Human Rights First for Britain - and other matters legal
… and other matters legal
Saturday 25th October, 1997
|
 |
Adapted from a posting to the UKPFC-News mailing list
On Friday October 24th the UK Home Secretary, Jack Straw, unveiled long-expected plans to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British Law, opening new vistas of opportunity for UK transsexual people, seeking redress for discrimination and abuses of their social freedoms.
Don’t pop the champagne corks yet though … for the bill enabling this fundamental change to the backbone of British law will first have to make its’ way through Parliament, and is unlikely to take effect before the year 2000. In the meantime, however, it is the strongest possible indication that the new government is serious about human rights … and comes hot on the heels of important proposals enabling the no-win/no-fee system to be extended to the vast majority of privately brought actions. The latter moves will be of most benefit to ordinary people seeking legal redress for discrimination, where you previously had to be either very rich or totally destitute to be able to use the law.
The fact that millions of people may now contemplate cases that would previously have been too financially risky to gamble … and the prospect that cases will be judged according to fundamentals that Britain has always paid lip service to, but was unable to consider in judgment … may well lead to the most far reaching change in the balance of people power for a century or more.
A society that has grown indifferent and institutionally complacent in the knowledge that ordinary people could never afford to fight large institutions and rich individuals, stands poised to receive a very rough and far reaching lesson once these twin instruments come into effect … and high on the list of beneficiaries will be the UK’s seriously-discriminated transsexual population. … People whose cases have been restricted, till now, to those poor enough for legal aid, or strategic enough to warrant the support of groups like Liberty or the Equal Opportunities Commission.
According to the BBC …
The Human Rights Bill will tell the courts they must interpret legislation as far as possible in accordance with the Convention.
If the higher courts decide that an act of Parliament prevents someone exercising their human rights, judges will be able to make what is termed a “declaration of incompatibility”, which would then put ministers under political pressure to change the law.
If they decide to do so, they will also have a new “fast track” procedure to make changes without getting a formal bill through parliament.
Under the plans, based [the BBC says] on New Zealand’s Bill of Rights, the convention will not actually OVERRIDE existing acts of parliament … and this has disappointed groups, such as Liberty, who wanted the bill to follow the example of countries like Canada, where human rights law DOES simply take precedence over parliamentary statute.
Ministers will have to say whether each new bill they introduce complies with the Human Rights Convention.
So far Britain has lost forty-nine cases at the European Court. It has, so far, managed to fight off every case brought by people discriminated on grounds of transsexuality … but two new cases, due for hearing at the end of February, 1998, stand a good chance of overturning that record. Press for Change is therefore urging the government to do for the “Horsham and Sheffield” cases what it has already done in the case of a recent gay rights case … and withdraw their defence.
A government so adept at news management and presentation isn’t going to muddy the waters of public debate for such key legislation, by making any rash statements about transsexual rights, of course … so no moves or statements are seriously likely to be made until Jack Straw has had his department’s turn at manifesto promise-keeping. With his department’s flagship legislation presented, and making its’ way through the parliamentary machinery, the pressure will be off, however … and that is the point when we can press for something a little less bland than the Home Office’s standard fare.
In the meantime, however, we can take heart from the VERY warm assurances given by the Solicitor General at a public meeting in Brighton, just three weeks ago, in open questions at the end of the Home Secretary’s fringe presentation.
Watch this space, as they say …
Now you can read the full treaty online too
In the meantime, you may like to go and read the FULL text of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Right and Fundamental Freedoms, as signed in Rome in 1950. The Convention, in all its’ glory, is now available from the ECHR’s web site or (for faster access) on this website.
Study it carefully … this is going to be your working text.
Madeleine Rees warns:
Move now, or risk loosing the chance
On a related topic, I’ve had a letter from Madeleine Rees this week, in which she has urged me to make sure people are aware of an important deadline for taking actions based on the recent Grant v South West Trains recommendation.
She writes …
… the Advocate General’s Opinion in Grant was very positive … [he] is clear in his opinion on the applicability of article 119 to same sex couples and related it entirely to gender. We already have the pre-decision on what equality means in relation to transsexual people … […] … it is vital that that if action is to be taken that it is taken before the Court decision in Grant. I say that because there is case law to suggest that if an identifiable group are going to benefit from a ruling then it is expected that they must assert their rights between the Advocate General’s opinion and the full court decision in order to protect those rights.
She then goes on to ask me to make sure everyone is aware of the need to act quickly, BEFORE the final decision in the Grant vs SW trains case, to assert claims for sexual discrimination in the provision of benefits (which European Article 119 refers to), so that you would then be in a later position to bring a case benefitting from the outcome. That is, unless you expect the discrimination you encounter to continue AFTER the judgement.
So, if something has happened to you, which you think applies to the provisions of article 119 (ie you’ve encountered some form of discrimination at work, on grounds related to sex or your transsexual history / status) what she is saying is that you MUST take steps to ensure that you complained (ie asserted your objection) as soon as possible, otherwise you may loose the right to refer to the judgement at a later date.
Christine Burns
Vice-President, Press for Change
