![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.declassifieduk.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/Declassified-oped-Patel-01-header-Priti-Patel.jpg\")
\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n Priti Patel\u2019s new threat to British journalists<\/h2><\/a>\n READ MORE <\/i><\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\nAbolishing human rights<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nHome secretary Priti Patel was furious at court challenges to her proposal<\/a> to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. It catalysed long-harboured plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThis will make it more difficult<\/a> for individuals and groups to challenge ministers\u2019 decisions in the courts by claiming breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Human Rights Act has enabled bereaved families to demand full inquests, for example into the deaths of army recruits at Deepcut barracks, and independent inquiries into the abuse \u2013 and in one case, death \u2013 of Iraqis detained by British forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Martha Spurrier, director of the civil rights group, Liberty, has described<\/a> the Bill of Rights as a \u201cpower grab\u201d by the government. She says: \u201cThe Human Rights Act protects everyone from injustice and abuse of power, and allows us to stand up to the government and institutions like the police or local councils when they get it wrong\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSpurrier adds: \u201cFrom the families of Hillsborough victims to military veterans, people use the Human Rights Act every day to stand up for their rights and get justice. But under the Government\u2019s plans, it will become much harder for people \u2013 including disabled people and survivors of violence against women and girls \u2013 to access justice.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0\u201cThe Human Rights Act protects everyone from injustice and abuse of power\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
To limit human rights-based claims in the courts, the government is proposing to add a \u201cpermission stage\u201d before they can be heard, erecting a new barrier to justice. Before a case can get off the ground, individuals would have to show they had faced a \u201csignificant disadvantage\u201d caused by the violation of their rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
National security and online safety<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe National Security Bill \u2013 some of whose dangers Declassified<\/em> has already<\/a> highlighted \u2013 further increases the government\u2019s ability to shield its activities from independent and democratic scrutiny. Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill refers to \u201cprohibited places\u201d, described as the country\u2019s \u201cmost sensitive places\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cUnauthorised entry\u201d into such places for whatever purpose, \u201cprejudicial\u201d or not, could be a criminal offence as would photographing and \u201cinspecting\u201d them on the internet. Such measures could include photographing demonstrations outside military bases or locations deemed \u201csensitive\u201d, as well as military convoys. The list of \u201cprohibited\u201d sites could be expanded without alerting parliament while prosecutions could be heard in secret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Then there\u2019s the government\u2019s Online Safety Bill, which on the face of it should be a welcome measure to protect children from abuse and sexual predators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However it includes hidden dangers, giving too much power to large tech companies and their commercial interests, not least in allowing them, rather than the courts, to determine what is \u201charmful\u201d yet \u201clegal\u201d and encouraging a culture of self-censorship with a chilling effect on freedom of expression<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAfter initially suggesting that criminal prosecutions could be triggered if content of material would have a \u201creal and substantive risk\u201d of causing harm to a \u201clikely audience\u201d, it now says<\/a> material would be considered harmful if it presents \u201ca material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children\/adults\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n RELATED<\/h3>\n \n
Home secretary Priti Patel was furious at court challenges to her proposal<\/a> to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. It catalysed long-harboured plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This will make it more difficult<\/a> for individuals and groups to challenge ministers\u2019 decisions in the courts by claiming breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Human Rights Act has enabled bereaved families to demand full inquests, for example into the deaths of army recruits at Deepcut barracks, and independent inquiries into the abuse \u2013 and in one case, death \u2013 of Iraqis detained by British forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Martha Spurrier, director of the civil rights group, Liberty, has described<\/a> the Bill of Rights as a \u201cpower grab\u201d by the government. She says: \u201cThe Human Rights Act protects everyone from injustice and abuse of power, and allows us to stand up to the government and institutions like the police or local councils when they get it wrong\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Spurrier adds: \u201cFrom the families of Hillsborough victims to military veterans, people use the Human Rights Act every day to stand up for their rights and get justice. But under the Government\u2019s plans, it will become much harder for people \u2013 including disabled people and survivors of violence against women and girls \u2013 to access justice.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0\u201cThe Human Rights Act protects everyone from injustice and abuse of power\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n To limit human rights-based claims in the courts, the government is proposing to add a \u201cpermission stage\u201d before they can be heard, erecting a new barrier to justice. Before a case can get off the ground, individuals would have to show they had faced a \u201csignificant disadvantage\u201d caused by the violation of their rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The National Security Bill \u2013 some of whose dangers Declassified<\/em> has already<\/a> highlighted \u2013 further increases the government\u2019s ability to shield its activities from independent and democratic scrutiny. Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill refers to \u201cprohibited places\u201d, described as the country\u2019s \u201cmost sensitive places\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cUnauthorised entry\u201d into such places for whatever purpose, \u201cprejudicial\u201d or not, could be a criminal offence as would photographing and \u201cinspecting\u201d them on the internet. Such measures could include photographing demonstrations outside military bases or locations deemed \u201csensitive\u201d, as well as military convoys. The list of \u201cprohibited\u201d sites could be expanded without alerting parliament while prosecutions could be heard in secret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there\u2019s the government\u2019s Online Safety Bill, which on the face of it should be a welcome measure to protect children from abuse and sexual predators.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However it includes hidden dangers, giving too much power to large tech companies and their commercial interests, not least in allowing them, rather than the courts, to determine what is \u201charmful\u201d yet \u201clegal\u201d and encouraging a culture of self-censorship with a chilling effect on freedom of expression<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After initially suggesting that criminal prosecutions could be triggered if content of material would have a \u201creal and substantive risk\u201d of causing harm to a \u201clikely audience\u201d, it now says<\/a> material would be considered harmful if it presents \u201ca material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children\/adults\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\nNational security and online safety<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
RELATED<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.declassifieduk.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/01-header-Kincora-exterior.jpg\")
\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n