header-logo header-logo

02 April 2009
Issue: 7363 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Rights (and responsibilities) for all

Human rights need protection not abstract discussion

The Ministry of Justice has launched a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, reigniting the debate over human rights in the UK.

The wide-ranging green paper, published last week, proposes introducing a raft of new rights to build on existing ones. These include rights relating to free health care and victims of crime.

The paper lists some of the responsibilities of UK citizens and asks whether they should be written in a single document. They include: obeying the law, reporting crimes and co-operating with prosecution agencies; paying taxes; voting and jury service; treating NHS staff with respect; and living within our environmental limits.

Launching the paper, Jack Straw, justice secretary, said: “In difficult times, people need to know that their fundamental rights and freedoms are protected, whatever happens in the world around them, and that others will behave responsibly towards them.
“That is why the government has emphasised the importance of fair chances, fair rules and having a fair say; that everyone should play by the rules.
“We believe it is important that people know their rights and their responsibilities. That common knowledge helps bind us together as a nation.
“This government is proud to have introduced the Human Rights Act and will not backtrack from it or repeal it. But we believe more should be done to bring out the responsibilities which accompany rights.
“We also believe that there could be merit in bringing together rights such as free health care, victims’ rights and equality, which are currently scattered across the UK’s legal and political landscape.”

Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights, Justice, says: “It’s a very thoughtful paper, but ultimately we question whether this is the right time to be having an abstract discussion about a Bill of Rights when the Human Rights Act is still in need of protection.

“We do believe that there’s a case for adding new rights, but it is important to protect existing rights, particularly while the opposing party is pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act. There have been a lot of misconceptions about the Human Rights Act and it is important to inform people about these. For example, it seems to be put out in the press that the courts are overriding the democratic will of Parliament, and that’s not true. It is always open to Parliament to pass the laws that it wants.”
 

Issue: 7363 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll