The Human Rights Act of 1998, also abbreviated to HRA is a national law passed in the United Kingdom and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its purpose is to incorporate the rights within the European Convention on Human Rights into UK national law. This law allows the citizens of the United Kingdom to defend their rights in UK courts and states that public organisations such as the Government, Police and other public authorities must respect the people’s rights by treating them fairly and equally with dignity. Firstly, this essay will be discussing what the Human Rights Act (1998) is and its effects. Secondly, this essay will be pointing out the Articles and explaining the Act. Thirdly, this essay will be talking about the history and why this act came into place. Finally, this essay will argue the necessity of the Human Rights Act (1998).
The Human Rights Act (1998) consists of sixteen fundamental rights that everybody is entitled to from birth or since the act was put into place. These sixteen rights are set out as ‘Articles’ and along with these Articles there are also ‘Protocols’ to extend and adapt new rights into the Human Rights Act. There are three main effects of the HRA: Firstly, it has subsumed the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British national law; if in any given situation there is a breach of rights, this allows people to take their cases to British courts instead of seeking justice from the European Court of Human Rights located in France. Secondly, it is obligatory that all public bodies and authorities such as; Hospitals, local authorities or publicly funded schools must carry out their duties to the public respectfully and in appropriate fashion that protects their human rights. Thirdly, Parliament will consider the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights when passing new laws to ensure that they are compatible. The courts must also, where viable, interpret laws in a manner compatible to the rights set by the ECHR.
Article 1 and 13 of the Convention rights do not feature in the Act since the ‘Act itself fulfils these rights’. Article 2; ‘The right to life’ which only in very rare circumstances (such as self-defence) a life can be legally taken. Article 3; ‘Prohibition of torture’, a person has the complete right not be tortured or treated in any way that is inhuman or degrading. Article 4; ‘Prohibition of slavery and forced labour’, no person will be subjected to any kind of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 5, ‘Right to liberty and security’, every person has the right to security and liberty. Article 6, ‘Right to a fair trial’, A person has the right to a fair trial and public hearing within a reasonable amount of time. Article 7, ‘No punishment without law’, a person has the right not to be found guilty of an offence arising out of the actions which at the time they committed them were not criminal. Article 8, ‘Right to respect for private and family life’, every person has the right to respect for their personal, family life, their home and correspondence. Article 9, ‘Freedom of thought, conscience and religion’. Every person is free to hold their own beliefs and may change his belief or religion. The right to manifest those beliefs may be very limited only in specified circumstances. Article 10, ‘Freedom of expression’, everyone has the right to express themselves and hold opinions as they wish. This is also applicable for people with unpopular or even disturbing views, although, in some cases this right can also be limited. Article 11, ‘Freedom of assembly and association’, a person has the right to assemble with other people in a peaceful way. They also have the right to associate with other people, which includes the right to form a trade union. Article 12, ‘Right to marry’, Men and women have the right to marry and start a family. National law will still govern how and at what age this can take place. Article 14, ‘Prohibition of discrimination’, according to the human rights, a person has the right not to be treated differently to other people because of their race, religion, sex, political views or other personal status unless this can be justified objectively. Added later, Article 1 of Protocol 1 is ‘Protection of property’, where people have the right to enjoy their own property and may use them as they wish without the interference of public authorities unless certain circumstances. Article 2 of Protocol 1, ‘Right to education’, a person has every right to education and cannot be denied to it. Article 3 of Protocol 1, ‘Right to free elections’, parties must undertake to hold free elections at reasonable times by secret ballot, under circumstances which will allow free expression of opinion and choice to legislature. Article 1 of Protocol 13, ‘Abolition of death penalty’, the death penalty has been removed.
The atrocities of World War 2 brought issues concerning civil liberties and human rights to attention around the world. During those times, there was ‘political resolve’ and popular support to have stronger monitoring and minimum international standards of human rights. After the United Nations were established, one of the first acts that were adopted were the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which published a fundamental set of standards for countries to follow, however, the declaration was limited and individuals could not enforce these rights against governments. As the United Nations declaration was being written, there was a movement in Europe to identify and institute a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. The International Committee of the Movements for European Unity arranged a congress in 1948 at which it resolved that a body representing different states would be established with a remit to draft a charter of rights. This charter was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was adopted as the European Convention of Human Rights by the council of Europe in 1950. The Convention passed through Parliament in 1951 in which the UK was one of the first members of the ECHR to sign it. In 1998 the UK passed the Human Rights Act to ensure that human rights are protected by law.
Although these rights may seem obvious, the HRA is necessary to implement and protect these them. Many could argue that if not for these rights, there could be government tyranny and many people could potentially be taken advantage of. Winston Churchill once said “To confront all forms of tyranny, ancient or modern, with forces that are unconquerable”. In other words, the HRA protects people from government tyranny and supports the people’s right for justice. Despite the substantial influence that the HRA has had on British national law, it has not been popular among the public over the years. In fact, there have been proposals to bring in action a new Bill of Rights that would replace the current HRA. This could potentially remove current rights and wouldn’t guarantee any improvement. It could also give the government additional power that prevents people from confronting government tyranny. Prime minister Tony Blair has criticized the HRA which by some has been labelled “criminals charter” when a judgement of a group of Afghans that had hijacked a plane were allowed to stay in the country and weren’t deported because they weren’t seen as a threat to national security. The group of Afghans that were branded criminals by many had little choice in the matter since they were only trying to escape the horrors of the Taliban and keep their families safe. If not for the HRA, these victims of the Taliban were going to be deported back to the hellish warzone they barely escaped from. Repealing the HRA would also bring ‘devolution issues’ with Northern Ireland and would bring confusion to the Scotland Act (1998) since it is associated with the HRA.
In conclusion, the Human Rights Act (1998) is a law that has been implemented for the sake of protecting people and their rights in a fair and just system. It guards people from the injustice and dismays that were seen throughout World War 2 and other probable circumstances. To repeal the HRA would potentially remove rights and could bring inequality, corruption, tyranny, repression, discrimination and intolerance. It is essential that the HRA would not be repealed for the sake of the future of the people in the United Kingdom.