A rhetorical question I know, but any enlightened citizen of the United Kingdom must have found themselves asking this question in the past few months. Whilst I accept that this could have been in relation to the economy, terrorism, the economy or civil liberties, I want to refer to the latter only in this post.

Liberty, the group tasked with fighting for our civil liberties and promoting human rights, recently conducted a ComRes poll in relation to this very issue and as a consequence of changes or proposed changes to the Human Rights Act. The results are not surprising, but perhaps the percentages are.

For example, 95% of those polled said that they believed respect for privacy, family life and the home and the right to a fair trial was either vital or important. Are there any member of parliament reading this poll, because I can see very few actually seeking to protect these areas that have been consistently attacked and eroded by this government? All the Conservative party does is attack Labour policies. However, they have yet to put on record that they would, if successful at the next election, repeal any legislation introduced by the current government that attacks the civil liberties and rights of the ordinary man and woman in the street. This failure to say anything implies that whilst they are now willing to attack the Labour party on every front, they are secretly in support of new, draconian legislation, designed to control the people of this country.

Elsewhere in the poll, 90% of those asked, responded that they believed freedom of speech, protest and association was either vital or important. Once again, this government has introduced legislation or proposals aimed at curtailing this right, or freedom, depending on your perspective. Perhaps the most frightening statistic, is that only 13% of those polled ever remember seeing or reading information from the government about this legislation. We could debate for months to come over whether this is the responsibility of a government intent on hiding draconian legislation within the small print of obscure or ill-described Acts of Parliament, or a failure of the media to highlight these issues. Either way, what is clear, is that that vast majority of the people of this country are not aware of major changes to our civil liberties and human rights on an almost daily basis. What is self-evident however, is that few will be aware until such time as they fall foul with the law.

This poll suggests that the people of this country do not want to see our rights and liberties eroded through draconian legislation. It makes clear that the primary reason there has been no public backlash is the fact that 87% of the population are not even aware of this government’s attack on everything we have held dear for hundreds of years. Legislation that was introduced with the sole aim of protecting us from repressive governments. It also suggests that members of parliament from all sides are either out of touch with the opinions of their constituents or they couldn’t care less, so long as John Lewis is open.

Furthermore, it implies that the opposition parties are either complicit or supportive of new legislation, given for the most part, they are only willing to criticise, rather than make clear statements that they would repeal the acts if they came to power. By contrast, take David Cameron’s statement on Heathrow, he has said if the Conservatives get into government, they will scrap plans for a third runway. Has anyone heard him say anything quite so direct when it comes to our liberty of freedom?

There are Groups and individuals in this country that are attempting to highlight this attack on our freedom, civil liberties and human rights, but it is an uphill struggle. There needs to be more column inches devoted to this topic, more bloggers need to get on board, journalists, with the notable exception of those fromThe Guardian ,need to educate the public about the affeacts of the new legislation and proospective MP’s should consider standing on a civil liberties platform, rather than anti-sleaze. I would also like to see, at the next general election, an influx of Libertarians vying for office, because if nothing else, they would ensure that this topic would be debated in public, at a time when the lectorate is actually listening.

I ask this question because I have to confess, my understanding of what a Bill of Rights should be, seems to differ from that of the current Labour administration and I suspect, those views held by the other political parties.

I understood that the new British Bill of Rights was going to be based loosely on the classic Bills of Rights, from Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, or perhaps the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 or the American Bill of Rights of 1791. Which was principally the protection of an individual’s liberty against the intrusive and interfering power of an overbearingstate. I figured that the government may seek to include some general  human rights issues. Such as those included in the “Four Freedoms” speech by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address to Congress in 1941. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship, freedom from want and, of course, freedom from fear.

Instead, as I understand it, the intention is to bring in something of a ‘nanny state’ Bill of Rights. That is to say, that an individual shall have the right to, for example, a job, food, clothing & recreation. The right to a home, as well as economic support through old age, sickness or accidents. To education and medical care. As a quid pro quo, the government intend, as I understand it, to include “citizens responsibilities”. I simply cannot see how any government can guarantee these particular social and economic ”rights”. In my view, it can only ever be a statement of intent by the government, perhaps a modern day ‘mission statement’ if you will, but they cannot be legally enforceable rights? 

As it is proposed, the whole thing is farcical, but not funny. This is because vast sections of the proposed new British Bill of Rights are unnecessary, in light of the fact that ’rights’, such as benefits payments and the minimum wage are already legally enforceable.

In my view, we need to go back to basics. The reason we need a new British Bill of Rights, is to protect us all from repressive, intrusive and unnecessary government sponsored legislation which seeks to treat every citizen as a potential suspect. The Big Brother Britain that has become our lot in life! The British public desperately and urgently need protection from the state itself. This is what I said a few months ago;

This Labour government and the European laws they have introduced into this country has slowly eroded our rights, diluted our ability to hold ministers to account and moved us towards a Police state. If ever there was a need to protect the public it is now. A Bill of Rights should be drawn up, it must then be put to the people of this country through a referendum and once accepted by the public, introduced immediately. Moreover, once introduced, it must take precedence over any other legislation intended to be brought into law, European or otherwise. Once these laws have been introduced, a Law Lord should be placed ‘in charge’ who’s duty should be to ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, that is to say, no new laws are introduced by successive governments or European ministers which would dilute the rights entrenched in our Bill of Rights, without a further referendum.

 News that Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have been told by cabinet colleagues that their proposal, as it stands, is unworkable, comes as no surprise to me. This government has completely missed the point and so have many members of parliament who support a statement as opposed to an enforceable bill of rights. The people of this country have had to endure an increasing level of state interference in their everyday lives, from 4.2m CCTV cameras, to chips in rubbish bins. With proposals that include a massive Big Brother Britain database which would store information on calls, text messages, locations, emails and internet browsing habits. Airport scanners which see though clothes, identity cards which include our most private and intimate details. Our children from the age of 5, will be monitored by the state to include their most private details such as details on their mental health, sexual health or any substance abuse treatment. The list is endless, as is the number of ‘agencies’ that will have access to this information, some 700 as last count!.

I don’t know whether Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are being deliberately obtuse, or whether power has gone to their heads, but what is clear, is that the biggest danger to the citizens of this country is him, his government and their policy of systematically repressing the people of this country, to the extent that Privacy International were moved to say of us ”The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the “black” category along with Russia and Singapore.” And that our “identity scheme is still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven“.

New Labour need to stop, listen to what WE want and then provide a British Bill of Rights that entrenches those values and freedoms. A Bill of Rights does not need to include mission statements, nor any statements of intent. Moreover, there is no need for it to attempt to provide unenforceable, wish-washy promises on economic or social issues, these are covered elsewhere. Instead, the British Bill of Rights needs to be a solid, unbreakable commitment by the government of the day to treat each if its citizens as individuals. It must reinforce the notion of ’innocent until proven guilty’ and not seek to do anything that would remove an innocent individuals right to privacy, self-respect and liberty.

Clearly this is sensitive issues and a personal perspective, so I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Perhaps some will believe that it should include social and economic commitments, my fear however, is as soon as you make something so all encompassing, it becomes a fully-fledged legal document rather that a unambiguous, bulleted statement of rights. Legal documents are a lawyers dream and a litigants worst nightmare, because the fuller the statements, the more opportunity to interpret, wriggle and overturn. We need, clear unambiguous statements!

We must not allow this opportunity to pass or turn into a typical New Labour fudge, all spin and no substance.

The Labour Party and the Conservative party agree on the need for a ‘Bill of Rights’ in the UK to protect the rights of the individual. Hooray! However, it would appear that they cannot agree on what areas it should cover…that is no excuse for a delay, the two parties need to get together and sort it out, leave party politics behind and remember that they are supposed to represent and serve the public of this country. It is what we elect them to do and what they get paid for.

This Labour government and the European laws they have introduced into this country has slowly eroded our rights, diluted our ability to hold ministers to account and moved us towards a Police state. If ever there was a need to protect the public it is now. A Bill of Rights should be drawn up, it must them be put to the people of this country through a referendum and once accepted by the public, introduced immediately. Moreover, once introduced, it must take precedence over any other legislation intended to be brought into law, European or otherwise. Once these laws have been introduced, a Law Lord should be placed ‘in charge’ who’s duty should be to ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, that is to say, no new laws are introduced by successive governments or European ministers which would dilute the rights entrenched in our Bill of Rights, without a further referendum.

It is rare that the Labour Party and Conservatives agree on much, they have a duty and a responsibility to get this thing done, we will be watching and judging them by their deeds, not their words.

We used to be able to rely on the Magna Carta, but through the efforts of this government and European legislation, we have slowly become the ‘little people’ as self-serving ministers ignore the rights and wishes of the majority, in favour of a very, very tiny minority. This is not acceptable. If a Bill of Rights can entrench our values, what is sacred and what must be protected, then we should introduce it soon. The American have been able to rely on their Bill of Rights, which includes the first 10 amendments since 1791.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...