header-logo header-logo

Rights (and responsibilities) for all

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll