| You are in: UK | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wednesday, 29 March, 2000, 16:25 GMT 17:25 UK
What the Human Rights Act means for you
![]() On the march but how will the new law empower us?
Sex at school, cross-dressing in the classroom and gay marriages - according to some press reports, this will be the upshot of the new Human Rights Act.
The act, which comes into effect in October, will enshrine the 50-year-old European Convention on Human Rights into British law. For years it has been a political football - kicked into touch by the Conservatives, it became a cornerstone of Labour policy in opposition. Now the legal world is abuzz with expectation. Many in the field consider it the most significant and far-reaching piece of legislation in a generation.
Which helps explain the controversy. On Wednesday a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research revealed many potential targets of the new law were unprepared for its full impact.
The Daily Telegraph reported the act could clear the way for gay relationships among schoolchildren over 16 while schools which forced pupils to attend church services may be open to legal action for "religious discrimination". Under article 10 of the act - freedom of expression - it said pupils could challenge the rules on school uniform and even insist on cross-dressing. Long trip to Strasbourg Previous reports have alleged the act might force clergy to perform gay marriages and bring about a de facto privacy law. In fact, the principles of the convention have applied in Britain since 1953 but, until now, those who sought to use it had to embark on a lengthy and costly journey to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. From October, litigants will be able to pursue claims under the convention in British courts.
Sarah Cooke, director of the British Institute for Human Rights, acknowledges it will have greater potency on home turf.
Currently, the Strasbourg court can throw out cases under a "margin of appreciation" principle if it considers the matter too localised, and so unsuitable for an international court. The new act protects human rights under three broad categories:
The terms are vague, so the act itself does not enshrine many specific rights as such. It simply gives a context in which courts must act. The 1950 convention was originally aimed at securing justice for individuals whose rights were being denied by the state. In the intervening years many private organisations have taken to carrying out the work of public bodies.
So it is the new law will apply to public institutions and those, such as independent schools, nursing homes and charities, which perform "public functions".
It will be up to the court to determine the limits of exactly what is a public body, says Ms Cooke, who rejects some of the more "extreme" scenarios set out in some newspapers. Many principles set out in the act are already enshrined in UK law, she says. Lawyer Stephen Grosz agrees, dismissing some of the press speculation as scaremongering.
"We've been a part of this convention for almost 50 years. If these problems had been going to occur they would have been taken to Strasbourg already," says Mr Grosz.
"Other countries have had it as part of their law and constitution for a very long time but you don't see these things happening there." The effects, he suspects, will be in less sensational areas of law, such as planning and environment where, he says, there will be a greater duty on public authorities to protect people from environmental pollution. But leading lawyer Robert Boyd, thinks the act will cause plenty of waves, particularly in his specialist field of education. "The Human Rights Act is going to change the legal and cultural landscape of the country," he says. "If a schoolchild is caught having sex and the school says no you cannot do this and you will have to leave, the pupil may go straight to court requesting an injunction and ordering reinstatement on the grounds of violation of human rights under freedom of expression. "I do not think people are going to win these cases. If you take human rights too literally, you will completely destroy the culture we are used to."
|
See also:
Internet links:
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites Links to other UK stories are at the foot of the page.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Links to more UK stories
|
|
|
^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy |
|