in what ways and to what extent is the Human Rights Act controversial.

(40)

Knowledge and understanding of the controversies surrounding the HRA. These might include:

The Human Rights act is controversial largely as a result of it being controlled and run but the
European Court if Human Rights. As seen with events such as the EU referendum, the UK is generally
opposed to foreign enforcement of law and European control. Whilst it is true that the UK
sometimes chooses to disregard the verdict of the ECHR (e.g. prohibiting votes for prisoners) it is the
overwhelming truth that the ECHR tries to control the UK and its law. This is seen as controversial
and disliked by large sections of the Public as it is seen to undermine the sovereignty of both
Parliament and Britain. From this point of view the HRA is controversial because it compromises the
authority of the UK in its own territory, and many people feel European Intervention is unnecessary
and in some cases, damaging.

Another issue is the inherent conflict between certain rights, for example, there is clearly an issue
with regard to personal privacy and the right to life. There is a need for balance between the two,
and it often depend upon the court at the time and their views to choose what is right and proper.
From this point of view, it could be argued that the large grey areas are contrary to the Rule of Law,
as it is not always clear whether something is allowable or not. The HRA often acts in a way that is
biased in the favour of the individual and can be damaging to society as a whole. The rights of the
individual are often taken into account to a greater deal than is sensible, and can often lead to
situations where individuals or small groups (e.g. the Afghan Hijackers) can clearly be in the wrong
but benefit from the HRA that protects them whilst putting others at risk.

The next issue is that courts are entirely unelected and unaccountable but still make and carry out
laws. In doing so, this is damaging to the concept of separation of powers, as the courts can act as
both legislature and executive as well as carrying out their roles as the judiciary. This is because they
can in effect, create laws and interpret them as they wish, further to this they can carry out their
laws by punishing those that choose to disregard this. The issue is that the UK put so much
emphasis on the importance of democracy within the UK and goes so far as to have a referendum
regarding whether or not to change the voting system (2011 AV referendum) as it may be more
democratic. The UK places so much emphasis on the importance of democracy yet often fails to
carry out the most basic functions of a democracy by creating and following a pseudo-dictatorship.

On the other hand, the Human Rights act acts as a key way to check the power of the state – if the
government could lock up whoever they wanted without any charges being brought about

Knowledge and understanding of senses in which it is not controversial, possibly including:

• That there is a strong rights culture and many in the centre-left-liberal spectrum of politics support
the operation of the Act.

• Many see it is a vital counterbalance to the power of the state.

• Most rights in the ECHR are already part of UK statute or common law.