Skip to content or view screen version

Freedom of thought is a 'limited right' says PM

Stephen Mullen | 20.12.2006 21:35 | Repression

The Prime Minister's office has said that "freedom of thought and conscience" are limited rights in response to online petition calling for halt to erosion of civil liberties.

In a response to a petition on the PM's website calling for the "halt to the erosion of civil liberties and rights," the Prime Minister's Office responded saying that "The majority of the Convention rights are, however, limited or qualified. Examples of these rights include: the right to respect for private and family life; and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Limited and qualified Convention rights can be restricted."

So after they've taken the rest of my civil liberties will the government be sending round the thought police to make sure I'm not thinking any "terrorist thoughts"? I'm sure I accidentally thought of a few just reading the PM’s statement.

I'd ask if Tony Blair has a conscience about removing people's civil liberties, but it appears he has limited his right to one.

The full response from the PM to the petition can be found below and at
 http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10666.asp
 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/liberty/


Thank you for your petition dated 16 November entitled "Halt the erosion of civil liberties and rights"

Human rights belong to everyone in the United Kingdom and give a very important means of protection for all. The Human Rights Act puts public authorities including Government, hospitals and social services under an obligation to treat people with fairness, equality, dignity and respect. It ensures a level of service below which no public authority should fall. The Act offers a way to tackle problems including substandard care and poor service. You are given added protection by the Act allowing you, as a last resort, to bring a case against a public authority in a UK court.

The Act secures a fair balance between the general interests of society and the protection of the fundamental rights of each individual. Everyone has the benefit of the rights and freedoms protected by the Human Rights Act. Only a few of the rights protected by the Human Rights Act are absolute. They include protection against torture, slavery and retrospective criminal penalties. The Government believes that these rights should be absolute in recognition that such treatment can never be justified in a civilised, democratic society, even where the person seeking to rely on their human rights has committed a crime.

The majority of the Convention rights are, however, limited or qualified. Examples of these rights include: the right to respect for private and family life; and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Limited and qualified Convention rights can be restricted. The types of reasons the state can give for interfering with the individual's rights include: the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country; 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. The more serious the threat is to the general public interest, the more stringent the measures are that can be justified.

Criminals do not always have the unrestricted right to the freedoms contained in the Human Rights Act. Indeed the Act specifically stipulates that people convicted of crimes can be deprived of their liberty and should not be released from prison early if they present a serious danger to others. Those who have no right to reside in the UK can be detained to prevent them entering the country while steps are taken to deport them.

The petition states that we are sacrificing the rights of British Citizens by altering anti-terror legislation. The UK has been subject to a sustained campaign of terrorism for more than 30 years - initially emanating from Northern Ireland but now more international in character - and this experience has shown how the balance between necessary legislation and protecting human rights can be struck.

We have managed to achieve the appropriate balance between the measures necessary to deal with the very real threat to national security posed by terrorism, and the need to avoid diminishing the civil and human rights of the population. All of our anti-terrorism measures have to be sent in the context of our general commitment to human rights and the protection of individual freedoms, including the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 which made the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enforceable in domestic courts.

Stephen Mullen
- Homepage: http://www.sdmullen.co.uk

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Blair is accurate about limitaion of these rights in the UK

21.12.2006 12:52

Why?

Because he knows that the professional 'champions' of these rights, the practising lawyers and the absolute majority of career politicos are corrupt to the point where they would be complicit in any move to do away with whatever pretence rights still exist.

The Human Rights Act is not adhered to or implemented by or through or in the UK courts. Nor are the ECHRs. Not in anything like the rigorous and open way that they could and should be.

There is no political party that is seriously arguing for properly fully fledged constitutional and institutional enshrinement of full freedom and human rights.

The Liberty [former NCCL] is a stooge outfit with stooges. state-appointed operatives and spies in control of its policy and interventions

The trade unions are NOT at the forefront for civil liberties.

The list is endless.

So Blair is confident and that is the reason for his confidence.

PS. The United Nations Organisation has been a prisoner of the corrupt bureaucracy imposed on it to make it unable to work to audit and hold to account the racist imperialist violators of human rights on unprecedented scales in the past 50 years. That process of the disablement of the UNO has been going on ever since its formal foundation.. Despite its own versions of the human rights declarations,. the UNO has not led in any field 'covered by the UNO's founding charters themselves] in upholding or protecting human rights.

CHRUK


rights of the individual.

30.12.2006 01:23

So - the ECONOMIC wealth of the nation comes before human sancity.

That says it all.

Keith Harris
mail e-mail: newsmedia@o2.co.uk
- Homepage: http://www.newsmedianews.com