The need for a bill of Rights

The need for a bill of rights, to protect those rights for ourselves and future generations from political interference. To be binding on all future governments and to establish the absolute rule of law.
 

Rather the add verbiage to ideas and discussions, I felt it might be better to address these points, brought up by Shahriar and Imogen directly in one place.

(1) why you think ordinary acts of parliament cannot adequately protect the
right to privacy; and

Because any parliament can either revoke or alter the right without explicit
reference or permission from the citizens of the United Kingdom.
A single parliament under the control of a single party could pass legislation
contrary to the right with a clause permitting the new law.  The upshot of this in practice is that the 'right' is not a 'right' it is a privilege granted to us, that can be removed.

This has already happened, the Blair-led Labour government removed our right to privacy, instituted mass surveillance of the population and shared data with non-european governments.  Non of this was proposed in their manifesto. All the changes to legislation were made in secret. There was no accountability or transparency.


(2) why you think this inadequacy would be overcome by containing the right to
privacy in a constitution/bill of rights.

The main reason is that it cannot be altered by a party in control of a parliament, it requires a national referendum.  Any legislation passed (even in secret) that violates the constitution would be illegal and when it was discovered, as these things always are, those guilty of passing and complicit with implementing the legislation could be brought to justice. The right is then really a right not a granted mutable privilege.

No comments yet, be the first to post one!
Share