Talk:Human rights in the United Kingdom

message: What relavence does this add to the article?  I may not be too keen on the government here, but some of the 'facts' in this article are very much in the past or simple a pack of lies.  Johnx4 20:04 06 December 2006
Suggest new section on laws positive to human rights, covering e.g., when the UK introduced women's right to vote, adoption of the HR act, introduced of same-sex civil unions etc.  Also perhaps a section on the detention of immigrants.  Joe D (t) 14:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: "The United Kingdom has a long and established tradition of avowed respect for its subjects' human rights". Really? Where is your reference for this? At the very heart of the notion of subject is the relationship of subservience of the ordinary individual vis-a-vis the monarch. The UK was (before the HRA 1998) frequently before the ECHR to explain such things as shooting IRA suspects in Gibraltar, blanket immunity from prosecution for the police, different ages of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals, the extradition of a suspect to the US to face the death penalty, extraction of evidence under torture, and so on and so forth. The truth is that yes, before the HRA, there were a certain number of limited rights (such as habeas corpus and principles of natural justice), but this in no way compares with the situation after the HRA became law in 2000, hence the huge impact it has had on our legal system and the subsequent controversy. If the truth be told - yes we were pioneers in many respects in the early development of human rights (Magna Carta), but fell far behind in the last 200 years or so. Even now, we are "rights-poor" in relation to countries such as France, and perhaps even the United States (with regard to the protection of US citizens). The rose-tinted spectacles need to be removed. Ravenseft 20:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Is this an appropriate place to mention the Serious Organised Crime Act's restrictions on spontaneous protest near parliament? This seems like a restriction of the right of assembly to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.223.213 (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Ravenseft (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SOCA

message: there is a notion of the citizen in british constitutional thought, and the article talks about the influence of men like Burke but excludes Hobbes Locke and JS Mill, who were all far more influential, it was the notion of the social contract that these writers used that most written constitutions are based on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.78.253 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There may well be a notion of the citizen in constitutional theory, however there is no such theory in UK law - with which this article is concerned. If you are looking to leave comments regarding the notion of citizenship itself, I suggest you go to the citizenship article. As for your comment that Burke, Bentham, Austin, Dicey and Jennings are "minor" authors, I should point out that they are, in fact, key figures in the development of the UK Constitution. The ideas put forward by the authors which you have mentioned do not find full expression in the UK Constitution to the extent that they do, for example, in the French and US constitutions. In particular, the notion of a social contract between the state and citizen comporting civil rights for the latter is at odds with the British conception of a subject owing allegiance to the Crown and not benefiting from "positive" rights as such. I don't agree that the citizenship paragraph in the article - which was taken directly from a key legal text - is biased, indeed it represents established UK constitutional thought for the past 100 years. If you don't substantiate your arguments, I will have to remove the neutrality tag. Ravenseft (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Isn’t citizenship an important concept in relationship to rights to be protected from harm under the law? Chwyatt (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the pov tag and provided a redirect to the main citizenship article where discussion of the notion of citizenship belongs. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: notion of the citizen

message: I've removed this entire paragraph, since it had no significance for the article. Yes, there was harassment of Romanian Roma immigrants for one period in one location, but why pick out this one incident? There have been racist murders elsewhere in the UK, (and a long history of Protestant/Catholic sectarian murders in Northern Ireland) and many, many racist attacks and hostility in the news from all over the UK.Steve Graham (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist Attack in Northern Ireland 

message: Does a child no longer have the right to know who his father is?andycjp (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Paternity

message: There is no reason to do this. 
The citation of these Acts by their short titles is authorised by statute. Their citation by these abbreviations is not and is probably strictly technically innaccurate. 
Moreover, these abbreviations are likely to be confusing. I can guess what "CLA 1977", for example, probably stands for, but an ordinary person has no chance, and is going to have to click on a lot of links.James500 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation of statutory short titles 

message: I would like to reaffirm concerns by other contributors as to the perspective of this article in respect to Britain's contribution to fundamental rights, as well as the lack of 'citizenship'. Firstly the issue of citizenship, an idea emanating from 18th century France and America, is viewed very negatively in this article in respect to the UK. The UK has by comparison some of the most liberal citizenship rules in the world, with residents of certain foreign countries (Commonwealth nations) entitled full electoral rights and EU citizens allowed to vote in all but national elections. Also citizenship is a recognised legal interpretation, with the term 'subject' only used in reference to a legal resident who has not gained full citizen rights. Citizenship is even a lesson taught in English schools. 
Further the whole franchise of 'citizenship' can be interpreted as deeply flawed and discriminatory. Citizenship rights are only ever granted to individuals who meet certain criteria (jus sanguinis, jus soli and jure matrimonii) and these criteria can be made heavily restricted, as can be noted by the 451 decree in Athens that heavily curtailed access to the franchise, as it is controlled by the citizenry to their implicit advantage. Also the attitude assumes documents as enlightened as the founding documents of the United States and the French Republic had any actual impact upon groups in society, with notably non-white people in parts of America being routinely discriminated against up until 1965. It's also important to note that in France certain ethnic groups and even women continue to be discriminated against in areas of employment, yet the government and private sector are able to claim that inequality does not exist because it ended with the creation of the Republic.    
Also Britain, and in it's former guises of England and Scotland, has contributed greatly to other documents of rights around the world. For the article not to mention Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights is a travesty, after all these documents along with the evolution of Habeas Corpus (which has ambiguously developed over several centuries) have contributed greatly to the US Bill of Rights and UN Human Rights. The article needs to recognise where such basic ideas such as 'a right to trial' and 'protection of property from searches' originate from. 
Though I will always support a person's rational criticism of a countries system of governance, I think this article needs to maintain the perspective that the UK has committed grave injustices as well as contributing greatly to modern democracy. Involvement in Éire has been incredibly controversial, with the treatment of certain individuals and groups deplorable, yet the recent history of Éire has itself been deeply controversial and should never be interpreted in a protagonist/antagonist perspective. Ultimately if someone wants to publish unbiased articles on recent imperialist history, and covering all empires, then I would welcome it. Even in the last 50 years France, America and the USSR have all acted in imperialist fashion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlsie19 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition of Britain's contribution to human rights 

message: The Human Rights Act has been critisised since its inception. Yet there is no section on it. --86.31.4.222 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are looking for is the page dealing with the HRA. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree with the OP. A criticism section would be useful and linked to the main article. 2A00:23EE:1300:82A3:A0B1:2C2A:4A1:69DB (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Critisism & Controversy section? 

message: I have reinstated comments deleted inexplicably by [Hohum]. This article reads reads as an homage to the Britain, and without wishing to be unpatriotic a wiki article should be reasonably balanced.  There is a place for political blogging but it is not on wiki.
Should the article not contain the details of human rights judgements against the UK?  Should the article not contain the Human Rights judgements of the UK's higher courts against UK institutions? 
I notice that Hohum is wedded to a Daily Telegraph article about Cameron's 2007 views of the Human Rights Act.  Surely wiki should belimited to the views of Daily Telegraph which it seems are matters of political commentary, whilst court judgements even if Hohum disagrees with the UK courts, are matters of fact.
Here is the text that so offended Hohum.  Isthisuseful (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary problem with these details is that they are not appropriate for the lede per WP:LEDE. The lede is a summary of information in the body. It shouldn't have unique details. If you think the information is relevant, include it in a relevant area of the main article, with references, which were also lacking. (Hohum @) 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias and article coherence 

message: >> UK war on immigration tears families apart >> UK uses health workers in counter-terror plan (Lihaas (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Human rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080105110401/http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/humanrights/0,7368,367207,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/0,7368,367207,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article claims to be about human rights in the United Kingdom. However, aside from a single paragraph on the situation in Northern Ireland, there is no mention given to any part of the United Kingdom other than England. Indeed, it would be perfectly possible to read this article fully and come away with the impression that the UK was a single legal jurisdiction (both Northern Ireland and Scotland retain separate legal systems and as such have separate laws which impact upon their citizens' human rights differently). English laws passed by the Parliament of England are referred to as being "still in force". This may well be the case in England, however for obvious reasons laws passed by this body prior to the Acts of Union 1707 have no effect in Scots law and do not apply in Scotland (which is not even simply a common law jurisdiction), and acts passed prior to the Acts of Union 1800 cannot have force in Northern Ireland law. The primacy given to mentions of the Magna Carta (passed in the early 13th century by a Kingdom of England without legal authority in either Ireland or Scotland) is emblematic of this. Certain sections even contain direct wikilinks to the relevant article on English law in the section headers, thus utterly ignoring the other jurisdictions, even when they are directly relevant and had major effects upon English law in the relevant area (setting aside the fact that they remain the only law in those areas of the UK where English law does not have force). As an example, the article links to the page Privacy in English law, despite Scots law having been shown to interpret privacy rights differently, as evidenced by the fact that the Sunday Herald was able to publish Ryan Giggs's face as the player central to the CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd case, by virtue of being published in Scotland where such "superinjunctions" did not apply. The article also talks about trespass, which is not an offence under Scots law (and is approached very differently in Scotland; see Right of way#United Kingdom), and contains a link to Marriage in England and Wales in another section header, which obviously ignores the legal situation in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am not a lawyer or a law expert, and I would be the first to admit I know nothing at all of Northern Ireland law, but I feel that the article cannot be representative without consideration or even mention of the fact that separate legal jurisdictions exist in the UK (some of which rely to various extents on civil law). In addition, these other jurisdictions will have human rights implications of their own quite different from England, such as those arising from the existance of a not proven verdict in Scottish courts, or from the requirement for corroboration in Scots law. To ignore these differences entirely and present an image of the UK legal system as monolithic is at best unrepresentative, misleading and inaccurate, and at worst is a serious violation of WP:NPOV by implying that these other jurisdictions are unimportant. Large sections of this article should therefore be rewritten by someone with more knowledge on the subject in order to clarify which legal jurisdictions are affected by the issues under discussion, and which are not, or are affected differently or by other issues entirely. 88.108.72.206 (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 88.108.72.206, I made some changes to start addressing the points above. Please help make further improvements to the article. Whizz40 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

text: The main issues raised above have been addressed. There is as yet no article on Privacy in Scots law as far as I can see, but the other points raised above have been addressed. Whizz40 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrepresentitive Anglocentric Viewpoint

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cjs-review.pdf/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825222904/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-13&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-13&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added  tag to http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3861/194
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/0%2C7368%2C367207%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Human rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518165108/http://www.worldii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1978/1.html to http://www.worldii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1978/1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621123908/http://amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10314 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10314
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524110555/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR300032005 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR300032005
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080417013110/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/convention-against-trafficking to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/convention-against-trafficking
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050311094703/http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128202743/http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/1094/ to http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/1094/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621123908/http://amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10314 to http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10314
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218191044/http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080410 to http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=080410
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005052518/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/UNCRDP/UN%20SR%20Disabilities%20Submission%20social%20security.doc to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/UNCRDP/UN%20SR%20Disabilities%20Submission%20social%20security.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Human rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160313232551/http://www.cilex.org.uk/about_cilex_lawyers/the_uk_legal_system.aspx to http://www.cilex.org.uk/about_cilex_lawyers/the_uk_legal_system.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Human rights in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006092303/http://www.consoc.org.uk/other-content/about-us/discover-the-facts/the-rule-of-law/ to http://www.consoc.org.uk/other-content/about-us/discover-the-facts/the-rule-of-law/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105132731/http://www.thelawyer.com/the-eu-charter-of-rights/1005919.article to http://www.thelawyer.com/the-eu-charter-of-rights/1005919.article
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113174057/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/our-human-rights-work/international-framework/monitoring-and-promoting-un-treaties/ to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/our-human-rights-work/international-framework/monitoring-and-promoting-un-treaties/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113173324/http://www.scottishhumanrights.com/news/latestnews/article/concludingobservationscedaw to http://www.scottishhumanrights.com/news/latestnews/article/concludingobservationscedaw
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've made a series of much needed updates and extensions to this page. Quite a lot from the Clayton and Tomlinson (2009) book has been superseded by events: more generally there was a need to ensure that material is properly sourced with case and statute as well as referring to texts. If anyone has more suggestions, I'd be very glad to hear them and accommodate as best I can. Wikidea 10:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: Having praised Russian protesters, for bravely standing up to their Government, Tory MPs now fully support British Govt laws limiting the right to protest. Given such clear attacks on the (human) Right to protest, is it possible for such shameless double-standards to be highlighted within this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.22 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Limiting of the Right to Protest at Home