The Human Rights Act 1998 - History Paper Example

In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the most important rights and freedom each of its citizens is entitled. The Act encompasses the rights sets out human rights in a series of articles where each of these (Convention rights) entails a different right. The Human Rights Act applies to approximately every public body within the UK, such as local authorities and the central government. on the other hand, the section 20 of the same act issues that all unconcealed anti-war political activism are an offense.

The most important significance of the act is that one can seek justice in a British Court as the law entails the rights which are encompassed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). If ones human rights are breached; one can always move on to a British court instead of seeking justice elsewhere. Through the act, public bodies such as the police, the local authorities, hospitals, and courts are obliged to respect the civilians rights. Also, the act makes sure that any laws introduced are always compatible with convention rights. It is the duty of the British parliament to make sure that any new law follows the ECHR standards. The court also has the mandate to interpret laws in a technique that makes conventional rights of the citizens part of their decisions. Therefore, the assures that any acts by any civilian are in a method where the convention in respect to the wording of other primary legislation can work hand in hand with the law.

In line with section 20, Nadia is guilty as charged. The posters that Nadia sets up are impactful in that she finds herself caught by the police. She would have been arrested due to showing the overtness offense through the placement of the posters right at the front of a large lecture theatre. Both the offender and the authority could have differences in their beliefs as each one of them has the respect they deserve in the act. However, public authorities are the only persons that have the right to start harsh follow up as requested by the Human Rights Act. According to the act, however, one cannot take action against some other people just since they have breached their human rights. Nadia did not commit any offense as she did not take matters into her hands. As soon as one takes court action against a person for any reasons, the courts can look at the case and also determine the offender's human rights have been breached. It is the duty of courts to determine the level of breach are part of public authorities and they ought to look into any human right each and every ruling they are deemed to listen to.

Upon being arrested, it is of high odds that Nadia was arrested as a result of the police taking critical steps to help make her human rights protected under the law. If she was not protected, she would have been in danger from the institution as she could have been summoned in line with the act of 1998. Of the police did not act, they could have also breached article 2 that protects the right to life for any rightful citizen.

It is the mandate of public authorities to take note of the human rights act as they ought to respect and provide protection to her human rights, as long as there is no law prohibiting them from doing so. Nadia was, therefore, arrested rightfully as the authorities acted in a technique that could integrate better with her human rights. In Article 10, although she is issued with the freedom of expression, the authorities would have thought that she expressed her thoughts in a way that was not expected, a reason that led to her being arrested. She would have had the freedom, but the Section 20 the SOB Act prohibits any actions that show overtness of a message within a University. She expressed her feelings for the war situation in a weak manner and publicly and could be subject to being punished by the university. There was, therefore, no breach of any of Nadias human rights and hence, no remedy to be issued to her under the Human Rights Act 1998. Any form of breach of human rights would have led to Nadia taking legal action in courts or raise a complaint to the public authority under the Act. Protection was all that was being done, to prevent her from being followed and arrested by the public, instead of the authorities. It can be seen that the Human Rights Act does not issue enough protection rights due to the role and duty of the government to derogate from convention rights.

It is the duty of the authority to take measures of protection of the civilian to prevent them from being harmed by the public. Although the act issues her with various rights, the law by the university regarding the banning of political-activism and advertising outweighs the previous law hence, one needs to take care of the latter law before the former.