Should Britain Scrap the Human Rights Act? | Summary and Q&A

22.6K views
June 5, 2015
by
Philosophy Tube
YouTube video player
Should Britain Scrap the Human Rights Act?

TL;DR

The British government is considering replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, but there are arguments for keeping the current system of human rights protection.

Install to Summarize YouTube Videos and Get Transcripts

Key Insights

  • 🇬🇧 The British government's intention to replace the Human Rights Act may have political motivations.
  • 🇬🇧 The European Court of Human Rights is elected and British citizens have access to it after the British court system.
  • 🗯️ Arguments exist for both keeping an elected government as the final authority and involving an unelected Court in human rights decisions.

Transcript

welcome to overanalyzing vlogs where I think too much about something or do I the British government has said that they want to scrap the human rights act and possibly replace it with a British Bill of Rights the idea is that when a British citizen thinks that the law has violated their human rights British courts should have the final say in that ... Read More

Questions & Answers

Q: Why does the British government want to replace the Human Rights Act?

There are suggestions that the government aims to please Euroskeptics, tap into nationalism, or address concerns about the European Court of Human Rights consistently ruling against them.

Q: Who currently has the final say in human rights violations in Britain?

The European Court of Human Rights has the authority to rule on cases where British citizens believe their rights have been violated after going through the British court system.

Q: What is Jeremy Waldron's argument against involving an unelected court in human rights decisions?

Waldron argues that an elected body, like a government, is more legitimate in making decisions on human rights violations because it represents equal representation and fair votes.

Q: Why does Richard Fallon believe an unelected Court is legitimate in ruling on human rights violations?

Fallon believes that an unelected Court can provide a safety net for individual rights, safeguarding them from potential violations by the government. It adds an extra layer of protection for citizens.

Summary & Key Takeaways

  • The British government wants to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights to give British courts final authority over human rights violations.

  • Critics suggest that this may be a strategic move to appease Euroskeptics or capitalize on nationalism.

  • Philosophical discussions have explored the question of whether an elected government or an unelected Court should have the final say on human rights violations.

Share This Summary 📚

Summarize YouTube Videos and Get Video Transcripts with 1-Click

Download browser extensions on:

Explore More Summaries from Philosophy Tube 📚

Summarize YouTube Videos and Get Video Transcripts with 1-Click

Download browser extensions on: