Why has David Cameron pledged to abolish the Humans Rights Act and put a new Bill of Rights in its place?

by wenderz (student)

AS and A Level Politics

Robbie Wendin

RKM 3.3

Why has David Cameron pledged ‘to abolish the Humans Rights Act and put a new Bill of Rights in its place?

It would give the people a clear idea of what they can expect from public authorities and from each other, and a framework for giving practical effect to our common values.

What aspects of a bill of rights are present in the Human Rights Act? Is there HRA, therefore, our Bill of Rights?

The legal and constitutional characteristics that make up a bill of rights are also present in the HRA. Firstly, like most post war Bills the HRA draws it principle from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the broad ethical values it contains. Secondly, the rights in the HRA are binding on Government. The executive and all public authorities, including the courts, are prohibited from acting in a way incompatible with the rights. Thirdly, the HRA provides redress for violations of the rights. It sets out in fairly simple terms the rights of everyone in the jurisdiction of the UK can use to hold public authorities to account.

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’ ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

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.