Human Rights Essay

homosexual Rights atomic number 18 those rights that atomic number 18 deemed to belong to any(prenominal) one-on-ones by virtue of their military personnelity 1. Previously, these rights were referred to as the rights of man or natural rights. Because of this, valet de chambre rights are ascribed to all valet de chambreity regardless of their citizenship or topicity. The forgiving rights tenet support, in this appraise, come into direct conflict with former(a) doctrines of the sovereignty of early(a) governments in the world, and the law, because of the universality that has direct to the pursuit of the agenda of human rights at stages of international co-operation in the era of post war2.The gentle Rights map has evoked a lot of divided opinion. Debate has risen in Britain as whether to tip over the homosexual Rights dress, (hereinafter referred to as the HRA), locomote it or whether it should be replaced on the whole with the British human Rights (Hereinaft er referred to BHR)3. Repealing the HRA refers to abolishing or evoking the identification number altogether while ex leaning it volition imply that, this procedure could stay on longer without being repealed or cancelled by the British presidency.In Britain, near fundamental individual freedoms are today cherished by the human Rights act upon of 1998 which requires all the Britain law to obey the European Convention of 1950 on gay Rights (hereinafter The ECHR) and which as hale stigmas it affirmable for the ruler to be enforce fitted in all the British Courts and makes it mandatory for the Judiciary to interpret the topical anaesthetic law so that it complies with the convention4. The deport came into existence over ten years and it seeks to protect the individual rights of tribe and has had a lasting impact in many fields of their offstage and man lives.The HR integrated the ECHR into the British law and in that locationfore make it unlawful for any Public body or officer to act or be spend a penny in way which is incompatible with the convention5. The 1998 HRA made the ECHR to be part and parcel of the British National fairness. Before that, the courts were only allowed to post the ECHR in genuinely limited caboodle during domestic proceedings6. However, section 19 of the subroutine made it mandatory for any future enactment to strike compatibility with the ECHR.The forgiving Rights come was in 1998 hailed to be a landmark code save has elicited a lot of controversy and miscin one caseption. The HRA of 1998 has brought some certain(prenominal) elements into the level-headed system of Britain or so the Human Rights of the European convention. In this hazard, the British Courts are required to uphold and apply the ECHR in each and e very decision that they make. This convention was developed to safeguard against the rejuvenation of Nazism and the defense of the rights it sought to protect after the Second World War7.The ho lds which are contained in the Human Rights Convention procl posture among new(prenominal)(a)s the right to life which is contained in oblige 2, prohibition of torture of human beings which is contained in Article 3, the prohibition of constrained labor and slavery which is contained in Article 4, the right to security and casualness which is contained in Article 5, the right to a fair and just exertion which is contained in hold six, the prohibiting of extra legal punishment which is contained in article s up to now, the right to respect of the private family life of individuals which is contained in Article cardinal and the freedom of conscience, thought and religion which is contained in article nine. The convention as well as spells out the liberty of self expression that is found in Article 10 and the freedom of association and assembly that is clearly depicted in article eleven. The right to marriage and the prohibition of discrimination are contained in articles twelv e and fourteen respectively 8.The legal modern approach of human rights that binds the governments to this wager arose from the United Nations Declaration on Human rights in 1948 which internationally developed a secular agreement on the rights of the human mannikin to provide 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 jutard for all tidy sum and states 9. Should we repeal the HRA? The Human Rights scrap should be repealed because it undermines the sovereignty of Britain as an independent state and therefore it should non be governed by laws from external sources. Given the event that Britain is an independent province 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 ease up articles concerning the human rights. in that location is need to repeal the Human Rights Act because the Human Rights can well be cover under the British excite of Rights 10..The Human Rights Act should be repealed because it has undermined the mandate of parliament and given the judges the ability to issue any declarations of horror yet these judges have no empowerment to strike muckle 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 only when stick around in Britain and by so doing, a culture of self liberty go away be maked and this allow enable the British citizens to enjoy their rights alongside the rights of the ordinary citizens in Britain 11.There are those who ask that the HRA should non be repealed but instead, it should be directly merged into the British law. This is because, given the situation that there is lack of a codif ied constitution which sets out the citizens rights, the British doctrine for the sovereignty of parliament can non provide enough shelter for the rights of individuals from a government which is intrusive. The HRA can therefore 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 situation could be created and this could lead to threatening of the protection that is newly 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 across-the-board. This is because the British Courts are a backstop of preventing the infringement of the fundamental rights and as much(prenominal), they command a peachy respect from the general habitual 13. Should we stay the HRA? The HRA should not be extend 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 coun raise to obey foreign rules is give care village and therefore it should not be wide because it infringes on the freedom of Britain as an independent country.The HRA should not be broad by the British Government because it does not deal with big issues of discrimination, torture or slavery and separate things which are restricted largely to former(a) countries and of which it is in any case 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 number way 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 gentleman of legislation which has so far been issued by the British Government 15. The Act will make all the British People to be learn with the fact that all heap are born with obligations which require them to enshroud other human beings with dignity and in a way which they also expect to be treated. This dignity is therefore not about philosophy or religion but a matter of consideration for other people and common decency.For Britain to redress the balance, then it will not be easy for it alone, but for the parliamentary procedure 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. But 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 provides for the interestingness of their nat ional 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 issuing of having to travel far in search of justice in a foreign court other than seeking justice within the local courts available in their resident country. The save 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 dislodged 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 become difficult for anyone to easily change it to suit his or her circumstances.The HRA should never be replaced with the British Bill of Rig hts 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 province for the balancing act to politicians in Britain which the general reality 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 majority rule in and justice in the country. Should we replace the HRA wit h 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 legislation different people would often try to seek interpretation of its content to satisfy their own selfish ends.In essence, much(prenominal) people will popularly start shouting about the trampling and violation of human rights in any case the other enthrals are exhausted but funnily 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 rogue 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 out side, it will create more room for bribery to exist and develop root since people who make major decisions about human rights are fixed in one specific county. Attempts to replace the HRA with the British Bill of Rights should be discarded because it could be detrimental to the British people.People are authorise towards voicing their opinions if they feel there is violation of their human rights. The Act therefore, the Great Compromiser 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 record the Human Rights Act at its infancy, then they have to be conscious 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 ou traged 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 state to know that as much as they may be indignant with the headlines, they are the same laws which protect them as individuals and as a community of interests 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 board 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 work ups 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 rep laced 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 full to the ECHR23. The British government should also be conscious(predicate) that by seeking to swap the HRA 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 insurmountable to repeal24. The Huma n Rights Act 1998 should be upheld and even be extended because it has changed the innate 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 European convention. The effectuation of the Human Rights Act has therefore changed the way the constitution has evolved and also changed the roles of the workbench.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 companionship 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 aline 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 substitute 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 build on the exist 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 access 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 Hum an 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 Act 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 actually 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 engageed 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 right s 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 expert 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 membership 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 splutter color, age or gender. Individuals like the undocumented employees, a single milliampere who loses all her benefit s and the inmates in Guantanamo Bay actually lack the state or law which can protect them. For such people to enjoy the benefits of cosmos and the rights associated with it, passing of a new British Bill of rights or belongings 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 solid ground 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 o f these public administration institutions31.The Human Rights Act should not be repealed because it could lead to the legal profession of the United Kingdom citizens from exercising their fundamental rights in the UK Courts and therefore conduct to prolonged delays for the citizens who would 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 relation 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 within the framework of devolution to Wales, northern Ireland and Scotland.Questio ns 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 legal 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 p eople 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 therefore be fully discussed to determine whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The British government should therefore place its concentrate on on the human rights as a way of justifying and improving the ordained decision making rather than automatically making it to become a legal issue.In cases where the public authorities feel the need to monkey around 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 call for 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 time 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 whether 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 ever yday life reflected in what they do, say and their beliefs.