LONDON (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Labour’s shadow justice minister, Ellie Reeves claims the bill of rights to be a con. It was not required. Why was the government proceeding with this then? Because this was a government that enjoyed putting the blame for its own mistakes on others, she said at the session during the PMQs on Wednesday.Â
The fact that some Tories even wish to have Britain leave the ECHR, according to her, is disgraceful. She calls it “shameful” coming from the party of Winston Churchill.
She asked Raab to denounce his coworkers who supported this.
She claims that Labour brought back human rights from Strasbourg. All around the world, people respect the Human Rights Act. And it works because Strasbourg now only seldom overturns British court rulings.
She claims that the government’s defence of human rights in Ukraine while denying them to citizens at home is hypocritical.
Since the Human Rights Act was regarded as a model of contemporary human rights law around the world, the European Court rarely overruled their judges, as the review panel acknowledged in its findings. It served as a ray of hope for citizens in nations where powerful men and dictators trampled on fundamental human rights, she added.Â
Ms Reeves further said that there was currently no better illustration of that than in Ukraine, where millions of people’s rights were being violated by Vladimir Putin’s thugs. What alarming hypocrisy on the part of that government to preach to others about the value of upholding human rights overseas while taking away the rights of the British people at home.
She provided instances of how the HRA has defended individuals’ rights. She further claims that because the HRA has defended women, the new measure is in fact an attack on them.
This bill of rights scam targeted more than simply crime victims who the government had neglected to assist. Women were being attacked. When the police had either ignored or refused to look into rape and sexual assault cases, women had challenged them under the Human Rights Act, she said.
It should not be shocking that a Conservative administration that had effectively decriminalised rape had introduced such law. The scorecards from last week revealed pathetic advancements in the government’s record low rape conviction rate.
Tory MPs reacted loudly when it is claimed that the administration has effectively decriminalised rape.
If women did not have a way to make police investigate rape charges, according to Reeves, reporting such allegations would be useless, she added.
Dominic Raab argues that nothing in the law weakened victim rights, in reference to Reeves’ remarks regarding rapes. According to him, the bill will improve the position of victims.
He also claims that rape prosecutions are rising.
In contrast to the Human Rights Act’s authors, he claims Labour is naive to the legislation’s issues. He claims that when the HRA was approved, Jack Straw, the home secretary, indicated that it needed to be rebalanced. He claims to have said that it is a charter for villains.
He claims that the model he used was inspired by a textbook he read in 1999. It stated that the European Court of Human Rights’ role was mainly concerned with supervision and was authored by an expert in the field. According to Raab, its function was subsidiary to that of domestic authority. He said that the book also claimed that the European Court had no place in domestic law unless human rights were being violated.
Raab claims that a question has been raised regarding the authorship of the book. He claims it was Keir Starmer. A landmark work on the HRA. He asserts that Starmer was a more persuasive attorney than politician.
