What should be in the British Bill of Rights?

Roadrunner

We didn't need a bill of rights until the EU started taking them away aided by the oh so PC brigade in mummy knows best Labour party.The only thing we need in it now is a referendum on Europe.http://www.ukip.org/petition/Referendum-on-the-EU

egh

We don't need a Bill of Rights. We had rights all right before the euros got rid of them - and we need to restore those. And the only way to do that is to exercise the right to get rid of the euSSR. Tell them to get out of this country - and never mind grovelling about begging them to let us out of theirs!!!!

Any more fiddling about and re-writing who and what we are is just more of what we've had for 12 years. Why would we vote for someone who's going to do that? Hasn't the twerp ever studied any British History or Literature?

Michael Booth

The right to hold politicians personally accountable for the policies they inflict upon us. Now, who could I possibly be thinking of?

Michael Booth

How about all future constitutional change being referred to the nation via referenda?

Dennis Churchill

The Lisbon Treaty showed us we have no protection from a government using international treaties to remove our sovereignty and bind future administrations.
We need to look at the role of the Head of State in acting as a final arbiter on whether legislation or executive action needs to be subject to a referendum.
Culture, rather than a written constitution protects liberty but a mechanism where a referendum can be triggered by popular demand may now be necessary as we become more “European”. Continental Europe hardly stands as an example of Liberty.
Unfortunately our political class will never voluntarily surrender power in this way.

Sue MV

"We didn't need a bill of rights until the EU started taking them away aided by the oh so PC brigade in mummy knows best Labour party.The only thing we need in it now is a referendum on Europe"

Quite,

Sign the petition at UKIP and join http://albionalliance.org.uk/

We would like our democratic rights back please!

Sue MV

"We didn't need a bill of rights until the EU started taking them away aided by the oh so PC brigade in mummy knows best Labour party.The only thing we need in it now is a referendum on Europe.http://www.ukip.org/petition/Referendum-on-the-EU"

Quite.

We would like our rights restored please (just the way they were before politicians starting messing with them).

http://albionalliance.org.uk/

Tanuki

Rights are not 'granted' by a government or legislature via any kind of bill. Rights are innate - I'd say #1 right is the right to live one's life free from Government intrusion.

Fergus Pickering

OK Tanuki. Rights are innate. But which rights are innate? Do we know by pure introspection? Is there an innate right to education, health care etc etc. I don't think so, but what do you think? According to me, all innate rights are negative and they come down to the right to be left alone unless you are doing demonstrable harm. That's my take on rights. What about yours?

Nicholas

Hopefully the right to bear arms and to defend hearth and home, as enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights and gradually eroded by successive governments and more recently by lobbying police whose attitude can be summed up as "We sure as hell can't protect you but we are damned if we are going to let you protect yourselves".

ndm

It is not at all obvious to me that David Blackburn understands the issues he is discussing here. Surely the entire purpose of a Bill of Rights is to protect the British people from malfeasance by Parliament in either its executive or legislative functions. The purpose of Judicial Review is to ensure that the executive and legislative functions refrain from impinging on the rights of the people.

The big change in recent years is not how beholden Parliament has become to partisan whipping machines but how much stronger the executive function has become. Parties with large majorities have always been able to implement their policies - unlike the United States with its much weaker whipping (at least on the Democratic side).

Curiously, Judicial Review is not specified directly in the United States Constitution. It comes out of the 1803 Marbury v Madison case. I doubt, however, that those Justices who justify their rancid politicization of decisions under the theoretical guise of "originalism" care that the judicial review they use is not an original tenet of the Constitution.

Hysteria

anybody see that stuff about "I am a free man" - the withdrawal of consent to be governed? What's that about?

ndm

It is not at all obvious to me that David Blackburn understands the issues he is discussing here. Surely the entire purpose of a Bill of Rights is to protect the British people from malfeasance by Parliament in either its executive or legislative functions. The purpose of Judicial Review is to ensure that the executive and legislative functions refrain from impinging on the rights of the people.

The big change in recent years is not how beholden Parliament has become to partisan whipping machines but how much stronger the executive function has become. Parties with large majorities have always been able to implement their policies - unlike the United States with its much weaker whipping (at least on the Democratic side).

Curiously, Judicial Review is not specified directly in the United States Constitution. It comes out of the 1803 Marbury v Madison case. I doubt, however, that those Justices who justify their rancid politicizing of decisions under the theoretical guise of "originalism" care that the very judicial review they use is not an original tenet of the Constitution.

Ray Griffin

It is our liberties, that we held under the old common law, we need to have restored not rights handed down to us by the government. A return to government having to legislate against things, not bestowing crumbs of freedom upon the public. For as long as conservatives keep using the rhetoric of the left then the left will keep winning.

It is a Bill of Liberty,(especially one that states that no agent of the state is permitted to enter private property without a warrant and the fredom to defend one's person and property) that we need not a Bill of Rights (other than the one we already had for over 300 years.

But can we please stop using the language and rhetorical framework of the Left in this battle. They couch everything in terms of what the government will deign to give the masses. Rather we have to get the arguments back to the government having to justify its every attempt to interfere in our lives.

Remember: Liberties not right.

Robert Mason

A right is an irrational and redundant concept. A right is not something one can have but an expectation of someone else. What we call a right is in fact a freedom to do speak up, against or for something; to own, protect or be protected and is an obligation on others. Thus what is known as a right to a fair trial, life, education and all the other ‘rights’ are really the obligations, protections, services and freedoms we have always expected from others. It is usually governments that provide these things although it is likely that these things predate nations and governments.
What we have found is that governments are the worst usurpers of our freedoms. Far more have died at the hands of malevolent governments than any bunch of thugs. We have international bodies to force governments to not abuse their power. However, international bodies are undemocratic and unaccountable and ignored by the bad governments they are meant to control. It is also subject to gerrymandering of the worst kind. The UNHRC includes Sudan, Zimbabwe and Cuba. It and the European Commission for Human rights said and did nothing about the Rwandan and ongoing Sudanese genocide, limb amputations in Saudi Arabia, public hangings in Iran and the brutal takeover of Tibet by China. Supra national bodies therefore have problems of trust and legitimacy as well as competence. Their pronouncements are widely ignored and their corruption is legendary.
It seems that the huge amount of media discussion on rights is a smokescreen for the uncomfortable fact that we have been let down by our governments and international bodies. We need our governments to enforce existing laws to protect us and our property. Forget rights. They are an intellectual dead end. Just demand that our government does what we employ them to do. That will do for a start.

Ray Griffin

Sorry, I meant to end my post with -

Remember: Liberties, not rights. (I forgot the 's')

Andy Leeds

'Restoring accountability to public life is a Tory priority, and a popular one, but there are limits. The courts must continue to adjudicate on legislation that impinges upon liberty and protect fundamental rights. Such hearings provide an expert legal check on executive and legislative power, not a political one. Expertise should trump accountability on this matter.'

The first flaw here is in thinking that the Judiciary are non political. Having met many leading Judges I believe they are anything but. And contrary to popular belief they are not a bunch of Conservatives - a bigger bunch of pinkos I have yet to meet. Had they been non political one hardly thinks they would have interpreted the ECHR in the way they have in so many areas.

DavidDP

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to a fair trial by one's peers seems a good start.

permanentexpat

What on earth is Dave on about?
Others here have hit the nail on the head. As long as we are members of the EUSSR, even to discuss it is displacement activity at its most wasteful...and stupid.
Prior to our blinkered joining of the unaccountable cash-guzzling & unelected bureaucratic dictatorship, very few folk even thought about a Bill of Rights...we were free men.
The Treaty as it now stands is, in effect, non-negotiable. The choice is: stay in and 'disappear' or get out & live a life.
Yes, it would involve some initial pain; but then you could at least hold your head up...and save a helluvalot of money.
Dream on you Lib/lab...and espacially Con (apposite) Bills of Rightsers...shame on you!

Steve Tierney

I don't agree. The courts should never be able to 'overrule' the decision of parliament and activist judges should be removed. Courts are there to judge based on laws that parliament passes. Not to pass their own. If a judge wants to do that they should stand for parliament.

The solution to providing a check on executive and legislative power is the electorate. Allowing them to remove MPs mid-term, making all politicians answerable to the voter.

TomTom

This is absurd. You cannot create a Subset Charter of Rights which conflicts with The European Constitution or the ECJ or its subsidiary The Supreme Court in LOndon will strike it down.

It is impossible to frame anything contrary to the European body of law and Judgments of the ECJ. Having signed the treaties Parliament has given away those sovereign powers which would underpin any such Bill of Rights.

Even the 1689 Bill of Rights has been rendered meaningless by Parliament and guarantees no rights for the individual as in the US Bill of Rights.

The notion of 'implied repeal' in the UK Parliament is also alien to a Constitutional System whereby any Act of Parliament conflicting with a previous Act automatically repeals the previous Act.

This would be impossible under the European Constitution and Supreme Court system which assesses Acts in terms of conformity to EU Law

Bill (Scotland)

How many times must it be repeated (for some of the ignorant commenters on here) that the Human Rights Act, which the Conservatives wish to replace (quite why, beats me) has got absolutely nothinng to do with the EU. The HRA basically incorporates into UK domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which has existed since the early 1950s and was largely drawn up by British lawyers as a way of ensuring human rights after the traumas of WWII. The European Court of Human Rights, which oversees the Convention, happens to sit in Strasbourg, but has absolutely nothing to do with the EU. Until the HRA was incorporated into UK law, British citizens had to take their cases to Strasbourg, which was both cumbersome and expensive.

Compliance with EU treaty law is enforced by the European Coirts of Justice, which sit in Luxembourg.

Nicholas

Ray Griffin: spot on that man. The legacy of our common law and established freedoms has been relentlessly undermined by governments which have been insufficiently challenged on historical grounds and distracted by the Human Rights nonsense.

denis cooper

The English Bill of Rights 1689 is a live statute - albeit with some amendments - and is therefore available on the UK Statute Law Database, but it can also be read here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

Note its title:

"An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown"

"Declaring" because the "Rights and Liberties" were not being newly created, but were being re-asserted after being suppressed.

Hence further down:

"And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons ... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare ... "

Note again, "as their ancestors in like case have usually done" - this was not the first time it had to be done - "for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties" - rights and liberties enjoyed for centuries, in fact for over a thousand years with the interruption caused by the Norman Conquest - "declare".

So here we are again, and as our ancestors in like case have usually done we must vindicate and assert our ancient rights and liberties; and I would hope that those who actually do this on our behalf will look at what follows straight after the above sentence, referring to the very first grievance against James II:

"That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal"

and think that sidelining Parliament to make our laws through the EU is a comparable abuse, notwithstanding that Parliament has consented to it being done.

Derek

Rights, I believe, should be liberties enforced by the courts.

Taking a cue from Nicholas, I fear it is time for us (as our ancestors in like case have usually done)to re-examine the concept preserved in the declaration in the English Bill of Rights of 1689: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;".

Now, how should that be amended and forced upon a corrupt parliament to suit our present predicament...? Only elegant English will be accepted.

Moraymint

denis cooper
November 22nd, 2009 10:13pm

Seems to me that the time for uprising has come.

That said, it's late, I've shared a bottle of Rioja with Mrs Moraymint and really need to go to bed. Need to be up with the sparrows in the morning to continue my company's pitched battle with the Bank of Scotland.

Give me a shout when it's time to present pitchforks.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

The problem comes often in what some call "rights" which are, in fact, just indirect obligations upon a third party based upon damnable concepts of "social justice", i.e. Paternalistic/Maternalistic, Communitarian, Fabian hogwash.

"the right to an education" is often floated as a "right". It is, in truth, an obligation upon a third party to provide it. If it were phrased as "the freedom to have an education" then it covers all the real abuses meted out to an individual such as preventing girls, certain races, religions or creeds from accessing or providing for themselves an education but avoids the obligation upon others to be forced to provide it.

I try and use the term "rights" to mean those that impose obligations upon a third party and "freedoms" to mean those that impose responsibilities upon one with that freedom not to impinge on equal or greater freedoms of others. However, a Bill of Freedoms has less of an historic ring to it.

What is so depressing is that so many involved in the "Bill of Rights" debate cannot see that what they so often do is impose obligations upon others or bind the individual into a code of conduct controlled and arbitrated by the State. The Labour version is a classic example of this.

A Bill of Rights, if it is worthy of the name, is there to restrain and limit the State, NOT the individual. It is there to allow the individual to decide, NOT the State. It is NOT there to somehow trade off freedoms with responsibilities to the State, unless that responsibility is actually to ones fellow citizens, such as to not coerce, steal, defraud or commit violence.

Hysteria

Moray

i dont think pitchforks are going to cut it though

Roy Smith

It is too late for a Bill of Rights. Every thing that a Bill of Rights could have prevented is now water under the bridge. What is needed now is Aboriginal Rights.

Major Plonquer

I simply don't believe Lefties should have anyRights at all.

EyeSee

Cameron is probably mystified at any suggestion that he is not storming away in his lead over Labour. It is partly due to the current vogue not to actually understand politics, but to vote on headlines and vague assertions (consider the success of Blair). There is a second thread though. Those who do pay attention will notice that all Cameron actually talks about is tinkering around the edges. We need to turn this country's finances around, so we can no longer afford the political club that is the EU. A real politician would pull us out. This would allow us to free ourselves of its ridiculous red tape and the fees we pay to 'belong'. There would be no downside. The other element would be Global Warming. By getting rid of all the taxes and subsidies (despite which we still pay more in our fuel bills) people would see an immediate benefit. As MMGW is a tissue of lies, again there is no downside. There is a third elemeent of course and it is one that Cameron does mention, but isn't really serious about; taxes. An immense amount of government spending could be cut if government stopped doing things that are not required of it. Commonly called Big Government it is an unbelievable drain on the country. Any chance of real politics breaking out? Are you kidding!?

Chris

If we want to be in anything like a decent country, it's obvious what should be in a "British bill of rights." The full and unequivocal enactment of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Nothing else is acceptable. It is utterly disgusting that there are people in our country who scorn the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, the right not to be unfairly imprisoned.

Nicholas

Derek, the problem with the wording has always been "as allowed by law". Modern lobbyists have assumed this means that any statutory law forbidding the keeping of arms has trumped it. Others believe the phrase refers to the common law and is merely re-affirming against attempts to suppress it (and to disarm the populace).

The freedom of respectable gentlemen to keep arms for their defence (and the defence of their families and homes) survived until quite recently but was undermined by a shameful conspiracy between the Home Office and police to reject self-defence as a valid justification for a firearms certificate. They did this without reference to parliament and with no legal authority whatsoever.

That, and the ridiculous 1997 legislation mean that only criminals (and police) use firearms to threaten and kill innocent people. Innocent people can no longer use firearms to deter, arrest or disable criminals who threaten the lives of them or their families. They are instead dependent upon the police. The Queen's Peace is supposed to be maintained by the police so that the keeping and bearing of arms by the civil populace is unnecessary. That was the original pact between the Monarch and the people that removed weaponry from the home. Is the Queen's Peace being maintained?

But, going back to the original subject, there seems to be a failure in any of the opposition parties or any other bodies, including the legal profession, to champion these old liberties and rights. They have been stolen from us and those who should be defending them just smile weakly and spout patronising rubbish. English common law, liberty and rights could never survive scheming tyrants like Jack Straw without a peoples champion. And we don't have one.

MatthewP

Even if the legislature was "empowered" (however you might do this), it is not at all clear that this would lead to a reduction in the power of the courts. See here http://prologue.squarespace.com/prologue/2009/11/23/no-panacea.html

Dorothy Wilson

May I make a suggestion, couldn't we have a Bill of Responsibilities instead? And that is only half tongue in the cheek.

It could include, for example, definitions of

*

Dorothy Wilson

Sorry - my earlier post escaped before I had finished it!

A Bill of Responsibilities could include:

* the responsibility of our elected representatives in Parliament to uphold the sovereignity of the nation.

* the responsibility of the governing party to uphold the promises set out in the manifesto on which they were elected.

* the responsibilities of judges to act in accordance with the law of the land in the way in which it was passed or, in the case of common law, has developed over the centuries and not in the way in which they personally would wish it to be.

* the responsibilities of the educational establishment to provide our children with the foundations on which to build their lives and a sufficient and balanced knowledge of our history and culture to enable them to value their heritage.

* the responsilities of the able-bodied citizens of this country to earn a living and maintain themselves and not to rely on the taxpayers to do so.

* the responsibilities of new-comers to this country who wish to live here to learn the language and to respect and to adhere to the culture and way of life of the majority population.

I could go on - but I have some work to do. However, I'm sure other people will be able to add to the list.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

Chris: "It is utterly disgusting that there are people in our country who scorn the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, the right not to be unfairly imprisoned."

That exists in the BoR 1689. We don't need the ECHR in that regard.

JAD

"Expertise should trump accountability on this matter"
Well, yes, but this undermines your case.
Did you not read the article or did you willfully ignore the bit that said, "In 1995, Lord Irvine, later Lord Chancellor, called for judicial restraint, and gave three reasons: the constitutional imperative, whereby Parliament gives powers to Ministers and others, for good reasons and in reliance on their knowledge and experience; the lack of expertise which made the courts ill-equipped to take these decisions; and the democratic imperative, whereby politicians derive authority in part from their electoral mandate"?

Nick

It just shows how crap the elite and the commentators on the elite are.

Apparently is a choice of judges or MP? A straightforward A or B choice.

Well as soon as someone offers you a choice of A or B alarm bells should be going off. They are invariably conning you. They don't want you thinking of any other options.

The answer to C is the electorate. It's quite easy to get cheap referenda on all bills if you allow referenda by proxy. You nominate someone to be your proxy. That MP maybe one who says, I will toe the party line. It might be an independent on. It could equally be an MP who says, you vote via a secure website and I will cast votes in line with those votes. You're allowed to switch proxies.

Nick

Verity

Eyesee - Well said, that man!

Cameron's a drab little tinkerer. He has no grand vision (other than getting in to office so he can later get a big job in Euroland.

Look at every "idea" - if that is not too strong a word - that Cameron has come up with and it is disjointed, vapid, inadequate for the problem it's supposed to address, and very slyly worded.

Herbert Thornton

The instant I read the question - "What should be in the British Bill of Rights?" I shuddered.

Why? Because the much vaunted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has turned out to be the very opposite of that.

Politically correct, power hungry busybodies love it. They have used it to suppress freedom and to create new so-called "rights" that are not just worthless, but that cause harm.

Some years ago, a Judge in Hong Kong referred to a much milder Hong Kong law inspired by Canada's Charter as a "criminals' Charter". The same can be said in Canada, and in the matter of freedom of speech, many people now refer to Canadian and Provincial Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals as Canada's Thought Police.