1.4.2 Debates on UK Rights Culture: Conflicts, Limits, and Civil Liberties Groups

Civic Responsibility and the Restriction of Civil Liberties

Citizens hold responsibilities such as paying taxes and serving on juries.

However, civil liberties can be restricted in certain situations, particularly when national security is at risk.

Post-9/11 terrorist attacks have led to the introduction of several Acts of Parliament designed to protect the public by restricting some freedoms:

• The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005) limited protest rights outside Parliament.
• The Terrorism Act (2006) extended detention without charge to 28 days and criminalized glorifying terrorism.
• The Investigatory Powers Act (2016) authorized the retention and access of personal electronic data by law enforcement.

• The Act grants the police increased powers to regulate protests, particularly those deemed to cause "serious disruption." This includes:

• Imposing conditions on protests, such as setting start and finish times or controlling noise levels.

• Enabling police to act when protests are likely to cause serious disruption to the public or access to essential services.

• Broadening the criteria for what is considered "unacceptable" protests, giving the police more discretion in limiting demonstrations. Sentencing Reform:

• The Act includes provisions to toughen sentences for certain offenses. Key changes include:

• Life sentences for drivers who cause death by dangerous driving.

• Increased minimum sentences for serious violent and sexual offenses.

• The introduction of whole life orders (life imprisonment without the possibility of parole) for individuals convicted of premeditated murder of a child.

• Expanding the scope of community sentences, such as unpaid work or curfews, to give courts more alternatives to imprisonment. Crimes Against Emergency Workers:

• The Act increases the maximum sentence for those who assault emergency workers, such as police officers, paramedics, and firefighters, from 12 months to 2 years.

Impact and Significance:

Expansion of Police Powers:

The Act has been a subject of intense debate, especially regarding its impact on protests. Supporters argue that it equips the police with the tools necessary to maintain public order and protect the public from disruptive protests. Critics, however, claim that the broader powers could undermine civil liberties and the right to peaceful assembly.

Tougher Sentencing:

The Act reflects the government's commitment to strengthening sentencing laws for serious offenses, particularly in relation to violent crime, child abuse, and dangerous driving. These changes are seen as a deterrent to potential offenders and a means of delivering justice for victims and their families.

Balancing Public Safety and Civil Liberties:

While the Act introduces measures aimed at enhancing public safety—such as Serious Violence Reduction Orders and greater protection for children—there is ongoing debate about the balance between security and individual rights. Critics have expressed concerns that some provisions could lead to an overreach in police powers and a restriction of fundamental freedoms.

Modernizing the Criminal Justice System:

The reforms to the court system, including the use of remote hearings and alternative sentencing options, aim to improve efficiency and reduce delays in criminal justice. These measures could help modernize the legal process and alleviate some of the pressure on courts, especially following the backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Controversy and Public Opposition:

The Act has faced significant opposition from civil rights groups, human rights organizations, and some sections of the public. Protests against the legislation, such as the "Kill the Bill" demonstrations, have highlighted fears that it could be used to curtail peaceful protests and criminalize public dissent

:::

Identity Cards

Following the 9/11 attacks, the UK government introduced the Identity Cards Act (2006), creating identity cards and a national identity register to store citizen information.

However, this Act was repealed in 2010 to reverse what was seen as an erosion of civil liberties and state intrusion.

The Balance Between Collective and Individual Rights

There is an inherent tension between individual rights and the collective good of society.

Individual rights refer to the freedoms and entitlements that belong to each person. These rights are often associated with personal autonomy, freedom from state interference, and the ability to make decisions about one's own life. In the UK, these rights include freedoms such as:

• Freedom of speech (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR)
• Right to privacy (Article 8, ECHR)
• Freedom of assembly and protest (Article 11, ECHR)
• Right to a fair trial (Article 6, ECHR) These rights protect individuals from arbitrary actions by the state and are essential for preserving personal liberty and dignity.

The Human Rights Act plays a crucial role in safeguarding individual rights. Key events include:

• In 2004, judges deemed the detention of foreign terrorist suspects without trial as discriminatory, citing the European Convention on Human Rights.

• The government's attempt to deport Abu Qatada was blocked due to concerns over evidence obtained through torture.

• In 2010, the Supreme Court recognized that homosexuality could provide grounds for asylum in the UK if claimants faced persecution. Collective Rights:

• Collective rights are rights that are held by a group rather than an individual. These include the rights of certain groups or society as a whole. Collective rights can involve:

  • Public safety and security (the state's duty to protect society from crime or terrorism)
  • Right to education (ensuring access to education for all)
  • Environmental protection (protecting natural resources for current and future generations)
  • Social equality (promoting the welfare of disadvantaged groups through social policies) Collective rights often emphasize the common good and may require limits on individual freedoms to ensure the well-being and protection of the larger community.

Balancing Collective and Individual Rights in the UK:

The UK faces the challenge of balancing individual and collective rights, which sometimes conflict. While individual rights protect personal freedoms, collective rights focus on the welfare and security of the broader population. This balance is especially significant in areas such as national security, public health, and civil liberties.

National Security vs. Individual Liberties:

• Collective Right (National Security): The state has a responsibility to protect citizens from terrorism and serious crime. This may involve increased surveillance, stricter immigration controls, or expanded police powers.
• Individual Rights: These security measures can conflict with individual rights, such as privacy (Article 8, ECHR) or freedom of movement. For instance, anti-terrorism laws can permit the detention of individuals without trial, and mass surveillance can infringe upon the right to privacy.

Freedom of Speech vs. Protection from Harm:

• Individual Right (Freedom of Speech): Citizens have the right to express opinions without undue restriction (Article 10, ECHR). This is a cornerstone of democracy.
• Collective Right (Protection from Harm): However, certain speech, such as hate speech or incitement to violence, can harm groups or undermine social cohesion. Therefore, restrictions may be necessary to protect public order and vulnerable communities.

Right to Protest vs. Public Order:

• Individual Right (Freedom of Assembly): People have the right to gather and protest peacefully (Article 11, ECHR). Protests are vital for democratic expression.
• Collective Right (Public Order): However, large protests can disrupt public life, block essential services, or lead to violence. The state may restrict protests to protect public order and minimize disruptions to society.

COVID-19 and Public Health vs. Individual Freedoms:

• Collective Right (Public Health): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government imposed lockdowns, mask mandates, and travel restrictions to protect the collective right to public health.
• Individual Rights: These measures restricted individual rights, such as freedom of movement and freedom of association. Many argued that the lockdown measures limited personal autonomy, but the state justified them as necessary to prevent the spread of disease and save lives.

Equality Rights vs. Religious Freedom:

• Collective Right (Equality): Equality laws ensure that everyone has equal access to opportunities, regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexuality. These laws promote the welfare of disadvantaged groups and protect against discrimination.
• Individual Rights (Religious Freedom): In some cases, these laws may conflict with individual religious beliefs. For example, religious groups might object to equal marriage laws based on their beliefs, creating a tension between religious freedom and the collective right to equality.

Implications of the Balance:

Maintaining Democracy and Liberty: Balancing individual and collective rights is crucial to maintaining democracy and personal liberty. Governments must ensure that individual freedoms are protected while also promoting collective welfare and security.

Judicial Role: The UK courts play an important role in adjudicating conflicts between individual and collective rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 allows UK courts to interpret laws in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and courts can issue declarations of incompatibility if they find that legislation disproportionately limits individual rights.

Legislative Considerations: Parliament must weigh the public interest against personal freedoms when crafting laws. This can lead to controversial legislation where certain rights are restricted to benefit the greater good, such as laws on terrorism, protest regulation, or public health measures.

Protection of Civil Liberties in the UK

Civil liberties pressure groups play a crucial role in raising public awareness and challenging government actions that threaten these freedoms.

Parliament's Role in Protecting Civil Liberties

The UK Parliament plays a crucial role in protecting civil liberties, which are the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to individuals in a democratic society. Civil liberties include rights such as freedom of speech, the right to privacy, freedom of assembly, and the right to a fair trial. These rights are essential to ensuring that citizens can live without undue interference from the state and participate fully in society.

Parliament, as the supreme legislative body in the UK, is responsible for creating, amending, and scrutinizing laws that affect civil liberties. Through its legislative function, as well as its role in holding the government to account, Parliament serves as a key protector of individual rights and freedoms.

Parliament itself can act to protect civil liberties. Notable instances include:

• The defeat of attempts to extend detention without charge to 90 days in 2005 and 42 days in 2008 by the Blair government.
• The coalition government's repeal of the Identity Cards Act in 2010.
• Ongoing terrorist attacks such as the Manchester bombing have been used to justify the restriction of civil liberties in the name of collective rights and the protection of society as a whole.

Key Functions of Parliament in Protecting Civil Liberties:

Legislative Role:

• Parliament's primary role in protecting civil liberties is through the creation and amendment of laws that safeguard individual rights.

• Key legislation protecting civil liberties includes:

  • The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA): This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, allowing citizens to enforce their rights in domestic courts.
  • The Equality Act 2010: This Act consolidates anti-discrimination laws and protects individuals from unfair treatment based on characteristics like race, gender, disability, and religion.
  • The Freedom of Information Act 2000: This law promotes government transparency by allowing citizens to request access to information held by public bodies.

• Parliament has the power to pass new laws that enhance civil liberties or, conversely, to limit them in certain circumstances, such as in matters of national security. Scrutiny and Accountability:

• Parliament holds the government to account through its scrutiny functions, ensuring that executive actions do not infringe on civil liberties without justification.

• Select Committees, such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), play an essential role in reviewing legislation and government policies to ensure they comply with human rights obligations. The JCHR reviews bills, conducts inquiries, and produces reports on issues related to human rights and civil liberties.

• Parliament can question ministers, hold debates, and demand explanations for government actions that might affect civil liberties, such as surveillance programs or the use of emergency powers. Protecting Civil Liberties During Emergencies:

• During national emergencies, such as terrorist threats or public health crises, Parliament may grant the government extraordinary powers to protect public safety. However, these powers must be balanced with the need to protect civil liberties.

• For example, the Coronavirus Act 2020 gave the government sweeping powers to limit freedom of movement and close businesses to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Parliament plays a critical role in ensuring that such powers are proportionate, temporary, and subject to review.

• Parliament also includes sunset clauses in emergency legislation, which automatically expire these powers unless renewed, ensuring that they do not undermine civil liberties permanently. Amendments and Repeal of Laws:

• Parliament has the power to amend or repeal laws that infringe on civil liberties. If legislation is found to be too restrictive or incompatible with human rights, Parliament can act to modify or abolish it.

• An example of this is the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (Snooper's Charter), which faced significant scrutiny for expanding surveillance powers. While the Act was passed, it continues to be reviewed to ensure it does not unjustifiably limit privacy rights.

Key Legislation Protecting Civil Liberties:

Human Rights Act 1998:

• The Act empowers Parliament to scrutinize laws for compatibility with human rights and enables courts to issue declarations of incompatibility when laws violate ECHR rights. Equality Act 2010:

• This Act consolidates anti-discrimination laws and ensures equal treatment for all citizens, protecting civil liberties related to freedom from discrimination. It covers employment, education, public services, and more.

• Parliament enacted the Act to ensure that disadvantaged or minority groups have equal access to opportunities, thus promoting fairness and justice. Freedom of Information Act 2000:

• The FOIA promotes transparency and accountability by giving citizens the right to access information held by public bodies. This ensures that individuals can scrutinize government decisions and hold public authorities accountable for actions that may affect their rights.

Challenges and Controversies in Parliament's Role:

Balancing Civil Liberties and National Security:

• Parliament often faces the challenge of balancing civil liberties with national security concerns. Laws such as the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 give the government significant powers, including detention without charge and surveillance, which can infringe upon individual freedoms.

• Parliament's role is to ensure that these measures are necessary and proportionate, preventing the erosion of rights while ensuring public safety. Judicial Role and Parliamentary Sovereignty:

• The judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting civil liberties by interpreting laws and ensuring that they comply with human rights standards. However, Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament retains the ultimate power to legislate, even in ways that might restrict civil liberties.

• This creates tension between the judiciary, which seeks to protect individual rights, and Parliament, which may pass laws limiting these rights, particularly in areas like national security or public order. Impact of Brexit on Civil Liberties:

• Brexit has raised questions about the future protection of civil liberties, particularly as the UK is no longer bound by EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

• Parliament's role in safeguarding civil liberties becomes even more critical in this context, as it must ensure that domestic law continues to provide robust protections for individual rights.

Parliament's Limitations:

Executive Dominance:

• In a political system where the executive often controls a majority in the House of Commons, the government may pass legislation with limited opposition, even if it restricts civil liberties.

• This can limit Parliament's ability to effectively challenge laws that threaten individual freedoms, particularly if government backbenchers prioritize party loyalty over civil liberties concerns. The Role of the House of Lords:

• The House of Lords plays a key role in scrutinizing legislation and protecting civil liberties by amending or delaying controversial bills. However, the Lords can only delay legislation, not block it indefinitely, meaning its ability to protect civil liberties is constrained by the Commons' supremacy.

A British Bill of Rights?

The British Bill of Rights is a proposed reform to replace or reform the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) in the UK. The government has suggested that a British Bill of Rights would ensure that British courts, rather than European courts, have the final say on interpreting human rights in the UK. This proposal stems from concerns about the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the belief that the current Human Rights Act gives too much power to judges and European institutions over British sovereignty.

This proposal aims to provide clearer responsibilities for individuals and recognize parliamentary sovereignty over judicial decisions.

Motivation Behind the British Bill of Rights Proposal:

Sovereignty and National Control:

• Proponents argue that the Human Rights Act allows European judges to have too much influence over British laws and policies. A British Bill of Rights would give British courts the final authority on human rights cases, reducing reliance on the European Court of Human Rights.

• The Bill would emphasize parliamentary sovereignty, ensuring that elected officials, rather than judges, have the final say on significant human rights matters. National Values and Context:

• Advocates for a British Bill of Rights argue that it would better reflect British values, traditions, and circumstances. They suggest that a domestic framework would be more attuned to national priorities, such as balancing security concerns with civil liberties.

• This could potentially allow for more flexibility in issues like deporting foreign criminals, where the UK government has faced restrictions under the current human rights framework. Concerns about Judicial Activism:

• Critics of the Human Rights Act claim that it has led to judicial activism, where judges are perceived to be making decisions that go beyond interpreting the law, essentially shaping policy.

• A British Bill of Rights might seek to limit the extent to which judges can interpret or expand human rights protections. Post-Brexit Context:

• With the UK no longer part of the European Union, some argue that it is an opportunity to further disentangle UK law from European institutions. Reforming or replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights would be seen as part of this process of asserting UK legal independence

Case studies:

Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties)

Background:

Liberty, founded in 1934, is one of the UK's most prominent civil rights and liberties organizations. It campaigns for human rights and civil liberties through a combination of advocacy, legal challenges, and public education.

Objectives:

• To protect and promote civil liberties and human rights.
• To ensure that the government and public authorities respect the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Methods of Influence:

Legal Action:

• Impact: Successful legal challenges can lead to changes in legislation or the repeal of laws that infringe on civil liberties. Advocacy and Lobbying:

• Impact: Through sustained advocacy efforts, Liberty helps shape legislative agendas and public policy, ensuring that human rights considerations are prioritized. Public Campaigns and Education:

• Impact: These campaigns raise public awareness and generate grassroots support, putting pressure on policymakers to uphold civil liberties. Research and Reports:

• Impact: Providing evidence-based research helps Liberty build a strong case for policy changes and educates both the public and decision-makers about key civil rights issues.

Influence:

Liberty has a significant impact on civil rights and liberties in the UK through its legal expertise, advocacy, and public engagement. It plays a crucial role in holding the government accountable and ensuring that human rights are respected and protected.

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Background:

The Howard League for Penal Reform, established in 1866, is the oldest penal reform organization in the world. It campaigns for less crime, safer communities, and fewer people in prison.

Objectives:

• To achieve a more humane and effective penal system.
• To reduce the prison population and improve conditions for prisoners.

Methods of Influence:

Policy Advocacy and Lobbying:

• Impact: Through persistent lobbying, the Howard League influences policy changes that promote rehabilitation over punishment and aim to reduce reoffending rates. Legal Work:

• Impact: Legal victories ensure that the rights of prisoners are upheld and contribute to broader systemic changes in the penal system. Research and Reports:

• Impact: Research-based advocacy helps the Howard League build a compelling case for reform and informs policymakers and the public about effective strategies for reducing crime and improving the justice system. Public Campaigns:

• Impact: Public campaigns raise awareness, mobilize support, and put pressure on policymakers to adopt more humane and effective penal policies.

Influence:

The Howard League for Penal Reform has a profound influence on the UK's criminal justice system through its comprehensive approach, combining advocacy, legal action, research, and public campaigning. Its work has led to significant reforms that promote a more just and effective penal system.

Conclusion

Both Liberty and the Howard League for Penal Reform play critical roles in defending and promoting civil rights and liberties in the UK. Through legal action, advocacy, research, and public campaigns, these organizations ensure that human rights are protected and that the penal system is humane and effective. Their efforts contribute significantly to shaping policies and raising public awareness about crucial civil liberties and justice issues.