Human Rights Essay

mankind Rights are those remunerates that are deemed to belong to any individuals by virtue of their kindekind raceity 1. Previously, these rights were referred to as the rights of man or natural rights. Because of this, human rights are ascribed to all humanity regardless of their citizenship or nationality. The human rights doctrine can, in this respect, come into direct contravention with other doctrines of the sovereignty of other governments in the world, and the impartiality, because of the universality that has led to the pursuit of the agenda of human rights at stages of international co-operation in the era of post war2.The human being Rights feat has elicited a lot of divided opinion. Debate has risen in Britain as whether to repeal the benevolent Rights symbolize, (hereinafter referred to as the HRA), extend it or whether it should be replaced altogether with the British homophile Rights (Hereinafter referred to BHR)3. Repealing the HRA refers to abolishing or evoking the act altogether while extending it provide imply that, this function could stay on longer without being repealed or cancelled by the British Government.In Britain, roughly fundamental individual freedoms are today protected by the serviceman Rights travel of 1998 which subscribes all the Britain law to obey the European assembly of 1950 on Human Rights (hereinafter The ECHR) and which in addition makes it possible for the convention to be enforceable in all the British Courts and makes it mandatory for the workbench to interpret the local law so that it complies with the convention4. The act came into existence over ten years and it seeks to protect the individual rights of citizenry and has had a lasting preserve in umteen fields of their private and public lives.The HR integrated the ECHR into the British law and so made it unlawful for any Public soundbox or officer to act or behave in look which is incompatible with the convention5. The 1998 HRA made the ECHR to be part and parcel of the British National Law. originally that, the courts were only allowed to take the ECHR in very limited circumstances during home(prenominal) proceedings6. However, section 19 of the Act made it mandatory for any future mandate to contain compatibility with the ECHR.The Human Rights Act was in 1998 hailed to be a landmark statute but has elicited a lot of controversy and misconception. The HRA of 1998 has brought some sure elements into the judicial system of Britain about the Human Rights of the European convention. In this Act, the British Courts are required to uphold and apply the ECHR in each and every finality that they make. This convention was developed to safeguard against the rejuvenation of Nazism and the protection of the rights it sought to protect after the Second World War7.The Articles which are contained in the Human Rights Convention proclaim among others the right to life which is contained in Article 2, prohibition of tor ture of human beings which is contained in Article 3, the prohibition of forced labor and slavery which is contained in Article 4, the right to security and liberty which is contained in Article 5, the right to a fair and just trial which is contained in expression six, the prohibiting of extra legal punishment which is contained in article seven, the right to respect of the private family life of individuals which is contained in Article eight and the freedom of conscience, thought and religion which is contained in article nine. The convention also spells out the liberty of self expression that is found in Article 10 and the freedom of association and assembly that is slip byly depicted in article eleven. The right to marriage and the prohibition of discrimination are contained in articles twelve and fourteen respectively 8.The legal modern approach of human rights that binds the governments to this Act arose from the United Nations Declaration on Human rights in 1948 which int ernationally developed a secular agreement on the rights of the human kind to leave alone the means through which the desire of the governments of the world could be able to prevent the recurrence of atrocities which were committed in WWII through setting of a common sample for all people and states 9. Should we repeal the HRA? The Human Rights Act should be repealed because it inframines the sovereignty of Britain as an independent state and consequently it should not be governed by laws from outdoor(a) sources. Given the fact that Britain is an independent country having its own laws and constitution to guide it in whatever undertakings that concerns it, there is no need for it to incorporate the ECHR since its laws have articles concerning the human rights. There is need to repeal the Human Rights Act because the Human Rights can well be covered under the British greenback of Rights 10..The Human Rights Act should be repealed because it has undermined the authority of parli ament and given the judges the ability to issue any declarations of incompatibility yet these judges have no empowerment to discover down any laws which are incompatible but instead, it is the government which must make a decision as to how to respond to any declaration. By repealing the HRA, the British government could have been empowered to make decisions affecting Britain to solely remain in Britain and by so doing, a culture of self independence leave behind be created and this leave alone enable the British citizens to enjoy their rights alongside the rights of the ordinary citizens in Britain 11.There are those who argue that the HRA should not be repealed but instead, it should be directly incorporated into the British law. This is because, given the fact that there is lack of a codified constitution which sets out the citizens rights, the British doctrine for the sovereignty of parliament cannot provide enough protection for the rights of individuals from a government wh ich is intrusive. The HRA can hence ensure that all these are achieved12. Repealing of the HRA would make the laws under it to be under the control of the Judges in Britain. By so doing, a complicated legal graveluation could be created and this could lead to threatening of the protection that is currently provided in the European Law on Human Rights.The Human Rights Act should therefore never be repealed or replaced with the British Bill of Rights but instead, it should be lengthy. This is because the British Courts are a backstop of preventing the infringement of the fundamental rights and as such, they command a great respect from the general public 13. Should we extend the HRA? The HRA should not be broad because it forces the government of Britain to obey the ECHR yet it has its own laws which it is supposed to protect to maintain its sovereignty. Forcing an independent country to obey foreign rules is similar colonization and therefore it should not be extended because it infringes on the freedom of Britain as an independent country.The HRA should not be extended by the British Government because it does not stool with big issues of discrimination, torture or slavery and other things which are restricted largely to other countries and of which it is also responsible for the very down to earth principles of the right to privacy, food, housing, equality, health and freedom of speech. The HRA does not affirm these obligations in a real style that individuals can be able to forget and seek to set them in history and in stone14. The Human rights Act should be extended because it is a very important piece of legislating which has so far been issued by the British Government 15. The Act impart make all the British People to be enlightened with the fact that all people are born with obligations which require them to treat other human beings with dignity and in a way which they also expect to be treated. This dignity is therefore not about doctrine or re ligion but a matter of consideration for other people and common decency.For Britain to redress the balance, then it ordain not be unprovoked for it alone, but for the society and a world which bases itself on the respect of human rights to intervene so that the continued struggle aimed at adjusting the current attitudes and explaining to other individuals why there is need to respect other people can be achieved. The Human Rights Act should therefore be extended so that these ideals are realized16. just contrary to this, the HRA should be extended because it does not go far enough and therefore gives numerous states chances in the Human Rights Convention for the governments to opt out of some certain provisions for the sake of their national security.On the contrary, the human Rights Act should not be extended because it could subject some poor citizens of Britain to punishment as a result of having to travel far in search of justice in a foreign court other than seeking justice in spite of appearance the local courts available in their resident country. The further extension of the Human Rights Act in Britain is therefore a blow to the common citizens of Britain 17. The HRA should not be replaced by the British Bill of Rights so that the British parliament cannot be able to abolish the HRA in the same way they do to the other laws. Currently, the HRA has got no privileged position in the British Law and therefore, it can easily be changed in the constitution without the need for special procedures 18. If it is incorporated into the British Bill of Rights (hereinafter the BBR), it will bend difficult for anyone to easily change it to suit his or her circumstances.The HRA should never be replaced with the British Bill of Rights as suggested by some of the conservatives like David Cameron but it should instead be extended so that that a culture of impunity cannot be created by the government. Calls by the democrats that the Human Rights Act should never be repealed should therefore be never be supported. Instead, the Human Rights Act should be replaced by the British Bill of Rights so that the people of Britain can be able to reaffirm their independence by having their own domestic laws to govern them other than relying on international laws. 19. On the other hand, swapping the HRA with the BBR can be a sure way of restoring the responsibility for the balancing act to politicians in Britain which the general public can easily elect or boot out according to their preferences.Indeed, the establishment of the BBR will make the British government to have absolute power as a result of the rediscovered freedom which will positively develop democracy in and justice in the country. Should we replace the HRA with the BBR? The Human Rights Act should be replaced with a Bill of Rights because this Act is a means through which some parts of Human Rights contained in the European Convention are brought into the British Law books. The HRA clearly sets out the responsibilities of the people of Britain as a society since with any form of legislating different people would often try to seek interpretation of its content to satisfy their own selfish ends.In essence, such people will popularly start shouting about the trampling and violation of human rights in any case the other channels are exhausted but curiously enough, this is possible because of the real principle which is enacted in the Human Rights Act itself20. Some people argue that the HRA should not be replaced with the British Bill of Rights so that scallywag politicians are tamed by laws which are universally established and recognized. Given the fact that the decisions will remain in the country and not subject to laws from outside, it will create more room for bribery to exist and develop roots since people who make major decisions about human rights are located in one specific county. Attempts to replace the HRA with the British Bill of Rights should be discarde d because it could be detrimental to the British people.People are entitled towards voicing their opinions if they regain there is violation of their human rights. The Act therefore, remains the best for delivering justice to all people without any fear or favor 21. The HRA should be extended because it gives the British people the legal rights to stand up and be counted and should not be discounted like any other politically correct set of legislation. For the British people to better understand the Human Rights Act at its infancy, then they have to be aware that they have rights to know what their law makers do on their behalf and not solely rely on the media for the interpretation of the law decisions since they can easily be outraged by headlines which are too sensational.Since all the British people are members of their respective societies, then they have to bring with them responsibilities along with the rights because it is their responsibility to know that as much as they may be incensed with the headlines, they are the same laws which protect them as individuals and as a community 22 The British government should therefore not diminish the Human Rights Act but instead better understand and appreciate it. There should be no retreat over the Human Rights Act and its critics should be brought on jury to understand the benefits it brings the country. The Human Rights Act should be extended because the creation of the British Bill of Rights will not make it possible for the incorporation and attains on the British obligations which are incorporated in the ECHR. This is because once the laws are enshrined in the British Law, then all the Human Rights Act could have totally been overhauled and replaced by the British Bill of Rights.Rather than the British government seeks to diminish or repeal the Human Rights Act, it should instead extend it and commit itself fully to the ECHR23. The British government should also be aware that by seeking to swap the H RA with the BBR, then they could have opened up room for the creation of significant legal problems which would arise as a result of reduction of any of the protections which are guaranteed and contained under the ECHR. The HRA should not be repealed because in any case it was to be repealed, and then it will not make any major difference because even if the parliament repeals it, the Courts can, by themselves, decide to enforce it anyway.According to the President of the Supreme Court in Britain, no great impact could be achieved if parliament chose to repeal the Human Rights Act because to him, the Act has already achieved the Constitutional Statutes which render them very impossible to repeal24. The Human Rights Act 1998 should be upheld and even be extended because it has changed the constitutional role of the British Courts as far as domestic legislation is concerned since all legislation in Britain must now be fully interpreted in accordance with the rights contained in the Eu ropean convention. The implementation of the Human Rights Act has therefore changed the way the constitution has evolved and also changed the roles of the judiciary.This is because the judiciary has adapted so as to incorporate the HRA25. The Human Rights Act should be repealed or replaced by the British Bill of Rights since it is clear that in circumstances where it is difficult to interpret legislation in line with the European Community on Human Rights convention, then the British law will be given prevalence over the contravention. The Human Rights Act should be re-branded into the British Bill of Rights because it can n improve the publics perception26. This is unfeigned because it is Acts text that critics of the Human Rights are against and they are against the public bodies the decisions by the courts that people do not like.We should therefore, repeal or even ersatz the HRA with the BBR before it even survives the stage of adolescence because the politicians who are very well known for permitting internment on a yearly basis cannot be trusted to take a leak on the existing freedoms and rights but instead, they will aim at destroying the same27. The Human Rights Acts of 1998 which incorporated the ECHR into British law should not be repealed or even be replaced by the BBR because it gives the citizens statutory rights to enable them enforce their Human Rights in any Court in Britain 28. These rights were brought home by the integration of the ECHR, and therefore, made it easier for British Citizens to opening them locally in their national courts. The incorporation of these conventions into the British laws therefore, not only provided a ceiling but also a floor for human rights.The Human Rights Act should be extended because it gives parliament the freedom to enhance the rights for instance by a Freedom of information Act which is contained in article 40. The British citizens were very privileged after the full implementation of the Human Rights A ct in the year 2000 because they were able to claim their rights under legislation in a British Court rather than in Strasbourg where the final arbiter on interpretation of the convention of the ECHR is located. It should therefore, be noted that the sole reason of introducing the HRA in Britain was in reality to bring the rights home to the people of Britain29. The Human Rights Act should not be extended because it does not in any way create new human rights or take away any existing human rights.Instead, the HRA take overed the devastation that was caused by the World War II and aimed at protecting the basic freedoms and rights of the British people. The HRA seeks to enable the British Citizens to enforce their human rights locally in the courts in the UK without necessarily taking their cases to Strasbourg through provision of easier and better access to rights which currently exist. On the hand, extending the Human Rights Act is beneficial for the British people because those people who are against it have been known to have moral laxity and ignorance of the law. This is because the Human Rights Act empowers people to promote their interests.The human Rights Act should be upheld and extended because it belongs to all the human kind on account of their humanities and not based on the rank and file of the narrower classifications like ethnicity, class or citizenship. Unlike the British Bill of Rights which may tend to exclude by definition the non-citizens of a country from its protection, the Human Rights Act seeks to protect every human being regardless of where one comes from, the skin color, age or gender. Individuals like the undocumented employees, a single mum who loses all her benefits and the inmates in Guantanamo Bay actually lack the state or law which can protect them. For such people to enjoy the benefits of humanity and the rights associated with it, passing of a new British Bill of rights or keeping the initial Human Rights Act adds nothing to their lives30.The HRA should not be extended because it does not enlarge the remedies or rights of people in the United Kingdom whose rights in the convention have been violated but instead it enables those remedies and rights to be enforced and asserted by the domestic courts in Britain and not by recourse in Strasbourg. The Act should be extended because since its implementation, it has had a great deal of positive influence on the British Courts and therefore led to substantial improvement on the quality of public administration by the Executive, the public bodies, the Judges and the parliament in general. The replacement of the Human Rights Act by the British Bill of Rights will compromise the quality of these public administration institutions31.The Human Rights Act should not be repealed because it could lead to the cake of the United Kingdom citizens from exercising their fundamental rights in the UK Courts and therefore leading to prolonged delays for the citizens who w ould be forced to present their appeals to the European Community on Human Rights in Strasbourg in order to assert their rights. The HRA should be replaced by the BBR as suggested by the British government which pointed out that they may build on the HRA to build a British Bill of Duties and rights. However such an attempt by the government is prone to bring success because of questions that have been raised in congenator with these proposals. Among the questions that have been raised are whether there exist things like the rights for the British people or the British rights and how such rights can effectively operate at heart the framework of devolution to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.Questions have also been raised as to whether there should be any inclusion of the economic and social rights within the British Bill of rights. The Human Rights Act should therefore be left the way it is and never be replaced by the British Bill of Rights because it could lead to so many le gal complications in Britain32. The Human Rights Act should not be replaced into British Human Rights because the Bill of Rights could bring in ideas of making some of the additional rights in the Bill of Rights to be justifiable and therefore making the judiciary to further expand its scope of influence on issues which could be better handled by the parliamentarians.The HRA should not be replaced by the British Bill of Rights because there is a lot of confusion which has continued to reign as to whether the New Bill of Rights would comfortably sit alongside the Human Rights Act or it would be a direct replacement of the Human Rights Act. Instead of having two documents which would be unhelpful to the people it will be preferable to have a single document (the Human Rights Act) which adds to the ECHR33. The Human Rights Act should be repealed or even be replaced by the British Bill of Rights depending on the public good because it was enacted by parliament in 1998 and should therefo re be fully discussed to determine whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The British government should therefore place its focus on the human rights as a way of justifying and improving the official decision making rather than automatically making it to become a legal issue.In cases where the public authorities feel the need to tamper with the individual human rights, then must have genuine motives and follow fair and just procedures. In addition, the Act should not be repealed or be replaced by the British Bill of Rights because it is good for the British people. What needs to be done is to improve education about the Human Rights Act among the public to ensure that it occupies a more strategic position in schools and colleges. This is the right quantify to sell the true values of the Human Rights Act to the general public, something that has never been done after the Act became effective. By so doing, the public would be in a better position to be informed as to whet her to repeal the Human Rights Act, repeal it or extend it34.People who support the HRA rgue that it should be extended because it is the safe and sure channel of giving protection to the marginalized and most vulnerable members of any society. They claim that anyone who is in Britain for any reason is entitled towards fundamental human rights which the public and the government are duly and legally obliged to obey and respect. This is because the Human Rights Act of 1998 made them to become law. Similarly, the Act should be extended because the rights contained in the convention not only deals with matters of death and life but also affects the rights possesses by people in their everyday life reflected in what they do, say and their beliefs.