- course it does…because the govt is above and beyond the law…!
2 Likes
There is no bill of rights yet. I believe there should be together with a written constitution. At present anything along these lines coming from the lying POS will just be an attempt to put himself in better public standing. Some hope.
4 Likes
I shall have to investigate this … 
Hasn’t parliament always been above the law? Nothing said or written in parliament can be used in a court of law because of Parliamentary privilege.
2 Likes
Not a lot of people are happy about this so-called “Bill of Rights” - it seems to erode rights rather than enhance them - here’s what the Law Society says:
The Bill of Rights Bill was introduced to parliament in June 2022.
It repeals and replaces the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates and makes the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) domestically enforceable.
Overview of the bill
What’s not changing?
The Bill of Rights Bill retains all the convention rights as well as their ability to be enforced in domestic courts.
It does not alter the UK’s membership of the ECHR and the obligations it places on government to secure the full range of convention rights for everyone in the UK.
Public authorities are still required to act compatibly with human rights.
What’s changing?
The bill changes or removes provisions of the Human Rights Act and introduces a large number of new measures, including:
- introducing a new permission stage, requiring claimants to prove they have (or would) suffer significant disadvantage as a result of a breach of their rights before they can take their claim to court
- setting a higher threshold for challenges to deportations for foreign national offenders based on the right to private and family life
- removing the duty on courts to interpret legislation compatibly with convention rights
- removing the duty on courts to consider how the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) has interpreted a right
- limiting the interpretation of rights to a literal reading of the text of convention rights
- prohibiting courts from finding a public body owes a positive obligation (which would require the public body to take certain steps to actively protect, fulfil or facilitate a right)
- requiring courts to give great weight to the views of parliament when balancing rights issues
- preventing human rights claims that arise from overseas military operations
Our view
The Human Rights Act provides robust protections for the rights and freedoms of everyone in the UK and ensures they can enforce these in domestic courts.
It strikes the right balance between the democratic powers of the executive, parliament and the courts.
We do not believe there is a case for the sweeping reforms proposed.
Impact on access to justice and the rule of law
The Bill of Rights Bill lowers the level of protection given to human rights.
It significantly weakens the ability to enforce these rights through the courts to hold the state accountable for human rights violations.
The bill makes it harder to access the courts and limits the protection they can provide to someone whose rights have been violated.
It restricts or rolls back elements of rights across the board and reduces rights for certain categories of people.
We believe the proposals will:
- damage the rule of law
- prevent access to justice
- reduce or remove rights
- lead to more cases being taken to the ECtHR
- impact devolution
- damage the UK’s international reputation
- create legal uncertainty
This article is even more detailed, so much curtailed:
The UK’s (new) Bill of Rights – Public Law for Everyone (outline)
When the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) was introduced 25 years ago, it was accompanied by a White Paper that proclaimed the Act would ‘bring rights home’ by enabling the enforcement in UK courts of a suite of rights — set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — that were at least in part inspired by the common law tradition and by the work of British lawyers. How things have changed. The UK Government now proposes to repeal the HRA and replace it with a Bill of Rights Bill. Introducing that Bill in the House of Commons this week, the Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, distanced himself from the view that the HRA brought rights ‘home’, ahistorically contending that the ECHR is less ‘British’ than its supporters suggest and arguing that such a view implies a ‘perverse and neo-imperialist’ perspective. He has since written in a newspaper that the Bill ‘will strengthen traditional UK rights’ which are ‘under attack’ from ‘stifling political correctness’.
Against that background, I will argue in this post that if the HRA ‘brought rights home’, the Bill of Rights Bill involves sending rights back to Europe, as part of a narrative that views with suspicion the judicial enforcement of human rights generally, and the involvement of a transnational court, in the form of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in particular. The post is divided into three main parts: first, I comment on what will not change; second, I outline key changes that the Bill will introduce; and, third, I assess the broader implications of the Bill in terms of human rights protection in the UK. In that regard, I argue that the Government’s strategy appears to involve making it more difficult for human rights to be enforced in UK law both by marginalising the domestic influence of the ECtHR and by limiting the capacity of domestic courts to uphold Convention rights. I conclude that these policy objectives form part of a wider picture according to which the present UK Government exhibits authoritarian tendencies that are in tension with British constitutional tradition.
1 Like
Hi
I do not agree with a number of the quoted articles on this thread and some of the contents of some posts.
I think there are some misunderstandings.
My view of things is this.
There is limited protection for Parliamentarians, it extends only to what they say in the House of Commons Chamber.
Even this protection is limited itself.
The MP can be accused of misleading Parliament, and if Parliament considers that the MP has done so, they can be sanctioned.
The other protection is that if an MP says something which is false, the person who is named can simply call the MP a lying git in Public and demand that the MP repeats the allegation outside Parliament so the matter can be dealt with by the Courts.
If the MP refuses to do this, the person named can then continue to call the MP a lying git in perpetuity, in Public.
The only way the MP can stop this is to provide definitive proof and pay the legal costs if they cannot.
This is most certainly the route I would go down if I was innocent.
If it is Parliament which makes a decision that you consider to be wrong, then you,and others affected can go down the route of an Application for Judicial Review.
If you are going to go down this route, you had better get your facts right, as it can be very expensive.
We have no equivalent of the Scottish Not Proven, but the Courts can make no order for costs, which means the same.
There is no existing absolute protection from the actions of parliamentarians or even Parliament itself.
The proposed Bill of Rights is dangerous in a number of respects.
I do not believe that it will increase the number and costs of appeals to the ECHR, simply because it reinstates the position that our Courts are the ultimate arbiter, not the ECHR.
This removes the superiority of the ECHR which we gave away to and reinstates the supremacy of UK Courts.
The ECHR is very secretive.
In the case recently of the ECHR Single Judge overruling the decision we took to send some illegal migrants to Rwanda, the decision could well have been Political.
It could have been the Russian Judge, we will never know.
This is not a joke, it could have happened and yes, even after invading the Ukraine Russia remains a member of the ECHR, with a sitting Judge.
My main objection is , you will not be able to bring an action under this new legislation unless you can prove a direct effect on yourself.
I do Pro Bono Work, as an Expert Witness, for those who cannot look after themselves and I restrict this to those whose Health can be affected.
I do not do anything in respect of Illegal Immigrants or Economic Migrants.
I am not happy.