An URGENT ALERT to the proposed replacement of the Human Rights Act

ACT NOW – Consultation closes 8th March on proposal to reform the Human Rights Act 1998

Called a ‘Modern Bill of Rights’, the proposal by the government introduces flowery language to cover up some serious underlying questions. It seeks, for instance, to shift a rights culture away from personal responsibility to “the public interest”. On the surface this may have a nice sound to it, BUT nowhere is it defined what “public interest” is. It leaves it open… Parliament becomes the arbiter of what it means.

Below is a leaflet, urgently needing attention, providing information on the new proposed act with an analysis of sections, with a letter template to help for any responses.

Have a look TODAY, when reading this, and send in a response. (Further reflections are below the document window). Feel free to also print this out and distribute further!

Further reflections

It is a tenet of Common Law that it places emphasis on personal responsibility and that of ‘do no harm’. The human being, in its inner being, is assumed as good, and able to judge what will or won’t do harm to fellow human beings. Boundaries are placed (ie laws) only when needed for the peaceful conduct of society.

This new act would shift that: “public interest” would take precedent, and parliament becomes the arbiter of defining what is “public interest”. Reflect on past instances: ‘protests’ have been spoken of, by many governments during the ‘pandemic’, as not being in the public interest. Those who spoke up about alternate therapies were considered ‘not in the public interest’ and censored. Incredible really. This could then, under the new definitions in the so-called ‘Human Rights Act’, be considered illegal. But some challenged, e.g. Dr Sam White, and won his case: that his right to freedom of speech was being grossly infringed upon by the General Medical Council. Under the proposed new Human Rights Act, this possibility of appeal could be removed: if it was deemed “not in the public interest” by Parliament to have a challenge to an ordained drug treatment, it would have basis in law to not only strike him off the register but fine and or imprison him.

A further sobering reflection: in the 1930s, the motto, Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz, or ‘Public welfare takes precedence over personal welfare‘, was the moral motto and compass in the National Socialist dictatorship – and one used in other totalitarian regimes. The government (dictators), of course, were the ones defining ‘public welfare’. In other words, “anyone who behaves in conformity with the state – also in matters of personal health – is social. In serious cases, this can mean that the individual counts for nothing… Culture, on the other hand, thrives on the creative tension between the developmental needs of individuals and what is socially indispensable.” (from Where are we now in the corona pandemic?, by Dr Michaela Glöckler, 2022 – in translation from the German, English version to be in free public distribution as PDF).