why do we need a bill of rights

To add insult to injury, some European judges have embraced judicial activism. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights has argued that the rights of UK prisoners are breached when they are prevented from voting in elections. Whatever position one takes on the matter, it should be something for the UK Parliament to decide, rather than judges who operate beyond the control of the ballot box.


In short, the effort to scrap the Human Rights Act is not an attack upon human rights as a principle. It is a criticism of how they are currently applied in practice. So long as the replacement Bill of Rights is sufficiently robust in its defence of the individual then it would surely do the job of the present Act but in a manner that doesn t subvert British democracy or sovereignty.


Ultimately it comes down to this: the Government rightly believes that it should be the UK s courts and elected representatives who have the final say in legal matters pertaining to the UK. Mr Gove will bring intellect and tenacity to the task of reforming Britain s justice system.


And this historically minded man could take advantage of an approaching anniversary. Britain s long, complex journey towards establishing a democratic legal system confirms that the UK is more than capable of drawing up its own Bill of Rights ironing out the faults of the old system and restoring the reputation of the noble cause of human rights.
* Please note that articles prior to 1996 are not normally available via a current subscription.


In order to view content before this time, access to the Oxford Journals is required.


If you would like to access this item you must have a personal account. Please sign in below with your personal username and password or to obtain a username and password for free.