The Human Rights Act 1998 was a constitutional mistake. Discuss Essay

The Human Rights Act 1998 was a constitutional mistake. Discuss - Essay Example Thus, HRA has altered the style in which the UK courts would approach the domestic legislation. Further, the opponents of the HRA vociferously argue that since the rights violation is already covered under the common law, there is no need to legislate separate law namely HRA. The critics argue that the Human Rights Act 1998 was a constitutional mistake." This essay will discuss why there is a need to repeal the current form HRA in an analytical way and arrive at a conclusion. Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 was a constitutional mistake? Two main allegations charged against HRA is that it politicises the judiciary and take away the legitimate authority enjoyed by the elected representatives, and it advocates a blame or compensation acculturation whereby society turns to be progressively more contentious5. One of the serious allegations against the Human Rights Act 1998 is that it remains as a hazard to public safety and rights. For instance, immediately after 9/11 attack in USA, the then British Home Secretary made an open warning to the judiciary to cease applying the HRA in ways, which frustrated the UK government plans. The leader of the conservative party is of the opinion that suitable amendments should be made in the HRA to deport those who were encouraging terrorism in UK soil as the HRA was demonstrating to be a barrier to safeguard the lives of UK citizens. Conservative party is of the opinion that HRA has created a culture that has hampered law enforcement machinery and the control of convicted criminal and obstructed the deportation of terrorist suspects. Conservative is also of the opinion that HRA has not succeeded in safeguarding the corrosion of the traditional liberties and may have even offered a facade of respectability. Lord Chancellor during March 2009 viewed his anguish that HRA has been commoditised which was corroborated by those who stressed their privileges in a selfish way without having concerned with the privileges of others. Critic s are of the view that HRA is more concerned with rights thereby totally neglecting responsibilities from UK citizens. Further, there has been ongoing discussion, whether or not the HRA has clouted the exact balance between the courts, Parliament and the executive. Critics have come against the provision in the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and deportation of terrorists which have placed the safety of the public at peril. Some critics vehemently argue that there should be a referendum, whether to retrench the Human Rights Act 1998 or not. Some critics have argued that there should be a referendum on any scheme to withdraw the HRA or to introduce the Bill of Rights which would basically cement some freedoms of individuals6. HRA will extremely impact statutory interpretation. HRA offers the court with the power and obligation to interpret and apply the law in a style that caters the ECHR obligations. It is alleged that HRA falls short of authorising UK co urts to annul legislation, which is not compatible with the ECHR. Clause 3 demands the UK court