Letters: Constitutional change for a better life
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: John Major rejects the need for a Bill of Rights for the UK because it "would diminish Parliament's historic role as the defender of individual freedoms" (leading article; "Major launches a defence of the indefensible", 27 June).
However, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty does not in and of itself necessarily protect human rights. Of the findings of violations by the European Court of Human Rights against the UK, over three quarters have resulted from legislation passed through Parliament. Parliament is allowing laws to take effect which, at the same time as breaching our international obligations, also fall below the minimum acceptable standard of human rights.
Rather than diminishing the role of Parliament, a Bill of Rights would have the opposite effect. On incorporation of a Bill of Rights, it would become incumbent on Members to ensure that proposed policy and legislation conforms to its minimum standards. As such the process of legislative scrutiny by MPs would be greatly enhanced. An incorporated Bill of Rights should mean that policy is less likely to become law which could undermine guaranteed rights and freedoms.
Its effective implementation, with accompanying reforms to the parliamentary process, should, contrary to popular myth, reduce judicial activism and not increase it.
JONATHAN COOPER
Legal Director
Liberty
London SE1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments