It’s all about curbing “bogus” human rights claims, and frustrating “foreign criminals”.
Its terrifying that the government views human rights protections as they exist currently with such contempt.
What are we like eh? we keep signing up to to things like the rule of law and then people just go round expecting you to stick to it, that’s so yesterday.
Cannot come soon enough. Superb!
A rare lack of insight from Green. Section 1(2)is what’s different…
>(2) In particular, this Act clarifies and re-balances the relationship between courts 5
in the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights and Parliament
by ensuring—
(a) that it is the Supreme Court (and not the European Court of Human
10
Rights) that determines the meaning and effect of Convention rights
for the purposes of domestic law (see section 3(1));
(b) that courts are no longer required to read and give effect to legislation,
so far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention
rights (see paragraph 2 of Schedule 5, which repeals section 3 of the
Human Rights Act 1998);
(c) that courts must give the greatest possible weight to the principle that, 15
in a Parliamentary democracy, decisions about the balance between
different policy aims, different Convention rights and Convention
rights of different persons are properly made by Parliament (see section
7).
(3) It is affirmed that judgments, decisions and interim measures of the European 20
Court of Human Rights—
(a) are not part of domestic law, and
(b) do not affect the right of Parliament to legislate.
Point (2)(b) is particularly significant. Under current human rights law, if an Act says something which read literally is non-compliant with human rights law, the court is to attempt to read the thing in a less literal way which *is* compliant. That practice now goes.
For example courts have in the past read wordings such as “this decision shall not be open to reconsideration or appeal” (which would be a violation of one’s Article 6 right to a fair hearing) as obviously not meant to exclude judicial review procedure, which is a review of the decision making process for legal correctness – not a reconsideration or appeal of the substance of the decision. Under the Bill of Rights 2022 system, the Court would just go ahead and give effect to the literal meaning of the words and deny any right to challenge the decision because Parliament says so.
That’s a really significant change because it is then over to Parliament to decide whether or not it wants to introduce new law to restore the right it has taken away.
Even with the best will in the world and assuming that Ministers would be distressed immediately to learn that they had accidentally taken away a human right, legislation takes time and during that time hundreds or thousands of people will be mistreated. On a more realistic reading the government intends to take away the right of asylum seekers and refugees to challenge the decisions of the Home Office and when challenged on this just say “Yes, that’s exactly what we intended.”.
It could apply to other areas where people are vulnerable too. For example the Conservatives have expressed a desire to [get prisoners to do unpaid work on day release](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1498921/dominic-raab-justice-secretary-prisoners-jobs-economy-workforce) to make up for staff shortages in the actual economy (and tactically drive down wages). Article 4 ECHR only permits prisoners to be made to work in the “ordinary” course of their rehabilitation. I do not think sending prisoners out to fill gaps in mainstream workforce would count as rehabilitation and would likely be a violation. This new Act would allow government to shrug off such a problem and achieve something much more like the [US system of legalised slavery](https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/transcripts/884989263).
This is the only bit you need to read and understand:
*”This Act reforms the law relating to human rights by repealing and replacing the Human Rights Act”*
An attempt to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act, by any government in any country at any time, will never be a good thing, no matter how it is spun.
Those are *your rights* they are repealing and replacing.
Don’t listen to however they try to spin this. They aren’t repealing the rights of illegal immigrant rapists or whatever they try to say. They are repealing the rights of humans. *All* *humans*. Those were *your* rights, and you should be angry that they’re taking them away
6 comments
Have you read the press release on this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bill-of-rights-to-strengthen-freedom-of-speech-and-curb-bogus-human-rights-claims
It’s all about curbing “bogus” human rights claims, and frustrating “foreign criminals”.
Its terrifying that the government views human rights protections as they exist currently with such contempt.
What are we like eh? we keep signing up to to things like the rule of law and then people just go round expecting you to stick to it, that’s so yesterday.
Cannot come soon enough. Superb!
A rare lack of insight from Green. Section 1(2)is what’s different…
>(2) In particular, this Act clarifies and re-balances the relationship between courts 5
in the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights and Parliament
by ensuring—
(a) that it is the Supreme Court (and not the European Court of Human
10
Rights) that determines the meaning and effect of Convention rights
for the purposes of domestic law (see section 3(1));
(b) that courts are no longer required to read and give effect to legislation,
so far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention
rights (see paragraph 2 of Schedule 5, which repeals section 3 of the
Human Rights Act 1998);
(c) that courts must give the greatest possible weight to the principle that, 15
in a Parliamentary democracy, decisions about the balance between
different policy aims, different Convention rights and Convention
rights of different persons are properly made by Parliament (see section
7).
(3) It is affirmed that judgments, decisions and interim measures of the European 20
Court of Human Rights—
(a) are not part of domestic law, and
(b) do not affect the right of Parliament to legislate.
Point (2)(b) is particularly significant. Under current human rights law, if an Act says something which read literally is non-compliant with human rights law, the court is to attempt to read the thing in a less literal way which *is* compliant. That practice now goes.
For example courts have in the past read wordings such as “this decision shall not be open to reconsideration or appeal” (which would be a violation of one’s Article 6 right to a fair hearing) as obviously not meant to exclude judicial review procedure, which is a review of the decision making process for legal correctness – not a reconsideration or appeal of the substance of the decision. Under the Bill of Rights 2022 system, the Court would just go ahead and give effect to the literal meaning of the words and deny any right to challenge the decision because Parliament says so.
That’s a really significant change because it is then over to Parliament to decide whether or not it wants to introduce new law to restore the right it has taken away.
Even with the best will in the world and assuming that Ministers would be distressed immediately to learn that they had accidentally taken away a human right, legislation takes time and during that time hundreds or thousands of people will be mistreated. On a more realistic reading the government intends to take away the right of asylum seekers and refugees to challenge the decisions of the Home Office and when challenged on this just say “Yes, that’s exactly what we intended.”.
It could apply to other areas where people are vulnerable too. For example the Conservatives have expressed a desire to [get prisoners to do unpaid work on day release](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1498921/dominic-raab-justice-secretary-prisoners-jobs-economy-workforce) to make up for staff shortages in the actual economy (and tactically drive down wages). Article 4 ECHR only permits prisoners to be made to work in the “ordinary” course of their rehabilitation. I do not think sending prisoners out to fill gaps in mainstream workforce would count as rehabilitation and would likely be a violation. This new Act would allow government to shrug off such a problem and achieve something much more like the [US system of legalised slavery](https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/transcripts/884989263).
This is the only bit you need to read and understand:
*”This Act reforms the law relating to human rights by repealing and replacing the Human Rights Act”*
An attempt to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act, by any government in any country at any time, will never be a good thing, no matter how it is spun.
Those are *your rights* they are repealing and replacing.
Don’t listen to however they try to spin this. They aren’t repealing the rights of illegal immigrant rapists or whatever they try to say. They are repealing the rights of humans. *All* *humans*. Those were *your* rights, and you should be angry that they’re taking them away