To Europeans such as myself, the liberal approach to gun ownership in the U.S. is one of the most difficult political positions to understand. On a daily basis, one can read about how another tragic scenario has resulted in a person or persons being shot dead. In fact, there are commonly multiple scenarios such as this in the U.S. every day. In December last year, the Washington Post published results from the CDC that showed more people are killed by guns than in motor vehicle accidents in 22 states across the USA at present – a startling and frankly terrifying stat. Where human rights are concerned, guns quite obviously pose a significant threat to the enjoyment of our human rights, despite some quite entertaining arguments that suggest they actually support the application of human rights (see here for example, where it is suggested gun control is the “ultimate human rights violation”, as guns help us protect such rights from being infringed…). Even after reading such well-though out arguments (NOTE – although I jest about such pro-gun ownership arguments, this article provides evidence rubbishing claims that gun ownership support human rights by deterring people from infringing such rights if you are interested in the actual credibility of such stats), people generally understand that guns kill people, and to kill someone outright infringes their right to life, as well as every other human right we obtain as you simply cannot enjoy such rights without living. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the implementation of human rights would be supported by reducing the negative effects of gun ownership in America.
Law
Trump is unpatriotic for wanting to “build walls” – here’s why…
Pope Francis recently stated that Donald Trump wants to “build walls and not build bridges” when discussing the policies he is promoting in his efforts to become the Republican candidate in the presidential elections at the end of this year. What Pope Francis was referring to, was the fact that Trump has repeatedly stated he wants to close off America to pretty much everyone who is not American (although, he wants to kick out some Americans too). For example, Trump thinks that the USA should prohibit Muslims from entering the country, as a counter-terrorism effort and his reasoning for this? To promote his nationalistic goals and protect America as “the greatest country on Earth”. However, in this article I’m going to argue that the measures Trump promotes are actually unpatriotic and make America look a far less great country than he argues it is, as it restricts the liberties and freedoms that America has built itself upon, as well as suggesting he wants to hide away from the problem of terrorism, instead of attempting to resolve the issues. Sorry Donald…
Law and Human Rights in Iceland
Today’s article marks the start of my Travelling series on THWBlog – discussing law and human rights in numerous countries and states that I visit over the next four months approximately. My travels begin with a short trip to Iceland before visiting numerous parts of North and South America. Although articles will be less regular than usual, I hope it provides an insight for all of my readers into the practices of nations other than the UK. I hope you enjoy the series!
Christmas Rights – Article 14 Prohibition of Discrimination
Today represents the last article analysis as part of the Christmas Rights series and an incredibly important principle it is too; the anti-discrimination principle:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Christmas Rights – Article 12 Right to Marry
Article 12 affords us all the right to make sure everyone knows that we’re in love, by spending a ton of money on a wedding and watching your Dad fall asleep in the corner of the dancefloor, with his tie wrapped around his head:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
What does this mean?
Unlike previous rights and freedoms considered, there’s not too much to be confused about with this right. In the UK if you are of marriageable age, you can get hitched and start a family. There are no exceptions, except the restrictions prescribed by law such as who you can marry or how many people you can marry at one time.
Christmas Rights – Article 11 Freedom of Assembly and Association
Article 11 represents an important right for all of us who may want to protest authoritarian decisions that we feel collectively do not serve our best interests, as well as our right to enjoy things collectively:
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2 No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
What does this mean?
The freedom of assembly authorises us to be part of a large group of people for an incredibly wide range of things; from protests to parties. It allows us to protect our common interests from being infringed by those employing us and governing us. Some of the most famous gatherings of people; the March against the Iraq War in 2003, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963 and (almost) every year at Glastonbury – represent examples of us using our freedom to assemble and Article 11 ensures our right to continue to do so in the future.
Protests have long been a method for the people to unlock the power of the powerful. Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 – one of the most important legal documents in this country’s history, which was a method of the omnipotent monarchy to appease the resenting people – we have earned the opportunity to say ‘no’ to decisions that we do not agree with. Since 1215 we have seen occasions worldwide such as the Boston Tea Party (1773), the French Revolution (1790’s), the Suffragettes (1913) and the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s United States all represent huge steps in which people gathered together to tell those in charge that they do not have as much power as they think. That those who they are supposed to represent, are ready to be represented. As Martin Luther King Jr said:
Article 11 was made part of the European Convention of Human Rights and therefore the Human Rights Act 1998 to allow the people to carry on taking such steps and ensuring we remain represented, equal and continue to support true democracy. Not only that, but if a million of us fancy getting together in Hyde Park and dancing/moving out of rhythm to the Beegees, Article 11 and all those years of graft from some of the bravest humans of all time allow us to do that too. So be thankful from the bottom of your Night Fever hearts.
Are there any exceptions and how well are they implemented?
As expected, sometimes precautions need to be taken. Unfortunately accidents can sometimes seem unavoidable when large groups of people assemble and we have a tragic number of examples this year alone. Exceptions (like in other articles) are in place if they are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of security, health and morals.
There are an incredible number of laws in place that can act as exceptions to this right. The Court’s will always look to protect our rights and freedoms from infringement, however the ‘prescription by law’ line perhaps allow authorities more discretion than intended, as they look to defend themselves in claims of infringement. Legislation setting out the police’s powers and the procedure for industrial action to be carried out within, represent two controversial areas where such concerns have been raised. It is often suggested that the police either do not fully understand these powers they possess when it comes to ensuring protests and assemblies remain peaceful and safe, or they just plain don’t care about the powers and see themselves as above the law (something those who have read my simple definition of the rule of law will know cannot be true, silly silly police officers). Furthermore, there has been a huge amount of commentary on industrial action and how these industrial action laws sit too far in the favour of employers (who it should be noted can also use industrial action) and unreasonably limit this freedom of assembly right, to deter people from invoking it. The Trade Union Bill has been an example of recent controversy in this area, as numerous commentators suggest it is an unruly attack on the working people of the UK, whilst Sajid Javid MP, our business secretary, suggested it is necessary to guard against “militants”.
Trying to avoid boring you with the great details of this backlash, the bill is looking to give someone called the Certification Officer seemingly unlimited powers to investigate the work of trade unions (which are groups organising employees in their respective sectors to produce more efficient and hopefully successful industrial action). Furthermore, it is trying to introduce the ability for employers to hire temporary workers to cover any employees striking, removing the main strength of a strike. As a comparable example, it’s sort of like your Mum taking your chocolate bar away from you for misbehaving and your Nan just giving you a new chocolate bar. It omits the point of your Mum’s action and you never learn. Hence why your Mum is still having to take chocolate from you as an adult in an effort to make you behave yourself.
On top of this, we have the potential introduction of minimum turnouts for strike votes and they are probably going to make every worker in the country get their employer’s logo tattooed on their forehead to make sure consumers stop getting confused about who actually works at Topshop for example.
Okay the last point isn’t true, but you get the point; there are some strong suggestions that these exceptions are restricting are Article 11 freedom too much and Topshop need to make their employee’s wear a uniform. Preferably bright colours and a stupid hat to remove any confusion.
I have to say that this bill will almost certainly go through many amendments before reaching Royal Assent and becoming real law. And it may not even get that far – it may be struck out in the near future. Also, it should be remembered that these are exceptions to our rights. Therefore the right is not ‘freedom to stop people standing up for what they believe in and/or watching England go out of a tournament again, in a town square, on a big screen, whilst they all burn in the 15 degree heatwave’. The right is to stand up for our beliefs and suffer in the town centre. The exceptions are supposedly there to protect the continuation of that right. So, be optimistic and be glad we have yet another right to hold the state accountable for any attempts they make overstate their authority.
There are exceptions and we are lucky enough to live in a country that applies these exceptions extremely well compared to many, less-democratic states. Our right to assembly has been used successfully multiple times in recent history, most notably being used as a threat in the debate surrounding the NHS and junior doctors. There are certainly questions to be asked about how restrictive these exceptions can be, but that is a political question. Something I want to try and empower you to discover the answer for yourselves. Not simply feed a bias answer to you. The internet is truly wonderful if you avoid the scams and viruses and trolls. It has so many articles, pictures and blogs begging for you to read them and learn a little more about Article 11 and the restrictions on it. So, utilise them! And let me know what you think!
Sorry this one is late, and I hope it isn’t too rant-like! Let me know what you think, or if you have any questions. See you (hopefully) at an earlier time tomorrow for an analysis of Article 12’s the right to marry! Also, shout out to the Guardian and BBC websites and their numerous articles and timelines for providing me with hard-hitting facts.
Christmas Rights – Article 7 No punishment without law
Article 7 represents a globally important constitutional principle:
1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2 This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.
Christmas Rights – Article 6 Right to a fair trial
Article 6 (like our right to liberty) is one of the most fundamental rights in supporting our democratic society. Although many of us will hopefully never have to ensure this right is invoked it is nonetheless central to ensuring we achieve justice. The right to a fair trial is set out as such:
1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
Christmas Rights – Article 5 Right to Liberty and Security of person
Our right to liberty and security is set out in quite a lengthy manner:
1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Christmas Rights – Article 4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Another day, another article and yet another that I’m sure you’re incredibly glad to have. Article 4 affords us the luxury of not being subjected to slavery or servitude:
1 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3 For the purpose of this Article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.
What does this mean?
This means no one can enslave you or force you to work against your wishes. Like Article 3, this is an absolute right as well – there are no circumstances at all where slavery or forced labour is acceptable. However, as you can see from the article itself, the scope of what constitutes forced labour is made quite clear, unlike in previous articles where its scope is left rather vague for the courts to interpret as they deem necessary for our society at present. Here, work done in detention (such as community service), national service, work in emergencies and work as part of your normal civic obligations (for example, jury service) do not constitute forced labour.
Although they quite clearly set out what doesn’t constitute an infringement of Article 4 in the Act – there is still the common vagueness of what does constitute an infringement. An infringement would mean that slavery and forced labour are not illegal (so the law needs to protect people from it). Secondly, as the case of C.N. & V v France (2012) shows, signatory states to the ECHR must fully investigate suspicions of slavery and servitude in an effort to combat them – otherwise they fail to meet their obligations under the Convention and therefore infringe it.
What is slavery/forced labour? Well, it doesn’t just entail the Les Miserables introduction of a ball and chain around your ankle and being whipped whilst thousands belt out a song. It includes human trafficking (something Cyprus learnt very quickly in the case of Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia) for example. But, yes the stereotypical examples are still around and therefore that is what Article 4 is there to stop. In Siliadin v France, a young girl was forced to work unpaid in a private household for a number of years, without pay or days off. She had entered France with the hope of studying and had no idea that the reality of this situation lay ahead of her. The European Court of Human Rights actually came to the decision that this did not constitute her being enslaved, because her ‘employers’ did not have such legal ownership over her, to reduce her to a mere ‘object’. As astonishing as this decision sounds, luckily it was held she was being held in servitude so there was a violation, but it does show how strange the scope of this topic really can be.
Is the prohibition adhered to?
Again like Article 3, slavery has a long history in our world. I am sure many of you have read and learned about the slave triangle for example and understand that in the past slavery has been a welcome part of our society at the time. This is obviously not the case anymore. An infinite number of conventions, rules and regulations prohibit slavery and forced labour worldwide. Unfortunately again, simply criminalising something is not sufficient to stem the flow. This article from 2013 suggests there are still 30 MILLION slaves in the world today, spread all around the world, showing the epidemic we still face. Not only that, but the reasons people still continue with such a practice is clear – it is an extremely lucrative business – the International Labour Organisation predicting it generates £96 BILLION a year, mostly through prostitution. The UK has struggled to combat this problem regardless of laws such as Article 4’s presence (for evidence of this, look at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation at www.jrf.org.uk – they can also help you get involved in combatting the problem if you so wish), introducing new laws as recently as this year (the Modern Slavery Act 2015) in an attempt to combat the flow of forced labour in the UK.
So far, adherence has not been outstanding in the UK, and as we have seen above, this leaves the executive in a worrying position as they are liable if protections are not in place for people to avoid slavery and forced labour. However, it must be said, that the UK performs much better than many. In India for example, it is estimated that at least 1 in 100 people are subjected to slavery or forced labour. It is also a great improvement on our embarrassing historic involvement in tragedies such as the Slave Triangle.
Hopefully, this improvement will continue and soon enough this lucrative, yet evil business will be halted. But, in the meantime, enjoy that you (hopefully) know a little more about what Article 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 affords you in terms of protection. Maybe, even use that foundational knowledge as the start of learning a little more, and maybe even get involved in helping combat forced labour! This is obviously all before tomorrow when I ask you to come and learn a little more about our right under Article 5 – to liberty and security (my favourite). Have a good day everyone!
The Human Writes Blog 