Whose voices count in our human rights debate? – Sanchita Hosali

10 December 2012 by

HRD2012_EN_smallToday is Human Rights Day, marking the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Sanchita Hosali, from the British Institute of Human Rights, an independent charity working to bring rights to life beyond the statue books and courtrooms, reflects on our domestic human rights debates and those voices that are often missing from the conversation.

Last week saw 72 MPs vote in favour of a motion to repeal the Human Rights Act. So today, on Human Rights Day, 72 civil society groups have written to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister urging them to safeguard the Human Rights Act.  As we await the report from the Commission on a UK Bill of Rights, what unites these 72 groups is concern and disappointment that “what should be a healthy debate about how best to secure the human rights of each and every one of us has, for far too long, lacked political leadership.” This “jeopardises the progress we have made at home in ensuring that our human rights obligations lead to real change for people in their everyday lives.”

How often do we hear about the real change the Human Rights Act (HRA) secures for people in their everyday lives? More often than not human rights headlines and political sound-bites feature controversial cases, complex technical narrative, and the assumption that people simply do not care or are hostile to the HRA. Yet work with communities and the public sector shows that the HRA is very real, personally relevant, and fundamental to the day-to-day lives of people and the wider society. For example the recently launched Make Human Rights Happen features everyday examples of how the HRA helps to secure justice when people are treated with cruelty and indifference, how it can transform ideas of empowerment, accountability and localism into a daily reality.

In a modern and diverse democracy like the UK it is important to create spaces to tell these stories, to have discussions about how the HRA is working, to debate what it means to have a law that protects universal rights. In the last two years BIHR’s annual Human Rights Tour has taken almost 3000 bookings from people across the UK wanting to engage in such discussions. We have learnt that people are interested, and they do care. No one is under the illusion that the HRA is a cure-all, sometimes difficult decisions need to be made, ones which will create disagreement; but this is part of what it means to live in a democracy where there are legal limits on power, which respects hard-won universal, basic rights and the rule of law. People have been writing their messages to political leaders on bunting, being used in local celebrations on Human Rights Day, and a London event at 1pm on Parliament Square.

We are seeing these messages about the importance of the HRA being reflected in what the public has been telling the Commission on a Bill of Rights (CBOR). Despite the lack of resources invested in the CBOR process, there is a clear message of support for keeping the Human Rights Act. Whilst the Commission has thus far declined to release its analysis of the consultation responses, groups like BIHR have looked at the responses. BIHR’s analysis of the 2011 consultation suggests that around the 80% of the 900+ respondents said there is no need for a UK Bill of Rights (mainly because the Human Rights Act functions like one) or that if there is to be any new law this should sit alongside and build on the Act. A similar result has emerged from the 2012 consultation which closed in September.

To help people get to grips with the 2012 consultation BIHR launched a postcard action under our #Act campaign. People sent hundreds of messages asking the CBOR to recommend retaining the HRA. These weren’t just pro forma postcards; many people added personal comments about why the HRA is important. Social workers revealed how the HRA helps them do their job better. People whose parents fought in the Second World War to secure the rights in the Act expressed their concerns about replacing the Act with something that takes our protections backwards. Parents with disabled children shared how the HRA is vital for their families. And there were even former sceptics who, having found out more about the HRA, realised its value. A recurring theme was concern about attacks on the HRA by certain quarters of the press and politicians, and ensuring that these were not taken as the basis for scrapping a law which reflects basic rights and values. In total there were just over 2000 responses to the 2012 consultation and it looks as though 90% respondents clearly said the HRA should be retained. 

It remains to be seen how civil society’s support for the HRA is reflected in CBOR’s final report and what the Government will do with this information. It is clear that the future of the HRA, the UK’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court, will remain on the political agenda. As we enter the next phase of these debates, whose voices will be heard, whose voices will count?

Sanchita Hosali is the Senior Policy and Legal Affairs Advisor at BIHR. Today’s Human Rights Day letter from civil society groups has been coordinated by the BIHR, and includes the likes of Liberty, Amnesty International UK, the Law Centres Network, the Law Society, Age UK, Disability Rights UK, Unlock Democracy, and regional and community groups working to secure the rights of people across the UK.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

2 comments


  1. Tim says:

    An excellent question: ‘Whose voices count in our human rights debate?’

    If you want to divine the strength and quality of your domestic human rights law, it’s no good asking the ‘comfortables’ like Andrew Neil and other white, middle/upper class, non-disabled gentleman in nice well-paid jobs, who will not ever have to worry about social security, food, shelter and heating.

    Ask poor people and/or disabled people.

    And put to one side the inadmissible ‘blame game’ and ask prisoners, travellers and immigrants.

    You get the true picture by asking unpopular or ignored people whose human rights are most at risk.

    And as a Deaf person, I say that the UK’s human rights record stinks to high heaven.

  2. Meghan says:

    It sometimes seems that the debate on human rights is neglected. I do believe that people shouldn’t care about human rights only on this particular day but we should do our utmost constantly to promote them in countries where people still don’t cherish the same privileges as we do. Reading news from around the world I realize how important the promotion of human rights is. In many countries they are violated on a daily basis and that’s why I think the activities carried out by various international organizations in this particular area need our support more than ever. And I am happy that my native Toronto is also commemorating the International Human Rights Day by taking part in the biggest letter-writing event of the year.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: