The Human Rights Act. Which bit dont the Government like ?

What they have said is that they want to change the fundamental basis upon which rights are claimed.

All the articles in the ECHR are available to everyone without condition and some of them are absolute and cannot be varied (right to life and prohibition of torture being two) - there are derivations (not to teach you to suck eggs, simply opportunities over ride the entitlements) in circumstances such as national emergency or for the prevention or detection of crime (where such crime is deemed to be serious and the derivation is proportionate).

Example:

The government cannot simple place you under directed surveillance. An application has to be made which meets the requirement of the Regulation Investigative Powers Act and it has to be signed and approved at a relevant level. The more intrusive the surveillance becomes the more significant the authority has to be (eventually the surveillance commissioner must be notified).

This legislation is determined to balance the need of the state to prevent and detect crime, or act in the national interest for security purposes (for example) with the individual freedoms that are enshrined in the Human Rights Act and ECHR under (predominatly) Article 8.

Now, what about the government's current positiion?

The government believes that rights should be balanced by responsibilities. It is intends to qualify your rights against what it feels you are entitled to according to your responsibilities.

For example - if you go to prison, your forfeit your right to vote, because you didn't abide by your responsibility to the state. To some people this appears fine. However the government also wishes to place limitations upon the scope of human rights legislation - so if the state considers your appeal to be 'trivial' in their eyes, it can be rejected.

In addition to the above the government has tried to bring stringent measures in to deal with people who are out of work or receive in work benefits, or incapacity benefits. Some of these sanctions have been deemed disproportionate and incompatible with human rights provisions.

One of the major aspects of the ECHR is that the state must shows that is does not use a sledge hammer to crack a nut. For example - before someone goes to prison, there has to be some effort made to support someone/rehabilitate them before they are incarcerated. Have we tried to get to the bottom of the problem before we simply throw away the key? Proportionality is owed to every citizen under the ECHR.

This is a matter of some frustration to the government who have been unable to sanction people as harshly as they would like, or without a fair trial first (another key right).

In 2014 the Department for Work and Pensions was slapped by the High Court for breaching these regulations for giving powers to Job Centres to hit job seekers and the disabled with sanctions at their own discretion and without the right to appeal. This included forcing people to work on the 'Workfare' programme for less than minimum wage, for private sector employers, without the promise of a job at the end of it.

The DWP (and Ian Duncan Smith) responded by trying to introduce retrospective legislation (another breach) to cover their backside and allow their practices to continue. The legal argument continued and the DWP were slapped for a second time for their further breach.

So what do the government want to do?

They want to remove the concept of universal entitlement, offering the argument that your rights will be 'qualified' and you will only get your rights if you meet the criteria that they seek to introduce. What those criteria are - we do not yet know. Will those criteria become a moving target that suit government policy? We don't know.

Most legal commentators are naturally uneasy about this because we have a legal system that is based upon the rule of law, consistency, and case law. The concept that we can play with who gets treated in what fashion in the eyes of the law is a sensitive subject at best and opens the door to 'one rule for you, one rule for me'.

You can expect most of the rights we currently enjoy to be written into the new document on human rights - the but the controversial point will be on the side of your responsibilities and what you are supposed to do to keep your rights.

Michael Gove has previously gone into print with his opinion that the death penalty was good for British Justice. Priti Patel (who has replaced Esther McVey at the DWP) has openly spoken in favour of the death penalty on BBC Question Time.

This is a serious move to the right wing of politics and a lot of people are saying that it will leave us so far from compatibility with the rest of the EU that it will usher us out of the union altogether.

I think it's extremely worrying and human rights groups like Liberty and Amnesty are already lobbying heavily. If you feel like I do, you can add your signature to this petition:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/

For whatever good it might do.

 

Fair points orsen, can't argue with your correction.

 

The bits that given humans rights are the bits they aren't keen on.

 

http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/the-14-worst-human-rights-myths/

http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/human-rights-101/

http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/what-human-rights-do-for-us/

 

info

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...rom-the-human-rights-act-to-a-bill-of-rights/

 

Some bits Labour didn't/don't like

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/14/humanrights.ukcrime

But I imagine the millions Cherie Blair made rom HR cases softened the blow somewhat for Tony.