If the HRA is our bill of rights, why have there been calls for a British Bill of Rights?
A bill of rights is more than just a constitutional and legal document it also represents a symbolic role, representing what the country stands for. The problem is the HRA is specific to the UK. Over the last 15 years over 80% of people say that they do not see the HRA as our bill of rights, it has not been ‘owned’ by the British people.
Why do Labour’s proposals in the 2007 Green Paper refer to ‘duties’ as well as ‘rights’?
While they agree that every human is entitled to ‘rights’ it is also their ‘duty’ and the governments to understand how much they actually need. Another problem is that anyone in the jurisdiction is entitled to human rights even if they are not a citizen of that country. A British bill of rights would allow for greater clarity to the balancing of rights where necessary.
Is there a case for the British to included additional rights to supplement those in the HRA? Give reasons to support your answer.
There is definitely a case for adding additional rights to supplement those in the HRA. The Conservatives have suggested that a British Bill of Rights would include the right to trial by jury, is currently absent from the HRA. Another idea is to include a stronger equality cause, specific rights for children and economic and social right. All of these are what people want and would help create a specific Bill for the UK and would give us a document that would be unifying force in our diverse society.
Does Britain need a bill of rights? Give reasons for your answer.
The problem is that many of the existing laws in our human rights can, under statue, be amended or repealed. As the law stands, it can be very difficult to understand what our fundamental rights are. Which makes this even trickier in the UK is the lack of a codified constitution. This makes it difficult for citizens and residents of the UK to see what fundamental rights they are entitled too, rather than some laws imposed on them by the European Union. Some people argue that it would unite Britain and let them take pride in laws and rights that have survived since long before the European Union. I think that I would be too much of a hassle to change the whole system, it would be a lot easier to discus with the ECHR and Leaders of the ECHR about the possibility of amending the laws to suit Britain or create new laws which would not effect other countries but give Britain its own human rights control.