Evaluate The View That Rights Are Effectively Protected in the UK.

Question 1

P1: Civil Rights Pressure Groups Protect Rights Agree

Answer 1

1. Civil liberties pressure groups are often effective in protecting rights by keeping rights issues prominent in politics. Insider groups can shape and pass rights-protecting legislation:
2. Stonewall worked closely with New Labour to achieve important legal changes, like equalising the age of consent for gay and straight individuals to 16 in the Sexual Offences Act 2000, using the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 to override House of Lords opposition.
3. Outsider groups defend rights by bringing legal challenges against government policies: Care4Calais played a major role in challenging the UK-Rwanda deportation deal, arguing it violated the Human Rights Act, particularly regarding LGBT asylum seekers.
4. On 14 June 2022, human rights legal challenges led to the first Rwanda deportation flight being emptied before take-off, following European Court of Human Rights interventions.

Question 2

P1: Disagree Pressure Groups

Answer 2

1. Civil liberties pressure groups can be limited because the government ultimately decides legislation and unpopular causes struggle to gain support.
2. Liberty failed to prevent the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021, which restricted protest rights, despite organising large-scale #KillTheBill protests. The Act passed partly because public opinion had turned against disruptive protests (like Just Stop Oil) and the government was determined to introduce it.
   Liberty and other groups also failed to get the Public Order Act 2023 repealed by the new Labour government.
3. In March 2025, the Public Order Act was used to stop farmers from blocking roads with tractors during inheritance tax protests, showing its practical impact on limiting protest rights.
4. Howard League for Penal Reform has had limited success advocating for prisoner rights, largely because causes related to convicted criminals are unpopular with the public.
   They have been unsuccessful in getting the government to allow prisoners the right to vote.

Question 3

P2: Government Protects Rights Agree

Answer 3

1. Parliament and the government play a key role in protecting rights by passing legislation that defends citizens’ rights.
2. Gordon Brown’s government introduced the 2010 Equality Act. The Coalition government legalised same-sex marriage in 2013, even though it was not mentioned in the 2010 Conservative Party manifesto.
3. The government can also justify measures that limit individual rights to protect collective rights and public safety, especially in emergencies.
   COVID-19 lockdowns limited freedom of movement but were seen as necessary to prevent the spread of the virus. Parliament can be effective in preventing the government from overstepping human rights.
4. In 2005, the House of Commons and House of Lords voted down Tony Blair’s proposal to detain terrorist suspects for 90 days without charge, eventually compromising at 28 days.

Question 4

P2: Government Disagree

Answer 4

1. Government/Parliament’s role in threatening rights: Recent Conservative governments have passed acts that threaten individual rights, despite opposition from rights groups, journalists, and the public.
2. Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act: Grants the police and criminal justice system greater powers to impose restrictions on “unacceptable protests,” including protests in “buffer zones” around Parliament. Public Order Act 2023: Introduces new offenses like “locking-on” (attaching oneself to objects or people to disrupt) and interfering with national infrastructure (e.g., roads around Parliament). These can result in imprisonment or fines.
3. Just Stop Oil protest (October 30, 2023): Over 60 activists were arrested during a “slow march” around Parliament Square under the new legislation.
4. Proposals to weaken rights:
   Conservative figures, including Robert Jenrick, have supported leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and replacing the Human Rights Act with a ‘British Bill of Rights’. This proposal could ease deportation of foreign criminals and elevate public safety over the right to family life and freedom of expression over privacy.
5. New Labour Government (2025): The government revised the “good character” guidance to deny British citizenship applications for refugees who entered through unauthorized routes, including small boat crossings. Critics argue this violates the 1951 Refugee Convention.
6. New Labour’s response to terrorism (2000s): After terrorist attacks, the government argued they had the right to detain terror suspects without trial, citing a national emergency. This was ruled discriminatory in 2004 and replaced by control orders, allowing close monitoring of suspect

Question 5

P3: Judiciary and The HRA Agree

Answer 5

1. Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998: Incorporates the (ECHR) into UK law, enabling individuals to take cases to UK courts instead of the ECHR in Strasbourg. Introduced a ‘rights-based culture’ in the UK where new legislation must comply with the HRA.
2. . Parliament’s role: Parliament addresses issues raised by courts regarding the HRA and has a Joint Committee on Human Rights to scrutinize bills for compatibility, showing the HRA’s ‘persuasive influence’. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004): Part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was declared incompatible with the HRA because it allowed detention of suspected terrorists in a discriminatory manner. As a result, The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was introduced to address this issue.
3. Education and awareness: The HRA has increased citizens’ awareness of their rights, making them more prominent in the political system compared to when rights were previously protected as ‘negative rights’ (i.e., by only limiting government actions).
4. Judicial Review: Judicial review serves as a key mechanism for defending citizens’ rights, allowing the legality of government actions to be scrutinized.

Question 6

P3: Disagree Judiciary

Answer 6

1. Critics argue that the HRA doesn’t protect rights effectively because of parliamentary sovereignty, meaning judges can’t force Parliament to make changes to laws. Since the HRA is not entrenched, it could be repealed with a simple act of Parliament, making its protections vulnerable to political shifts.
2. Although the judiciary declare them illegal, the government can amend laws to make such actions legal. For example, after the Supreme Court ruled against the Rwanda policy in 2023, finding it unlawful due to risks in Rwanda’s asylum system, the government passed the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024, which essentially overrides the Court’s ruling and makes Rwanda a safe country for asylum seekers. This highlights the limits of judicial influence when Parliament supports a policy.
3. Judicial review, under the HRA, has been criticised for giving unelected judges too much power to block the actions of elected governments. This has led to concerns that judges pressure Parliament to change bills or prevent government actions they deem unconstitutional or unjust, raising concerns over accountability and democratic oversight

Question 7

P3: Disagree HRA

Answer 7

1. Some critics argue that the HRA favours undesirable individuals. Abu Qatada, a radical cleric, was protected by the HRA, which delayed his deportation to Jordan for years on the grounds that he might face evidence obtained through torture—this delayed deportation despite national security concerns.
2. The HRA has been criticised for preventing the deportation of illegal immigrants, including to countries like Rwanda, even when there are national security or policy concerns.
   3.