Boris Johnson's new "Bill of Rights" exempts the government itself from having to comply with the newfreedom of speechprotection. Legal experts warn.
Justice MinisterDominic Raabsaid last week that a new charter would prevent "free speech" from becoming "free speech" by "strange and political correctness." Stated.
However, the provisions contained in the bill explicitly exempt the law created by the Minister from its new free speech test. In other words, it cannot protect people from "various threats to government freedom of speech."
The activist said the Bill of Rights "would hinder efforts to seek clarification from the government."
A senior law professor said that the curveout was "very, very strange," because theindependentalso tends to apply the Bill of Rights around the world, such as the United States. ". To the government.
"For example, I think Americans just can't believe it. You have a special additional right to freedom of speech, but you can't oppose the government," said a professor of law at the University of Bristol. , Gavin Phillipsson said.
Professor Philipson, a visiting scholar at Oxford University and an authority on free speech, added: government.
"In general, most threats to freedom of speech, and most rights bills around the world, are involved, it is a variety of threats to freedom of speech posed by the government. It's very, very strange.
"Everything the government does, especially what people are most worried about, needs to be exempt from being prosecuted for what you say. The fact that the government feels is a very strange view of what is intended. ”
The fourth section of the new bill arises in connection with the right to free speech. When deciding on an issue, the court must give great weight to the importance of protecting rights. " Strengthening freedom of speech in general in judicial decisions.
However, Article 4 (3) states whether this section is "not applicable" in the Criminal Procedure, or whether the provisions of the primary or subordinate law that cause criminal offenses are incompatible with the rights of the Convention. I have doubts. "
This means that crimes created by the government cannot be considered incompatible with the right to freedom of speech under the bill, even if it limits someone's right to freedom of expression. Means.
The Ministry of Justice denied that this approach was a "separation" for the minister, saying that freedom of speech needed to be prevented from being "abused."
Other parts of the bill also eliminate certain protests by defining the definition of freedom of speech as giving "ideas, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or images." I'm narrowing it down. ..
"They actually limit the definition of expressions that apply only to expressions that include words and images," said Professor Philipson.
"There are cases involving the Hunt Saboters (direct action protests), and the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights] is counted as an expression.
He said," A limited definition of expression. In addition to chanting and waving flags, we must be there to ensure that various forms of direct-action protests are not included in this clause at all. "
"Where people have committed to a new public order, these people will be exempt from this clause, but the definition confirms that new police powers that violate public order and morals can be used against them. I think that's the case. "
A new rights bill, the government, has simultaneously promoted a new authority law to crack down on protests in police, crime, judgment and court law.
This week, a new police force came into force and was used to confiscate the speaker and g-running anti-Brexit protesters outside the Amp Parliament from lon-causing protests.
The bill's exemption releases images that raise the reasonable suspicion that the power of new free speech is prima facie prima facie, accused of crimes such as beautification of terrorism and supporters of banned organizations. It means not protecting people from doing things.
"These are, for example, categorically unconstitutional and not difficult cases under the First Amendment," Professor Philipson told theIndependent. rice field.
Other provisions also have certain carve-outs, in which the government bans entry into the UK based on their remarks and protects the Minister of Interior's right to deprive citizenship. I can.
Charlie Welton, Head of Policy and Campaign for the Human Rights Group Liberty, said:
"The government falsely claims to improve the protection of freedom of expression, but this is not true. It tells the court to give a" great weight "to the importance of freedom of speech. Article 4 limits the application of free speech. Criminal proceedings, determining whether the law is in compliance with human rights, or issues of confidentiality, immigration, citizenship, or national security. The government only evaluates freedom of speech when it is not being used against the government.
"This clause does not protect protesters or whistlers, nor does it allow courts to check for governments that violate their right to freedom of speech. In addition to police law, public order and morals bills, online safety bills, etc., this is a government feature that claims to protect freedom of speech but wants to avoid accountability as much as possible. "
A spokesperson for the organization's index on censorship also blew up the bill, saying: "I strongly oppose the government's claim that the bill enhances freedom of speech.
" This bill only helps to expand state power, especially as mentioned in Section 4. We believe that it will hinder efforts to seek clarification from the government, especially on all issues related to national security and civil rights. The bill.
"These are very public. It is a matter of interest to the government. It is necessary to ensure the checks and balances necessary to protect democracy and basic civil liberties. ”
Ministers generally do not invite speakers to the university. We regard the issue of cultural wars such as "freedom of speech". The "speech" questions have little to do with the legal rights of free speech that are generally enforced around the world.
"In fact, given the major cases of cancel culture, it's usually not a legitimate case. Professor Philipson said," They are embarrassed on Twitter or people without a platform. ". This is actually a cultural phenomenon, not a legal phenomenon. Universities that do not invite speakers because students consider them offensive – these are not infringements of the legal right to freedom of speech as they have no right to a particular platform.
He added: The idea that this clause is intended to combat "awakening" does not make sense to me, and suggests that it is probably more rhetoric, perhaps to please the supporters and elements of the right-wing press. increase. Much of what the government considers to be a cultural cancellation or "wokery" is cultural because it has nothing to do with the law in practice.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: It enhances freedom of speech, but legitimately provides a limited number of exceptions, such as maintaining the patient's right to confidentiality or committing criminal acts such as hate crimes. These exceptions apply to all. These exceptions are not isolated for the government.