explaining why the british 'human rights act' is *not* a bill of rights
In 1997, Blair promised Britain a Bill of Rights. Instead he incorporated the European Convention into British law as the “Human Rights Act” (HRA), while leaving himself the power to ignore it whenever (in)convenient.
TD explains why the European Convention has nothing to do with ‘rights’ in the sense known via the amazingly successful American Bill of Rights:
“Compare the Bill of Rights to the Convention rights (as in the HRA).
“ISTM they are philosophically different, the most obvious manifestation of this being in Amendment 1 (with my [TD's] emphasis):
“'Congress _shall make no law_ respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...'
“Our European equivalent would be Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention, where:
“'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion' _but_ 'shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'. (Article 9).
“'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression' _but_ 'they 'may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.' (10).
“'Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others' _but_ this freedom can be restricted if it is considered 'necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.' (11)
The above demonstrates two diametrically opposed approaches:
“USA: Congress shall make _no_ law restricting your freedom of speech, religion, or assembly.
“Europe: The legislature _may_ restrict your freedom of speech, religion, or assembly.
TD continues by stating how NewOldNewOldLabour have further weakened the already dubious safeguards of European Convention:
“Furthermore, the HRA says that Parliament is allowed to pass a Bill that is incompatible with Convention rights, and that representatives of Parliament may act in a way that for anyone else would be unlawful under the Act. It would be very difficult for Congress to interfere with the Bill of Rights in such a way.”
As you will see, Europe still has no serious concept of individual freedom; neither does Britain have a Bill of Rights in an reasonable sense of the term. Now the likely next government are apparently promising a real Bill of Rights, just as Bliar did almost ten years ago. Hopefully Cameron will turn out to be somewhat less dishonest.
|