This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 9, 2011, November 9, 2013, and November 9, 2016.

I have a question regarding the current controversy in the Episcopal Church in America. One party claims by virtue of its connection the "the Anglican Communion", that is, the worldwide collaboration of churches sprung from the Church of England, that the American Church should not have the right or the authority to elect a practicing homosexual a bishop in the American Episcopal Church. Does the position of the people who are opposed to gay bishops in America violate the Human Rights Act of 1998? I realize there are many ancillary questions arising from this query, and I am not a lawyer, but I would like to hear a comment from anyone who knows more about these issues than I do.

No. (1) The HRA does not apply to the Episcopal Church of the USA - they are governed by the laws of the United States and not those of the United Kingdom. In any case it only applies to acts of public authorities and not to the opinions of individuals. (2) The Anglican Communion is a voluntary confederation of independent churches. The Church of England has no formal authority over the other member churches. Duncan Keith 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the introduction and the jurisdiction section, to set out more clearly the way in which the HRA works, and to whom it applies. However, it now overlaps and contradicts the 'mechanics' section: this section is not wholly correct, because the Act works in more ways than the ones set out there - perhaps someone with more time than me can correct this? user: Eduardogill 11:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The passing of the act gave the ability to Britons who believe their rights have been violated to defend their right in a British court. Previously they would have had to resort to the European Court of Human Rights." This could (erroneously) be interpreted as saying that no human rights-cases at all could be tried in British courts prior to the act, as if freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. we're granted for the first time by the passing of this act. Anyone know of a good way to rephrase this? --Gabbe 12:06, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't this case refered to the Privy Council? Why should they have jurisdiction in England? Wasn't it said that the right to a fair trial could be qualified in the interests of justice? Article 6 creates an unqualified right.... Does anyone have anything on this that does not amount to Original Research? lmno 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A report of this states:

However the five law lords, sitting as the Privy Council, which is now the final court of appeal on devolution cases from Scotland, have now ruled that such evidence is admissible, as the driver's right to a fair trial and privacy has to be balanced with the right to safety of the wider community.

The judgment would not be binding in England, since the House of Lords is the final court of appeal there; it still appears that Article 6 right to a fair trial, as an unqualified right (which is fundamental to a democratic state), cannot be "balanced with the right to safety of the wider community" - it may only be derogated from in whole. Does anyone care? lmno 12:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to breech Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from para. 6 onwards in the last section?

Para 6 being??

Yup, could also use some references. Reads like a blog rant. 84.9.92.72 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a NPOV-check. -Admbws 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs references, but it's certainly not biased; it's indisputable that there have been many claims of abuse of the Human Rights Act, none of which are justified. 24.59.105.229 04:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section on 'political context' is a biased leftist rant from beginning to end. Phrases such as "have therefore been exploited by the ignorant and the reactionary as an opportunity to criticise judges and the Act" can hardly be viewed as NPOV. I intend to rewrite parts of this section, unless anyone objects. Walton monarchist89 11:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared up the POV comments, and also moved the detailed account of the Afghan hijackers case to a new article. I have removed the neutrality tag. Walton monarchist89 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this article I think it's need of rather a lot of clean-up. I have began by fleshing out (and renaming) the "Mechanics of the Act" section (now: Rights protection under the Act). The original version provided no references to the sections of the Act and made some rather loose statements. This section no longer provides any sort of commentary on the sections. I do not believe that it should. I will however add verifiable and non-POV commentary in future by reworking the "history of the Act section" (which is also largely unsourced at the moment) and developing the coverage of subsequent case law under the Act. A more rational approach to subsequent political treatment of the Act is also needed, it is presently lumped in with the "history" and amounts to no more than a series of out of date, unsourced remarks. What about David Cameron suggesting he would replace the Act altogether with a British Bill of Rights? Antisthenes 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think David Cameron's comments in this respect should be given the coverage they deserve - absolutely none. I think its doubtful that the Conservatives would waste time replacing the HRA rather than simply amend it if they see fit. It is simply political rhetoric, and ignores the fact that if the UK courts don't enforce these ECHR rights, then there will always be the possibility for an individual to have them enforced in Strasbourg (the HRA simply means it is cheaper and easier for individuals in the UK). Trying to remain objective here, but as someone else has pointed out already - the idea of the HRA being abused is grossly exaggerated (is it so terrible that prisoners can rely on the HRA to avoid having to "slop out" for example?). The government white paper on the HRA even pointed out itself - the HRA is already in a sense a British bill of rights. I think adding more political aspects to the article brings a danger of wandering into un-encyclopaedic territory. - SCL 14:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 10 (Power to take remedial action) only says a Minister ‘may’, but not ‘must’, change the law; nor does it place a time-limit on the change. This has become interesting in the DNA database case and the case about prisoners voting. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttals are made to an old Conservative criticism - no such rebuttal is offered in the article to the Left wing criticism. How unbiased, how fair! 98.176.7.5 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HRA imposing a duty on public authorities. What is a public authority???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArKaranasiou (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The act doesn't define the term, although it does say that it includes courts and tribunals and excludes parliament. There's a lot of case law on the subject. Francis Davey (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human Rights Act 1998. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160107122543/http://www.clsdirect.org.uk/legalhelp/leaflet07.jsp?lang=en to http://www.clsdirect.org.uk/legalhelp/leaflet07.jsp?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Rights Act 1998. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202012948/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2005%2F08%2F10%2Fdo1002.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2005%2F08%2F10%2Fdo1002.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human Rights Act 1998. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007164149/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a%26oth-1.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a%26oth-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030437/http://industry.sharepoint.com/Pages/NewBritishBillofRights.aspx to http://industry.sharepoint.com/Pages/NewBritishBillofRights.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human Rights Act 1998. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007164149/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a%26oth-1.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a%26oth-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]