Sunday, August 10, 2008
JCHR supports a UK Bill of Rights
The Joint Committee of Human Rights has supported the government proposals for a Bill of Rights. Among its various recommendations it argues for the terminology UK Bill of Rights rather than British. It also believes that devolved governments need to be given an enhanced role in the process and supports the inclusion of some socio-economic rights. UPDATE: Whatever JCHR thinks Brown has returned to the theme of Britishness at the Edinburgh Book festival.
Fair Deal @ 05:34 PM
“it argues for the terminology UK Bill of Rights rather than British. ”
What a surprise. God forbid someone utter the dreaded B word.
And there’s no such thing as a socio-economic “right”.
Posted by on Aug 10, 2008 @ 06:38 PMNo right to life, i.e. to subsistence then Beano? No right to the existence of the welfare state, to healthcare, housing and education? Lamentable that people think this way.
Posted by on Aug 10, 2008 @ 06:44 PMStick your “UK” or “British” Bill of Rights!.
It’s time for an ENGLISH Bill of Rights!.......oh no wait! there already is one from 1689! the Template of all good Human Rights law the world over including the US Bill of Rights!.
All we need to do is scrap the dangerously inferior EUSSR Napoleonic Human rights laws that the Blair and Broon Mc Labour regimes have treasonously enshrined into law, modernise the English Bill of Rights and, especially, get rid of all you worthless parasitic bums bums in N Ireland, Scotregion and Wales! your not wanted nor needed Politically, financially nor militarily!.
Posted by on Aug 10, 2008 @ 06:47 PMThis JCHR report is a welcome injection of fresh thinking into the UK’s domestic human rights debate, especially at a time when the Human Rights Act and long-established fundamental freedoms are under such attack.
Posted by on Aug 11, 2008 @ 09:07 AMGaribaldy, could you explain what would happen if the entire country decided to rely on this “right”, downed tools and discontinued gainful employment? The welfare state is fine for people who can’t work. A right to subsistence would provide for those who won’t. So no, your specific example is not one I would advocate.
Sadly, a right to life is not something that is, in any way, enforceable. Anyone with terminal cancer can tell you that. As such, it’s a purely aspirational “right”.
Posted by on Aug 11, 2008 @ 09:30 AMBeano, the entire country won’t decide to rely on that right, so it’s not a sensible hypothetical. The state as it is recognises socio-economic rights already was the point I was making.
Posted by on Aug 11, 2008 @ 10:43 AMI would disagree with the right to a welfare state, per se, but I think part of the reactionary fear around rights is predicated on misunderstanding. For example, I think there is a big difference between the right to work and the right to a job, or the right to housing, as opposed to the right to a 3 bed semi in a prime location with all mod cons.
A right to life is perfectly feasible Beano. Rights relate to the contract between the individual and the State, not between individuals or between people and nature. The state is obligated to provide protection for life (and in any case, this is protected by the ECHR, so not only is is feasible, it is recognised in international law.)
Posted by on Aug 11, 2008 @ 02:01 PMGreat ... lets have more rights and more law for more lawyers to milk the state ...... it beats working ...........
Posted by on Aug 11, 2008 @ 09:47 PM
