Rights Debate

Question 1

Describe the conflict between individual and collective rights

Answer 1

• I: Right to privacy, C: Freedom of the press
• I: Freedom of expression, C: Upholding religious/racial tolerance
• I: Right to protest, C: Right to peaceful existence
• I: Freedom of movement/assembly, C: Security of the nation

Question 2

How well are rights protected in the UK?

Answer 2

• HRA and other laws mean that rights are set out clearly and in detail
• Right-based culture has been established
• Allows judiciary to be active in defending rights
• Pressure groups, like Liberty, work to stop govs undermining rights
• Citizens’ rights have been restricted as govs seek to protect citizens from terrorism
• Right to protest near Parliament has been restricted
• Gov has introduced ‘control orders’ to restrict freedom of movement
• The media undermines rights protection by portraying Acts like the HRA as restricting rights

Question 3

What are Parliaments strengths when protecting rights?

Answer 3

• It holds sovereignty and can determine what rights are in the UK and if they should be enforced
• It has introduced and passed all Acts in relation to human rights. It has a long history and tradition of defending and promoting rights in the UK
• Is more representative of the public and so can reflect values of society and different individuals
• MPs represent constituents and can raise the issue of citizen’s rights with ministers when they feel they are being violated
• Is democratically elected and more accountable than judges which ensures parliament can better defend rights
• Due to sovereignty, Parliament can suspend the HRA to achieve its goals

Question 4

What are Parliaments weaknesses when protecting rights?

Answer 4

• Short-term political considerations may be more important than defending human rights
• Is dominated by the governing party which can result in tyranny of the majority which means there which means there will be very few checks on gov action that lead to a reduction in human rights
• MPs may be reluctant to defend rights if it benefits an unpopular group, like criminals and terrorists

Question 5

What are judiciary strengths when protecting rights?

Answer 5

• Judges exercise the rule of law and use the HRA and judicial review to ensure rights are fully respected
• There’s more judicial independence since the Supreme Court was created in 2005/09. Now, there’s no overlap between the judiciary and the legislative means judges can defend rights based on law rather than being under political pressure
• Judicial neutrality means judges can defend rights without taking into account a person’s beliefs, character or other traits

Question 6

What are judiciary weaknesses when protecting rights?

Answer 6

• Judges are unrepresentative as they are from a narrow social and gender background (white middle/upper class) which means they may be unaware of issues that affect most issues and may tend to favour conservative and privileged groups
• A uncodified constitution mean the judiciary can’t strike down primary legislation so even if judge decide there’s been an abuse of rights there’s nothing they can do and can only apply the law as it stands
• They’re unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable meaning they may abuse their position and reluctant to promote controversial cases
• House of Lords undermines democratic arguments for parliament
• Although they’re independent, judges may advise parliament on the legality of legislation. Having a role in the creation of legislation means judges may not be completely independent or neutral when it comes to tackling human rights issues

Question 7

Describe the Abu Qatada case

Answer 7

• In 2002, Abu Qatada was arrested under anti-terror legislation. In 2008, the court of Appeal ruled he couldn’t be deported to Jordan as he would be tortured and it goes against Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• In 2009, the Supreme Court overruled this but Qatada appealed.
• In 2012, he was re-arrested after British gov was given reassurance from Jordan and an order was laid down for his deportation. He once again appealed but it was denied but a further appeal to Special Immigration Appeals Commission was successful and he was released on bail. The British gov. then appealed the decision.
• Qatada was re-arrested and the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal by the gov. to have the deportation order reinstated.
• In 2013, Abu Qatada said he would leave the UK he was guaranteed he wouldn’t be tortured. After a treaty, he was deported to Jordan.