Kit Knightly – Off-Guardian Feb 8, 2022
The UK government is planning to re-work its human rights law to put an increased emphasis on “personal responsibility” and “duties to the wider society”, as well as preventing people “abusing” their rights.
Sounds pretty awful, doesn’t it? But let’s go back to the beginning.
In December 2020 the UK government announced they would be looking into Human Rights reform in the near future.
These announcements became more concrete a year later on December 14th 2021, when the government began a “consultation” on restructuring the Human Rights Act.
The plan is to replace current rights legislation with a so-called “UK Bill of Rights”, a policy dating from the Cameron administration. The new “bill of rights” would update and replace the Human Rights Act.
As a brief summary of UK human rights law:
Some rights are enshrined in common law from the days of Magna Carta, but the vast majority of the time when we talk about “human rights” in the UK we’re referring to the Human Rights Act 1998.
This act was written into law as essentially a verbatim copy of the European Convention on Human Rights passed by the Council of Europe in the 1950s.
The purpose of writing the international treaty into domestic law was so British citizens could take human rights cases to domestic courts, instead of having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
As with most human rights laws, from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to the US Constitution, a lot of the time the Human Rights Act is flat-out ignored, or at best worked around. But it does exist, and it does offer some protection of the individual from the power of the state.
Will that continue to be the case after these “reforms”?
The UK’s current “consultation” on Human Rights “reform” is set to end next month (March 2022), & whatever its final recommendations are will likely not be published for several months after that. But, while we can’t yet be certain exactly what they will say…we can get some rough ideas from what they have released so far.
Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary who commissioned the consultation, recently said in an interview on LBC:
Our plans for a Bill of Rights will strengthen typically British rights like freedom of speech and trial by jury, while preventing abuses of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense.”
If you’re anything like me, the phrases “abuses of the system” and “common sense” just made your inner cynic twitch, but there’s no real detail there.
Perhaps you’re thinking, at this point, that if you read the whole briefing document there will be nothing there to justify any paranoia.
…except I have, and there is.
If you drill down through the filler, and can read through the bureaucratic language, there are some pretty concerning red flags waving around, especially in their stated aims [emphasis added]:
Our reforms will be a check on the expansion and inflation of rights without democratic oversight and consent, and will provide greater legal certainty.
[The Bill of Rights will] provide greater clarity regarding the interpretation of certain rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, by guiding the UK courts in interpreting the rights and balancing them with the interests of our society as a whole
[The Bill of Rights will] provide more certainty for public authorities to discharge the functions Parliament has given them, without the fear that this will expose them to costly human rights litigation
The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.
Protecting authorities from legal consequences, stamping out “abuse” online, subordinating privacy to national security…these are pretty routine aims of new legislation these days. They are expected, almost cliche.
The biggest and freshest warning sign is the sheer number of mentions of “duty” or “responsibility” or “the wider society”.
For example, this sentence from the forward written by Raab himself:
our system must strike the proper balance of rights and responsibilities, individual liberty and the public interest,
And in point 6 of the Executive Summary…
The Bill of Rights will make sure a proper balance is struck between individuals’ rights, personal responsibility, and the wider public interest.
…and then point 9 too:
[The Bill of rights will] recognise that responsibilities exist alongside rights, and that these should be reflected in the approach to balancing qualified rights and the remedies available for human rights claims
The header at the top of Chapter 3, “The Case for Reforming UK Human Rights Law”, bemoans:
the growth of a ‘rights culture’ that has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest […] public protection [is] put at risk by the exponential expansion of rights
Going into greater detail further down:
The international human rights framework recognises that not all rights are absolute and that an individual’s rights may need to be balanced, either against the rights of others or against the wider public interest. Many of the rights in the Convention are ‘qualified’, recognising explicitly the need to respect the rights of others and the broader needs of society […] The idea that rights come alongside duties and responsibilities is steeped in the UK tradition of liberty
And then again, in the first paragraph from section IV “Emphasising the role of responsibilities within the human rights framework” [emphasis added]:
We all have responsibilities in our society: to society (such as to obey the law and pay taxes), to our families, and to people around us. Everyone holds human rights whether or not they undertake their responsibilities, particularly the absolute rights in the Convention such as the prohibition on torture. Nonetheless, the government believes that our new human rights framework should reflect the importance of responsibilities.
It carries on in equally concerning fashion…
when a court is considering the proportionality of an interference with a person’s qualified rights, it will consider the extent to which the person has fulfilled their own relevant responsibilities.
The overall message is clear: Human rights can be tempered with “responsibilities” & anyone who does not fulfil their “responsibilities” is less deserving of the legal protection of their rights.
This is neither new thinking nor new language. Throughout “Covid times” we have seen talk of liberty parried with talk of duty, but it predates Covid too.
For years free speech has been tempered with talk of “being offensive” or “spreading misinformation”. The right to privacy has long been secondary to “national security” and “keeping people safe”.
Human Rights law is regularly trumped by The Patriot Act or Investigatory Powers Act or a dozen equally appalling pieces of legislation from both sides of the Atlantic.
But now, rather than bypassing human rights laws, this government is going to – to quote Raab – “rebuild them”. Meaning shred the existing ones and write all new ones. Ones that use “common sense” to make sure people are “responsible” and don’t “abuse” their rights.
Within the scope of this so-called “reform” is the desire to add conditions to basic human liberties. Exchanging “self-evident” truths, “endowed upon men at their creation”, for a quid-pro-quo agreement with the state.
This is a seismic shift in the very definition of “rights”.
The entire point of human rights is that they are innate and inalienable, they exist for everyone everywhere, and are not in the gift of any authority.
But now, rather, the UK government is arguing your rights are given to you at their behest, and that they come at the cost of expected duty.
And given all the talk during the “pandemic” regarding “protecting others” and being “responsible” – with masks, lockdowns and most especially vaccines – it’s not hard to see how these new “duties” could be applied in the future.
There’s no direct talk of compulsory vaccination, yet, but if these new “human rights” laws are made a reality, the next pandemic could be much harder to navigate.
You can read the complete consultation on human rights reform here, if you feel the need.
—
Can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media
Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.
First.
“The UK government is planning to re-work its human rights law to put an increased emphasis on “personal responsibility” and “duties to the wider society”, as well as preventing people “abusing” their rights.”
YOU have no rights. The idea that you have rights is a joke. Do I have access to state funded legal action that I might want to take? There’s a thing (doesn’t exist) called the social contract. It’s about obligations, sheeple carryout theirs and the state does their’s. They closed down the NHS, it was impossible to see a doctor, they murdered tens of thousands, & it could total in the millions.
“The Bill of Rights will] provide greater clarity regarding the interpretation of certain rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, by guiding the UK courts in interpreting the rights and balancing them with the interests of our society as a whole.”
When they say ‘society as a whole’, they mean that no individual, even if the majority of sheeple believe or want XYZ, the regime will using the terms ‘society’ & ‘community’ you trump any rights you thought you had. Rabb the Jew is saying the next bioweapon will mean mandatory jabs for all, or internment, which you will be billed for. Make no mistake, when the Tories said they liked the Malaysian model, they weren’t thinking about adopting the Malaysian model, they wanted to put the Malaysian model on steroids.
“The government is committed to ensuring that the biggest social media companies protect users from abuse and harm, and in doing so ensuring that everyone can enjoy their right to freedom of expression free from the fear of abuse.
This is really a wormhole in a vortex of bullshit. All this means is that anyone can stop anyone from comment. This is a social media version of UN Sustainability, which means the sheeple will defacto get poorer and will have little mobility, because it can’t be justified for the greater good in the community. It will get to the point where you can’t question anything or anyone, because you’ll be offending them.
I’m going to stop there, as I’ve not the time. You think caring Labour will have other ideas? Starmer is well equipped to make this even worse. Sheeple voting for the slaughter House.
It doesn’t matter what ‘rights’ you have when the legal system is owned by the enemy. Ask Julian Assange about how ‘great’ british ‘justice’ is. You can spout ‘rights’ until you’re blue in the face, but the ‘judge’ will crucify you regardless. You’re either making money from ‘lawyering’ or you’re an idiot if you can’t see this. All lawyers, judges, and all the other hangers on should be put to death. Only then will you have your freedom.
Yid-man has you following the Noahide laws in the end; you are then a second-class citizen, because a not-a-Jew. Moslems have a rival system so you can be doubly excluded.
One’s rights are determined by whatever group/cult has the power. The only way to secure your ‘rights’ or freedom you desire, is for your group/cult to topple those in power & become the new rulers of the State & institute new rights or laws.
this revised bill of rights call it what you will is not COMMON LAW i.e. do no harm. what is so difficult to understand about this. notice there is no salami slicing of that law as is proposed by this bill rights all for PERPETUAL argument in courts of law. there will be no JUSTICE.
a steady filling cornucopia for jew pharma !
The “Human Rights Act 1998” is not law. It’s administrative law, which is subordinate to natural and common law. It’s contract law and only ‘takes the force of law through the consent of the governed’. That means CONTRACTING with the police officer (corporation dogsbody, not upholding the common law and not fulfilling their oaths as peace constables) and ending up in a kangaroo court, where the game is played to see how much money the state can steal from you.
They want total control.
They’re winning because of ignorance, courtesy of the public choosing to be entertained instead of protect their nation and civilization and above all freedom to be.
> The “Human Rights Act 1998” is not law. It’s administrative law, which is subordinate to natural and common law. It’s contract law and only ‘takes the force of law through the consent of the governed’.
No one agreed to anyone else having any power over them whatsoever. All this BS you’re referring to is made up by the vermin that own and control everything. If you end up in a ‘court’ the vermin ‘judge’ will start spouting BS at you like you agreed to abide by it at some point, and nobody ever did. If you’re some kind of legal BS nerd then please stop trying to tell other people that they should follow your/their rules, because NO ONE EVER AGREED TO DO SO. The entire ‘legal’ machine can burn in hell, along withe ‘judges’, lawyers and the rest. They’re a major part of the problem.
Yea.. As that psycho, criminal has said ..
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCxgJidUYAE1W9l?format=jpg&name=900×900
I totally agree with rights come responsibilities!
The UK Government believes it has the right to RULE but ignores it’s RESPONSIBILITIES.
After declaring that Covid 19 was Not an HCID (high consequence infectious disease) it brought out the Covid 2020 Regulations (300 odd pages of draconian rules) without proper Parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
It brought in PPE (masks), lockdowns, social distancing, and isolation, resulting in job loss, business failures, and destruction of the economy.
A reduction of NHS capacity (for which they spent £100’s millions on Nightingale Emergency Hospitals to replace the capacity, but which were hardly used: 20 patients in a 2,000 bed facility in London, which was then returned to an exhibition center to sell weapons).
Medical malpractice in banning useful treatments, Ivermectin & Hydroxicloroquine, and using Midazolam (as used on death row, 3 years supply used in less that a year), this suppresses breathing in someone already struggling to breathe, then putting them on a ventilator, almost ensuring premature death.
Insisting on test track and trace, using the PCR test devised by Drosden, later discredited by WHO who instigated it in the first place. PCR( Polymerase Chain Reaction devised to make a lot of something out of something-not a test. it uses cycles to double the quantity at each cycle, anything over 25-30 cycles gives a result that is meaningless. Testing was done at 40-50 cycles and above, giving a alarming amount of “cases”, these were reported each night on the news making alarming viewing.
This alarm fed the need to be vaccinated which was shown to be the way to protect yourself and get back to normal life. The Vaccine was said to be “Safe and Effective”, it turns out to be neither as derived from the governments own ONS data. Tens of thousands have been killed, and hundreds of thousands injured by these vaccines, promoted and recommended by the government. The companies producing these vaccines, the distributors, and those administering them were given complete immunity from prosecution and RESPONSIBILITY for adverse reactions.
The Vaccines developed by Dr Robert Malone using mRNA and similar technology were “novel” and not used on humans previously. They “teach” (hijack) your cells to produce the SPIKE protein (the dangerous part of the virus), which your body reacts to by producing antibodies, BUT also see’s these cells as an enemy and attempts to destroy them. Thus your body is attacking itself, resulting in disease and injury. The effect is to gradually decrease the immune systems ability to respond, a degraded natural immunity.
All this is the RESPONSIBILITY of the UK government!
There has been not accountability, no investigation, and those seeking these things have been sidelined, silenced, and prosecuted, and now the government wants MORE POWERS to do the same!
Attention BritProles:
This is ZOGUK… OBEY!!!!
Great summation by Greg A. It is so factual and succinct that it would be good to see it featured on many sites and absorbed by everyone, along with the understanding that the governments of all Western nations have committed the same crimes against their own people.
This proposed legislation should have every Brit sharpening your pitchforks, fueling your torches, and getting rope ready to fashion into nooses. Anyone who thinks the tyrannical treasonous criminal cartel posing as your government is going to do anything to expand or protect the rights of citizens without being forced to is stark raving mad or dangerously stupid.
You can safely bet your life any changes those vile degenerates make to the Human Rights Act will most certainly not be to your benefit and will only be more of their piss in your face. I had a very ominous feeling before the Patriot Act was shoved through in the Jewnited States after homicidal maniacs who were Jew-S-A government insiders and Israelis murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and I have an ominous feeling about this.
The ONLY thing that is going to restore your rights is to line the streets with the corpses of politicians, bureaucrats, media whores, and bankers dangling from streetlight posts and the heads of the so-called “royal” family on spikes along the top of the fence at Buckingham Palace.
lawyers are filth,
I’m not a legal BS nerd. I’m actually someone trying to tell people that legality is administrative law and thus contract law. By giving/signing your name to a police officer, in doing so you are allowing yourself to be under their jurisdiction BY law.
A crime is simply that which causes harm to another. Unless you are streaming from, assaulting, or killing others you haven’t broken any law.
Administrative law (Roman Canon law, law of the sea/admiralty/maritime, civil etc) only had authority over the LEGAL person and NOT the living person UNLESS they allow themselves to be tried under adminstrative law.
However….FULL DISCLOSURE MUST BE GIVEN TO BOTH PARTIES BEFORE THE CONTRACT IS AGREED. IF NOT THE CONTRACT IS DEEMED INVALID!!!
Are you able to understand this?
I’m trying to help you!
There are two law systems at play, here in the UK and the rest of the west. The police (peace constables) are given their authority, by the public, ONLY TO UPHOLD THE COMMON LAW OF THE LAND AND NOTHING ELSE. The peace constables are NOT THE LAW.
Any peace constable, who behaves as a police officer, instead of peace constable, is therefore breaking the common law. They know this. This is why they behave as they do today. They all know they are guilty of treason, many times over, asking with the corrupt judiciary they work with.
> I’m trying to help you!
Personally, I’m not interested in playing the ‘legal’ game. The cops and the lawyers and the judges are just slime using the ‘system’ that they set up to bully and in many cases destroy the very people that they claim to protect. Always the money wins. I want all of the legal system gone, together with all the people who run it like the protection racket that it is. “The law says this”, “the law says that” — so what — I say burn in hell scum. The “law” has kept Assange in jail without charge for years, and it will kill him. The “law” has ruined billions of lives. It never tries to help, to be righteous, or to protect the weak. All it does, together with the lawyers and judges, is crush the weak and poor under the jackboot of the money. It’s the “law” that throws you out into the street to die when you have no more money to hand over to the millionaire who “owns” your home, it’s the “law” that has you thrown in jail for walking across a bit of the earth that is “owned” by someone else, it’s the “law” that allows you be poisoned under threat of being beggared and starved. So, you can shove your “laws” where the sun don’t shine. You can’t fix a system that was designed to be corrupt from the ground up.
Lawyers are filth/lawyers + judges are evil,
I don’t think you’re understanding what I’ve written. I am not, in the least promoting any law, merely trying to show people that contract law is used to deceive them and how they can stop yourself from contracting with you.