The "dangerous" reforms enacting a new bill of rights have been criticized as "blatant and shameless power grabs."

Last modified on Monday, December 13, 2021 23.36 EST

Dominic Raab will outline comprehensive reforms to the human rights law, which he claims will combat "political correctness and correctness" and speed up the expulsion of foreign criminals.

The highly controversial reforms to be announced on Tuesday-which will create a new bill of rights-will introduce a licensing phase to "stop false human rights claims" and change the balance between freedom of speech and privacy.

But lawyers said that the proposed changes to the Human Rights Law are dangerous and motivated by political rhetoric rather than necessity. They pointed out that the government had stated its intentions before conducting an independent review of the human rights law, which will be published later on Tuesday.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated that the expected reforms would allow judges to overturn the European Court of Human Rights rulings instead of "blindly" following them.

It claims that as many as seven out of ten successful human rights challenges are brought about by foreign criminals, who first mentioned the right to family life when appealing the deportation order-it hopes to end this practice.

A senior Justice Department source said the government strongly believes that freedom of speech and democratic debate has been weakened "whether because of sobriety or political correctness."

After the “Sunday Mail” failed to appeal for publishing a letter from Meghan, Duchess of Sussex to her separated father, the source said that common law privacy laws “came in through the back door” and that freedom of speech needs to be protected. Give "extra weight".

But Stephanie Boyce, president of the Bar Association, said that any amendments to the Human Rights Law should be evidence-oriented, not driven by political speech.

She said: “British judges provide British justice in accordance with British law and pay close attention to how the judgment adapts to national conditions. If there are good reasons, it does not apply. British courts do not “blindly” follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as suggested by the government.

"Similarly, even in the case of opposition to the right to family life, foreign criminals can already be deported in the public interest. Each case is different, so it is necessary to weigh each case according to its own specific circumstances. Talk about it. Restricting rights is dangerous and does not reflect the meticulous work that the court must do."

The Department of Justice emphasized the struggle around prisoners’ voting rights and the requirement that the police issue "life threats" notices to gang members — the Ottoman warning — as an example of unwelcome intervention in Strasbourg.

The Department of Justice did not explain how to explain it, but stated that its plan will also reduce the pull factor that Britain is used by human smugglers to facilitate dangerous boat crossings. But it confirmed that the UK will still be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liberty Director Martha Spurrier highlighted examples of the Bill of Rights helping people get justice, including LGBT veterans regaining medals after being stripped of their medals due to their sexual orientation, and unmarried women receiving widows’ pensions after their deaths. partner.

She described these plans as "blatant and shameless power grabs" and added: "Today's announcement is considered to strengthen our rights, and in fact, if the plans are implemented, they will be fatally weakened. This The government is systematically closing all channels of accountability through a series of hasty and oppressive bills. We must ensure that the government changes course as a matter of urgency, and then we will soon find ourselves wondering where our basic human rights go."

Sacha Deshmukh, Chief Executive Officer of Amnesty International, stated that human rights are not a "sweet" that ministers can "choose" and that "radical" attempts to "roll back" the law need to be stopped.

He added: “If the ministers advance their plan to downplay the Human Rights Law and overthrow their disagreement, they may form alliances with authoritarian regimes around the world.”

Professor Philippe Sands QC, who served on a Bill of Rights Committee in 2013, said: “It is worrying that this will mark another step forward in the government’s eager acceptance of lawlessness, which undermines the rights of everyone, and the United Kingdom The effective role of people. Judges and the European Court of Justice, and decentralization solutions embedded in human rights law."

Adam Wagner, the principal human rights lawyer of the Dowty Street Chamber of Commerce, said: "If this is a real bill of rights and not a wish list of political rights for parties, as it seems, the government should have cross-party support."