Proposed UK Bill Of Rights Is ‘Dictatorship Legislation’

Human Rights

Whilst everyone is celebrating the removal of many of the provisions on the Coronavirus Act, the government is performing a classic ‘bait and switch’ and is looking to bring in legislation that not only strengthens their ability to impose on ourselves and our day to day lives, but that also looks to clamp down hard on any dissent.

Right now, they’re running two of the most important consultations of our time, two pieces of legislation are being proposed – an Online Safety Bill, and the new UK Bill of Rights.

The Online Safety bill has, amongst other things – provisions to criminalise ‘disinformation’ or anything anyone finds ‘distressing’ online, and the scope of this is broad. Effectively anyone sharing thoughts contrary to the narrative could be criminalised if someone decided to report you for sharing it, and the threshold for ‘offence’ is forever being lowered.

Whilst the Online Safety Bill is a concern, of far greater worry should be the proposal to remove the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new UK ‘Bill of Rights’

Now this is a bill that has been described by our Human Rights Legal Advisor as ‘Dictatorship Legislation’ – and what many don’t realise is that this is a fundamental re-writing of the relationship between the government and all of us.

Let’s get one thing clear – any ‘Human Rights’ granted to you are a subjugation of you regardless.

Your human rights are not ‘granted’ to you by anyone.

Yet what the government seeks to do is to make your human rights subservient to the benefit of “the common good” and prioritise the state over the individual, and as we know the ‘common good’ has always been the mantra of almost every dictatorship when oppressing the individual, and they get to define what the ‘common good’ is.

They also seek to make your human rights conditional on your behaviour (including past behaviour) according to their rules.  If you’re not a valuable member of their ‘society’, they can treat you differently.  Couple this with digital ID and central bank digital currencies, which we know they want to put in place, they are in effect moving to the social credit ideology of the Chinese Communist State.

Under this Bill, courts will no longer be allowed to amend an Act of Parliament where it conflicts with Human Rights, as the Will of Parliament shall be deemed supreme. Our legal system is based on 900 years of case law and precedence, if a law is unjust the courts can and have changed it – this has always been a fundamental check and balance in our democracy.

This act seeks to remove that check.

The Human Rights Act is not perfect – but these proposals are the biggest threat to our Human Rights yet and must be opposed by anyone who values freedom and liberty for the individual.

These proposals for a Bill of Rights.

(1) seek to bring in a permission stage for anyone trying to action their human rights in the Courts. In other words, you must show that the breach of your god given rights is not “trivial” and must first pass a high threshold test to be even considered.

Any breach of your fundamental rights is NEVER trivial.

(2) The positive obligations of the Police and Local Authorities to act to prevent a breach of human rights is to be considerably diminished. They carefully quote the “threat to Life “warnings detailing how this is applied to criminals seeking protection etc but avoid one of the main reasons for these positive obligations was to protect women who were being murdered by their estranged partners.

(3) They seek to make the exercise of an in individuals claim for a breach of their human rights to be subservient to the benefit of “the common good” thus prioritising the State over the individual. Overlooking that the State is of course made up of individuals. The common good has always been the mantra of every dictatorship when oppressing the individual.

(4) They seek to make an individual’s human rights conditional on the individual’s behaviour (including past behaviour) in effect moving to the social credit ideology of the Chinese Communist State.

(5) The Courts will no longer be allowed to amend an Act of Parliament where it conflicts with Human Rights as the Will of Parliament shall be deemed supreme. Thus, the Court’s will no longer be a check on the Government enacting legislation against human rights.

(6) They seek to diminish the right to Judicial review in respect of Statutory Instruments which might contravene Human Rights. Many of the COVID restrictions were and are issued under these. Thus, the rights to challenge the abuse of power by the Government by way of judicial review will likely entirely vanish.

(7) They seek to give the Government the power to direct the Courts how they must interpret legislation. Thereby rendering the power of the courts to protect the individual by way of Statutory interpretation inoperative and rendering the notion of the separation of powers meaningless.

Until 8th March – they’re asking for our opinions, and you can enter your thoughts on the act on the government website by visiting the link below- we implore all of you to do so.

You can also visit where there is a template that you can use to respond to the consultation in less than 5 minutes.

The full consultation can be viewed by visiting the link below.

Related Posts