Human Rights
UK bill of rights rejected by Scottish human rights body
Are there developing human rights divisions across the border?
We have written a good deal in this blog about the way in which over the last few months the political debate has been dominated by a desire to kick in the proverbial teeth the human rights legislation which protects us in British society.
Alongside this political negativity and murmuring there has been a concurrent suggestion that Britain needed to develop a Bill of Rights. A consultation on this has been on-going now for a few months and now we are beginning to hear from some of the more informed and articulate voices on the subject.
One such voice has been heard from the Scottish Human Rights Commission which has rejected the suggestion of a Bill of Rights suggesting that it is an unnecessary intrusion into the legal landscape and may even be an attack on the very civil liberties enshrined I existing legislation. Indeed the rumours over the impending UK presidency in Europe seem to suggest the validity of such concerns.
Professor Alan Miller, the chair of the Scottish Commission, has argued that the UK should instead keep the current act, and extend its range by incorporating all international human rights conventions into UK law.
Quoted in the Guardian, Alan Miller, said:
“The current political climate concerning human rights, resulting in part from unsubstantiated attacks by UK government ministers on the Human Rights Act, means there are unfavourable conditions for a proper consultation on a UK bill of rights.
“Substituting a weaker bill of rights for the Human Rights Act is primarily intended to restrain our courts and make government less accountable to the public and to its international legal obligations.
“Especially in these times of budget cuts, the public – particularly the most vulnerable – need more and not less protection, and more and not less security in employment, housing, health, social care, and education.”
It is widely regarded that the Scottish Government response to the Bill of Rights proposals, which is due shortly, is likely to be in broad accord with the statements of the Scottish Commission.
Again quoted in the Guardian a spokesperson said:
“On the broad principles of human rights, the Scottish government is committed to creating a modern, inclusive Scotland which protects, respects and realises human rights,” she said.
“Our vision is for a Scotland which plays its part as a full member of the European community of nations and that includes a commitment to the European convention on human rights.
Such words together with the direction of travel from Professor Miller and the Scottish Commission ring with many voices south of the border. Yet the Conservative part of the Coalition seems to be pushing in a different direction. Interesting times lie ahead not least if the negative sniping against human rights continues whilst many north of the border recognise that for some of the most vulnerable in society especially during a recession, human rights are a bedrock of the political landscape that simply cannot be lost even in the name of expediency.
What do you think? Do we need a Bill of Rights or are the safeguards we already have sufficient in themselves? We would be delighted to hear your comments and have you leave them here.
If you like our blogs please feel free to join our Equal and Diverse Network and receive newsletters and updates.
Dr Donald Macaskill
Related blogs:
Politicans attack human rights when the going gets tough
Time to stand up for human rights
