Adam Wagner @AdamWagner1
Legal aid ‘deserts’ make human rights unenforceable - News from Parliament - excellent new report from @HumanRightsCtte out today
www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news-parliament-2017/enforcing-human-rights-report-published-17-19/
Legal aid ‘deserts’ make human rights unenforceable
Take a look at the "The need for a culture of human rights" section of the report from page 39. Makes important recommendations such as focus on public legal education and teaching human rights in schools
This is a great conclusion from @HumanRightsCtte's report- will anyone listen? Please retweet and like to get this report out there!
THIS MUST BE QUOTED IN RESPONSE TO THE FARCE THAT IS THE GRA CONSULTATION.
Why is the Minister for Women and Equalities ignoring this? This is HUGE. It makes the point very succinctly that the desire to be politically correct is stiffling debate and may prevent human rights from being exercised despite the law existing. If the law is unenforcable then those rights are meaningless in practice.
On the home page for the report Harriet Harman is quoted saying the following:
Harriet Harman MP, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said:
“For rights to be effective they have to be capable of being enforced.
To do this, we must have adequate and equality of access to legal information and advice; a robustly independent judiciary and legal profession; strong National Human Rights Institutions, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and a culture which understands the concept of the rule of law, respects human rights and which is supported by the Government.
At the moment we are seeing the erosion of all of those enforcement mechanisms because of a lack of access to justice and lack of understanding of the fundamental importance of human rights and the rule of law.
The Government must act urgently to address this.
Government, Parliament, the media and the legal profession all have a responsibility to consider the importance of the rule of law, and the role that rights which can be enforced through an independent court system, plays in that.
Government must exercise self-restraint and refrain from criticising the judiciary and legal profession.”
So why is Harriet Harman not holding HER OWN PARTY to these standards with regard to women's rights????
You might be interested in the names of the MPs and Lords who are on this committee. They are:
Harriet Harman LAB
Fiona Bruce CON
Karen Buck LAB
Alex Burghart CON
Joanna Cherry SNP
Baroness Hamwee LD
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon LAB
Jeremy Lefroy CON
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne CON
Baroness Prosser LAB
Lord Trimble CON
Lord Woolf Crossbench
This is the report summary in full:
Summary
Human rights have been central to the UK constitution and its legal system throughout its history. The following section of Magna Carta remains in force today, and can be found on the Government’s legislation website.
“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
For rights to be effective they have to be capable of being enforced. For that enforcement, it is essential to have:
- adequate access to legal information, advice and assistance for everyone at all income levels and in all areas of the country;
- a robustly independent judiciary;
- a robustly independent legal profession;
- a strong Equality and Human Rights Commission, held accountable for its work, and strong National Human Rights Institutions in the devolved administrations, similarly held accountable; and
- a culture which understands the concept of the rule of law, respects human rights and accepts that they will be enforced and which is supported by the Government.
Access to justice is fundamental to the rule of law. We are concerned that the reforms to legal aid introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have made access to justice more difficult for many, for whom it is simply unaffordable. Moreover, there are large areas of the country which are “legal aid deserts”, as practitioners withdraw from providing legal aid services since they can no longer afford to do this work following reductions in legal aid funding by successive governments over the past three decades. The Government is currently reviewing LASPO and we make recommendations for that review. There also needs to be a broader review into access to justice and the provision of advice and assistance, going beyond matters which might be seen as purely legal, to ensure that people can get the help needed to enforce their rights before matters escalate into expensive adversarial court proceedings. The remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission should be extended so that it can take human rights cases on the same basis as it supports equality cases. It should use those powers assertively and be given adequate resources to allow it to do so. Its work should be more closely scrutinised by Parliament accordingly.
There is a need for better general understanding of the role of the courts in enforcing human rights, and in balancing the rights of one group against another. Ill-informed media criticism can undermine support for the legal system which protects everybody’s rights–even those of groups who are unpopular. There is also a need for better education about the legal system in general, and the way in which it protects people’s human rights, and the Government should do more to support and encourage this.
In its strategy for countering terrorism, the Government sets out its definition of British values:
“We believe it is essential to protect the values of our society–the rule of law, individual liberty, democracy, mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs [ … ]"
Respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are values that the Government itself must demonstrate. The UK is fortunate in having a robustly independent judiciary. There have been occasions when Ministerial reactions to individual judgments have been inappropriate. We note that the requirement to uphold judicial independence is binding on all Ministers, in addition to the Lord Chancellor’s duty to defend such judicial independence. The Government should consider whether those requirements should also be written into the Ministerial Code.
A legal profession which fears adverse consequences from taking up unpopular causes will not be effective in defending rights: the Government must be careful not to use its voice and influence improperly.
The Government needs to make sure it appropriately prioritises due respect for rights, so that administrative decisions are taken with proper consideration of people’s rights.
Individuals should be protected from abuse by the State, and public bodies should respect the law. The UK’s legal framework allows individuals to protect their rights and gives the courts the task of deciding that balance in individual cases, within the parameters set by Parliament, which includes the Human Rights Act. There is legitimate debate over how best to protect rights and where the balance should be struck if rights compete. But no-one should lose sight of the fact that human rights, and the ability to enforce them, are amongst the hallmarks of a civilised country. Government, Parliament, the media and the legal profession all have a responsibility to consider the importance of the rule of law, and the role that rights which can be enforced through an independent court system plays in that.
My Bold.
WE MUST QUOTE THIS TO FUCKING DEATH AT PEOPLE WAILING ABOUT RIGHTS.
How can women make sure their rights are being considered if they are not even allowed at the table??!
Women and children are particularly vulnerable to legal aid cuts.
I've not had time to go through the report with a fine tooth comb but my first glance at the topic headlines came across this gem:
A hierarchy of rights?
149.The Committee received submissions indicating that some rights are not given sufficient weight compared to others, which could undermine confidence in the human rights framework as some individuals feel their rights are not protected.145 ADF International commented that: “Freedom of conscience appears in all of the major human rights treaties” and submitted that “while freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right … the lack of a clear legal test to assess whether it has been violated in practice means that it is difficult to enforce.” and “recommends that the Government advances a legal test to evaluate claims of conscience to ensure the robust protection and enforceability of freedom of conscience in practice."
150.The Barnabas Fund raised specific concerns that the culture within some public bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI), “appears to conflate the promotion of human rights and ‘equality’ with promoting the ideological agenda of particular minority groups [ … ]” When asked in oral evidence about how the EHRC prioritised cases, David Isaac, Chair of the EHRC told us that:
“Where we think there are areas, particularly in relation to legal intervention, which are unclear or need to be resolved, we will support those, irrespective of which group it most impacts on, or whether it disadvantages a particular group. From our perspective, there is no hierarchy.”
151.David Russell, Chief Executive of the NIHRC echoed these sentiments and told us that: “[r]ights are for everyone. There is no hierarchy; they are universal. If non-discrimination and freedom of religious belief are in the balance, the commissions have an important role to play” and spoke of the:
“[ … ] commission’s important role of ensuring that the public space for human rights is opened up to everyone. [ … ] Often, the commissions have more in common with faith-based communities than we have differences, particularly around [ … ] social and economic rights, and social justice matters, such as housing and health. There is lots of room for partnership where the perception of there being a dichotomy does not stack up in practice. That has to be voiced.”
152.However, when asked to address concerns as to whether the EHRC had not got the balance right in recent years when considering freedom of belief alongside other rights, David Isaac said:
“I know that there are anxieties. The commission has various stakeholder groups and one is on faith and belief. There are all sorts of discussions, and we have frank but respectful debate on areas where people disagree. We listen, wherever we can, to those differing views, but I am sure we can do more.’’
153.Government, NHRIs and human rights advocates should seek ways of engaging more effectively with the public about how different human rights are balanced, in order to address the perspectives that human rights are “for others and not for us” and that “political correctness” stifles debate. The Government should consider the introduction of a legal test to ensure that claims of conscience and faith are reasonably accommodated within the human rights framework. The rights of minority groups will always be vulnerable, and the acid test of an effective human rights system is that it must protect these groups, while ensuring the rights of the majority are also respected.
Their bold.
Please will others make a point of trying to make sure that this gets shared widely with others in the Women's Rights Community.
IT MAKES OUR POINT EXPLICITLY.