Rights and Freedoms of the UK - Coursework Example

of the of the Concerned 15 December Rights and Freedoms Before attempting a thorough analysis of the case study under consideration, it is imperative to state the requisite and necessary legal parameters and boundaries. As law is in a way, the codified logic, such an endeavour is bound to facilitate a logical analysis. The case study under consideration comes within the purview of the UK Law and the European Convention on Human Rights. In that context, UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the provisions of this Convention have been formally incorporated into the UK Law with the ratification of the 1998 Human Rights Act (Harris et al 2009). A. Sarah and her Children As Sarah and her children are currently residing in the UK, they stand to be the beneficiaries of all the privileges extended by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (Shaw 2008). So, it will be pragmatic to pin point the breach of statutory provisions resulting from the detention and deportation of Sarah and her children. Right to Respect for Privacy and Family Life As per the possibilities portrayed by Sarah, in case of the deportation of the family to Discordia, such an act will conclusively breach the privacy extended to her by Article 8 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (Cooper, Peck & Colvin 2002). Sarah has already been sexually assaulted by the soldiers of the Bravo Faction, and has a child, consequent to those acts of rape. The social norms and setup at Discordia is not conducive to female victims of rape. Hence, Sarah’s deportation to Discordia will unwarrantedly expose her to immense social pressure and not required public scrutiny. This is a direct violation of the human rights of Sarah and her children, as enshrined in the Article 8 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to Liberty As per the available information, Sarah and her children are detained in the privately run Arbor Centre. As is evident, Sarah and her children have not committed any crime as per the UK law, nor breached the orders of a recognized court of law. They also do not have any serious communicable disease and were peacefully residing in the UK, before the decision to deport them was made. So the evident incarceration of Sarah and her children is a gross violation of Article 5 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (Hoffman 2006). Besides, the forced detention of Sarah’s minor children at the Arbor Centre atrociously breaches all the established legal and humanitarian norms. So, Sarah and her minor children not only qualify for a hearing before a valid court of law, but also deserve compensation from the UK government. Inhuman Treatment Article 3 of the UK Human Rights Act and the European Human Rights convention clearly states that nobody could by and should be subjected to unlawful detention and inhuman treatment (BBC News 2000). But obvious, not only Sarah and her minor children have been illegally detained, but as per the details given by Sarah, she has been inhumanly treated by the guards at the Arbor Centre. Also, the unlawful detention of Sarah’s minor progeny at the Arbor Centre does qualify to be labelled as being inhuman. Such acts of the UK Home Office constitute a severe breach of the Article 3 of the UK Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (Hoffman 2006). Freedom of Conscience Different people interpret religion as per their specific needs and circumstances. Hence, the moral and ethical beliefs of Sarah must have by necessity undergone a change during her stay in the UK, considering that she is a victim of rape and has a child consequent to that sexual assault. So, following her deportation to Discordia, she will be placed in a situation where it would get impossible for her to live her life as per her beliefs and moral choices. The social interpretation of morality at Discordia, no way seems to be accommodating towards female victims of rape and the children born of reasons other than the institution of marriage. So, the deportation of Sarah and her children to Discordia will be a direct violation of the human rights granted by the Article 9 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights 2010). Family and Marriage Article 12 of the UK Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights clearly declares that people do have the right to found a family and lead a regular family life (Hoffman 2006). However, in case of the deportation of Sarah and her children to Discordia, their chances of leading a respectable and healthy family life are next to nil. On the contrary, if the UK Home Office allows Sarah’s husband Michael to rejoin his family in the UK, the odds against the family will appreciably dilute. Right to Life Both the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights pledge the right to life in the 2nd Act (European Court of Human Rights 2010). Considering the fact that Sarah’s eldest child Felipe is undergoing treatment in the UK and his deportation to Discordia will potentially threaten his life owing to the unavailability of a proper treatment in Discordia, the deportation being considered in a way jeopardizes the life of Felipe. So, Sarah has every right to approach a court of law, so as to protect the life of her child. Thus this deportation by the UK Home Office amounts to a violation of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. Also Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act of 2009 makes it mandatory for the Home Office to uphold the welfare of the children, while discharging its prerogatives and obligations (Home Office 2010). So, while deciding to deport Sarah’s children, the UK Home Office, in no way seems to be adhering to these statutory guidelines. Discrimination Article 14 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the state from discriminating against an individual or a group on the grounds of race, gender, age, birth or status (BBC News 2000). If one takes into consideration all the above mentioned violations of human rights made by the UK Home Office, while deciding on the case of Sarah and her minor children, the final outcome surely smacks of a discernable discriminatory treatment. Such discriminatory treatment is validly challengeable in the appropriate British court of law (Hoffman 2006). Conclusion The discussion and analysis carried on till now has established beyond doubt that the human rights of Sarah and her children have been violated on many counts. So, apt legal remedies are possible for this family. As the deportation of Sarah and her minor children constitute a breach of Human Rights as elaborated and enunciated by the UK Human Rights Act 1998, Sarah and her children can sue the UK Home Office in the appropriate UK court of law. Sarah and her minor children can also file an appeal against these violations in the European Court of Human Rights, and solicit the appropriate remedies and compensation (European Court of Human Rights 2010, b). B. Maria, Angela and Lucy: and the “British First” Movement Both the supporters of Sarah that are Maria, Angela and Lucy and their families and the adherents of the “British First” movement have the basic right to hold a specific opinion and the right to express these opinion through appropriate, legal and democratic channels. Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights allows the individuals and groups to uphold and express an opinion of their choice (Hoffman 2006). Also, as per the article 11 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, both the groups under consideration have the right to assemble to support and propagate their views and beliefs (Hoffman 2006). However, both, Article 10 and Article 11 come with certain specific responsibilities in the sense that the freedom of expression and assembly is subservient to public safety, national security, law and the security and well being of the fellow citizens and the public and private property (BBC News 2000). Hence, the decision of the local Chief Constable to ban the marches proposed by both the groups, is to some extent rational and defendable in the sense that in case of a break out of violence, the safety and well being of the general citizens and private and public property could be compromised to a great extent. Yet, it in no way prohibits both the groups from professing and seeking public support for their cause by exploiting means that are less aggressive and in no way compromise the safety of general citizens and public and private property. The supporters of Sarah are also free to extend all the possible emotional, moral and legal support to her in her fight to secure essential human rights for herself and her children. The “British First” movement can also challenge the cause of Sarah in a court of law, if she decides to seek some legal remedy. Word Count: 1,515 References BBC News 2000, Human Rights Act: What the Articles Say, BBC News, viewed 14 December 2010, < http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/946400.stm#top > Cooper, Jonathan, Peck, Lib & Calvin, Madeleine 2002, Developing Key Privacy Rights, Hart Publishing, London. European Court of Human Rights 2010, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Court of Human Rights, viewed 14 December 2010, European Court of Human Rights 2010, General Information on the Court, European Court of Human Rights, viewed 14 December 2010, Harris, David, O’Boyle, Michael, Bates, Edward & Buckley, Carla 2009, Law of the European Convention and Human Rights, Oxford University Press, New York. Hoffman, David 2006, Human Rights in the UK, Pearson Education, New York. Home Office 2010, Legislation, UK Border Agency, viewed 14 December 2010, < http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/immigrationlaw/legislation/ > Shaw, Malcolm N 2008, International Law, Cambridge University Press, New York. Read More