more rambunctious debate.
Who will be most impacted?
The most interesting part of this change is who wont be impacted: the UK government. Thats right, there are clauses in the new bill that would specificallyexempt the governmentitself from having to comply with its new free speech rules, so if the government were to pose a threat to free speech, people wouldn't be protected.
This means, for example, that people challenging deportation are not protectedby these freedom of speech protections.
What are human rights organisations saying?
Prof Phillipson, a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford and an authority in free speech law,writes: The notion that this clause is aimed at combating wokery doesnt make sense to me and suggests that its more rhetoric aimed at pleasing their supporters and [...] the right-wing press.
Free speech supporters have also condemned the UK governments humble-brag that the Bill of Rights will boost freedom of expression. In fact, they say it will actually undermine it and have accused the government of peddling a false narrative.
Whats more, anti-censorship campaigners have pointed outthe hypocrisy of ministers talking about placing more weight on the importance of free speech while they have literally just passed a bill that curbs the right to protestwith the intent to create a hostile environment for peaceful demonstrations.
Why the change?
The UK government believes that the Human Rights Act has been abused by convicted foreign nationals and says the changes will make it harder for foreign criminals to frustrate the deportation process.
What impact would the change have?
In the UK, if a foreign national (someone who is not a British citizen) is convicted of a crime that results in prison time of more than a year, they are automatically deported at the end of their sentence. Over a 10-year period, almost 50,000 foreign national offenders were deported from the UK.
However, convicted foreign nationals are able to invoke the right to a family life, currently protected under the Human Rights Act. This might be because they have been here since they were children or they have a family in this country. Their argument is that if they are deported its a breach of their human rights.
The Bill of Rights will narrow the scope of those appeals, making them almost impossible. Cases will only be accepted in the rarest of occasions, for example, when someones life is actually in danger.
What are human rights organisations saying?
Andy Hull, chief executive of human rights charity EachOther, said that the bill puts new and higher hurdles in the way of ordinary people who turn to the law to uphold their rights. In particular, it will make it much more difficult for the loved ones of someone who committed a crime but has served [their] time to invoke rights to fair trial or to family life to prevent [their] removal from the country.
Anothercriticismof this particular change is that it does not properly recognise nuance. The amendments in the bill take no account of the circumstances of the offence, nor of whether the individual continues to pose a risk to the public.
Ultimately, this new bill will affect us all but some more than others. Some have argued that the government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act because it sees certain people as less deserving of rights than others. Often, these people are the people who are already marginalised and need human rights protections the most.
If youre based in the UK, join Global Citizens in taking urgent action to stop the governments plan to replace the Human Rights Act by emailing your MP now to make sure our human rights are protected and not abused.
Visit link:
The UK Government Wants to Scrap the Human Rights Act. Here's What to Know. - Global Citizen
- Here's what the law says about protesting on Texas college campuses - The Texas Tribune - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- The awkward truth about sex and free speech | Nina Welsch - The Critic - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Get the Facts: How far does the First Amendment go? - WDSU New Orleans - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- NC school adopts free speech policy after firing professor who opposed critical theory - ADF Media - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Biden's Government Takeover of the Internet Threatens Freedom of Speech - RealClearPolicy - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Professor tackles subject of limiting freedom to express - Yahoo News Canada - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Louisiana Tech earns top rating for free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Freedom of speech 'under assault' at Palestine protests in US universities - The National - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Is TikTok Protected Speech Or Threat To Americans? Wyoming Legislators Split - Cowboy State Daily - April 25th, 2024 [April 25th, 2024]
- Free Speech Aids Racial Justice. Activists Must Defend It. | Opinion - Harvard Crimson - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Progressives Are Ditching Free Speech To Fight 'Disinformation' - Reason - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- There is a way out of cancel culture but it's not free speech - Times Higher Education - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Editor's take: Limiting hate speech not a First Amendment violation - The Pajaronian - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Israel's Proposed 'Terror Incitement' Law Is a Dangerous Threat to Freedom of Speech - Haaretz Editorial - Haaretz - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Colorado bill tasking attorney general to study online 'misinformation' sparks First Amendment debate - coloradopolitics.com - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- 10 Worst Censors: 2024 | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Harvard University's Lifetime Censorship Award: Impact on Freedom of Speech and Journalism - Medriva - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Reading is freedom of speech, says 'ABCs of Book Banning' director - KCRW's This...Is Interesting - Podcast en iVoox - iVoox - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Freedom of speech or lack of civility? Resident perturbed by others berating Killeen City Council and mayor - The Killeen Daily Herald - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Harvard Students Should Know Freedom Of Speech Is Not Freedom From Consequences - The Federalist - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- FIRE launches six-figure free speech campaign with primetime ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- UGS responds to free speech concerns on campus - The Stanford Daily - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- UCI Year of Free Speech kicks off with virtual event - UCI News - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Book review: A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In ... - Maktoob media - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Protestors, supporters gather on HUB lawn for Riley Gaines' Free ... - The Daily Collegian - October 16th, 2023 [October 16th, 2023]
- Editorial: When is free speech not free on college campuses? - TribLIVE - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- How do you handle free speech issues in higher education, popular discourse? - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Free speech protections are under threat in Texas Legislature - The Dallas Morning News - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Should Irish universities introduce mandatory free speech classes? - The Irish Times - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Florida House approves bill that would change rules around campus ... - WUFT - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Free speech bill 'could protect extreme views' - Times Higher Education - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo: Comedy clubs are free speech ... - Independent Record - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- A notable foundation for freedom of speech - Newsday - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Troy, Alabama A&M receive poor 'red' rating from campus free ... - 1819 News - April 27th, 2023 [April 27th, 2023]
- Freedom of Speech Pros and Cons: What Both Sides Think - March 8th, 2023 [March 8th, 2023]
- What is the freedom of speech? - Alliance Defending Freedom - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- freedom of speech | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- First Amendment: Freedom of Speech | LII / Legal Information Institute - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- Freedom of speech online: What are the Florida and Texas laws the US top court could hear a challenge to - The Indian Express - January 25th, 2023 [January 25th, 2023]
- Elon Musk says new Twitter policy is freedom of speech & not freedom ... - January 4th, 2023 [January 4th, 2023]
- CNN Calls Freedom of Speech 'Nonsense' in Moronic Rant - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]
- Ex-CNN journo and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa explains why ... - December 12th, 2022 [December 12th, 2022]
- Hate speech - Wikipedia - November 27th, 2022 [November 27th, 2022]
- Freedom of Speech and Expression | CSCE - November 25th, 2022 [November 25th, 2022]
- Why Is Freedom Of Speech Important? The Relevance Explained - November 25th, 2022 [November 25th, 2022]
- 'Freedom Of Speech, But Not Freedom Of Reach': Musk Reinstates Kathy Griffin And Jordan Peterson Amid New Policy But Not Trump Yet - Forbes - November 21st, 2022 [November 21st, 2022]
- Freedom of speech is in jeopardy - The Ridgefield Press - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- The Alex Jones trap: How 'owning the libs' can turn into a self-own for conservatives - Washington Examiner - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Just released: The 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Russian Court's Ban of Newspaper Novaya Gazeta is a Punch in the Face of Freedom of Speech - Novinite.com - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Bangladeshi Editor Rifat Munim Supports Salman Rushdie's Freedom Of Speech: 'Why React To The Book Or The Cartoons In This Childish Way? Why Show... - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Crikey! The exclamation of Free Speech - RadioInfo Australia - Radioinfo - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Batley row 'shows how extremists are using blasphemy to attack free speech' - The Telegraph - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- Expansion of Title IX Tramples First Amendment - California Globe - September 7th, 2022 [September 7th, 2022]
- BRACK: S.C. Senate is poking free speech bear on abortion Statehouse Report - Statehouse Report - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Will AG Ken Paxton join the fight for freedom of speech? - Wilson County News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Cancel culture empowers the powerful at everyone elses expense - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Repressive executive order from UNC Chapel Hill student government cuts off funding for pro-life individuals, causes - Foundation for Individual... - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Editorial: Alex Jones' lessons on the First and Sixth Amendments - CT Insider - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- NEW for 7/29: How abortion now works in S.C., and more Statehouse Report - Statehouse Report - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Why Does The State Panic Over Free Speech? - The Friday Times - July 27th, 2022 [July 27th, 2022]
- How to Fix the Bias Against Free Speech on Campus - The Atlantic - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Universities are in denial over the free-speech crisis - Spiked - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Who Really Benefits From the First Amendment? - Tablet Magazine - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Legal Eagle: Is free speech abused to flout others rights? - Free Press Journal - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Free speech 'stifled' as universities cancel record number of speakers - The Telegraph - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- The Online Safety Bill could lead to the biggest curtailment of free speech in modern history - The Telegraph - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- LAWSUIT: Professor sues University of Washington after admins punish him for 'inappropriate' opinion - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- VICTORY: Art institute reverses expulsion for student who retweeted sexual art - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - July 17th, 2022 [July 17th, 2022]
- Twitter and Freedom of Speech | News, Sports, Jobs - The Mining Gazette - Daily Mining Gazette - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Amber Heard, the ACLU, and the Future of Free Speech - Reason - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- In my view: Freedom of speech is important - Slough and Windsor Observer - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- New AGB Resource Prepares Higher Education Board Members to Balance Freedom of Speech with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - PR Web - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- 'What's the point inviting me on!' Piers Morgan and student erupt in free speech row - Express - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Binance CEO says 'free speech is very hard to define' - Business Insider - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- The Deeper Significance of Justice Thomas's Second Amendment Opinion - The Epoch Times - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Twitter and freedom of speech - Washington Times - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Bill of Rights to strengthen freedom of speech and curb bogus human rights claims - GOV.UK - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Twitter and the freedom of speech | Opinion | journal-spectator.com - Wharton Journal Spectator - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Charlottesville, COVID, Trump and free speech: How white supremacy entered the mainstream - Salon - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]