News

Pro-Human Rights Act posters appear all over the Tube after barristers raise £50k to ‘Act for the Act’

By on
27

Lawyers are getting the hang of crowdfunding

Lead

Posters campaigning to save the Human Rights Act have appeared across the London Underground, thanks to a successful crowdfunding campaign run by a number of well-known lawyers.

The emotive posters have been funded by the £55,870 raised by ‘Act for the Act’ — a campaign launched by Doughty Street Chambers‘ barristers Caoilfhionn Gallagher and Martha Spurrier to combat the Conservative Party’s promise to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith OBE and children’s rights campaigner Anna Edmundson, amongst others, have also shown their support for the project.

The initial £50,000 target set by the group was surpassed in just a month — emulating the highly successful billable hours for refugees campaign by Sean Jones QC — thanks largely to chunky donations from Doughty Street and Garden Court Chambers. Law firms such as Bindmans and Hodge Jones & Allen have also shown their support and contributed.

Lead

The posters feature real-life stories from ordinary people who have relied on the Act to challenge the law.

Eagle-eyed law students may recognise some of the cases. One poster features Hughes Cousins-Chang, whose Article 8 challenge prompted a change in police protocol. Another tells the story of Catherine Smith, who was able to obtain crucial documents about her son’s death following an Article 2 challenge. Act for the Act hopes that these posters will:

Fill a gap by reaching out to all members of the public, many of whom voted for the Conservatives in the General Election or do not read the newspapers which print positive human rights stories.

Now that the initial target of £50,000 has been reached, Act for the Act has set a stretched target of £100,000, which will enable the campaign to spread both beyond The Tube — and the M25 — into the regions.

You can tweet your support for the campaign using the hashtag #ActfortheAct and can find out more about the campaign on their crowdfunding website here.


27 Comments

Anonymous

Being emotive is of course the most important part of applying the law. Who needs jurisprudence when you have feels?

(21)(39)

Anonymous

Good law is just is in substance. The Human Rights Act is good law and to do away with it represents a ominous and troubling sign of the future. I know people on here have a tendency to be quote-un-qoute “edgy” but to put things plainly, you know your a bit of a cunt if removing something so fundamental and fair as the Human Rights Act is on your agenda.

Judging by your comment, I would imagine that if you where around during Nazi Germany you would have dutifully sent the “uttersmench” to the gas chambers when that became law in Germany.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Being emotive is of course the most important part of being a human being. Who needs lawyers who are not human beings?

(38)(14)

Anonymous

I think you’ll find plenty of people who do…

(13)(0)

The Footjob Kid

The legal industry, for one

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Scrap the Act and replace it with something far better, I say. I’ve taught a human rights outreach programme to form7 and 8 students, mostly South Asians and Blacks, and even they agree that the right to family life is being abused by killers rapists who are being threatened with deportation. To say that my students were outraged at such cases is an understatement; they were in such disbelief because they could not understand why such an injustice could be allowed because of the law.

(12)(43)

Anonymous

This is just hyperbole, the kind of thing you’d expect Farage to rely upon. The number of cases relating to the matters you state are vanishingly small compared to the whole swath of people who have benefitted from the HRA. You don’t need to scrap the HRA in order to fix the issue you perceive as a problem – you just need to look again at the balance between art 8.1 and art 8.2.

(38)(7)

Anonymous

The problem with the ECHR is that it is too widely drafted, and the HRA requires judges to make references to overly-liberal ECtHR judgments which do not sit well with most of the population. Furthermore, precedence has already been created in the lower courts due to such cases, and it would require a lengthy trial to the upper courts to balance these rights.

Scrapping the HRA and replacing it with a British bill of rights would be far quicker and simpler thing to do to reset such injustices.

(7)(25)

Anonymous

I thoroughly agree with this!

(2)(3)

Pantman

Sure, then we’d spend ten years or so trying to interpret the new Bill of Rights through the courts – only to find that it ended up in results that some of us don’t like, some of the time. And then you could complain about that too, with the same hyperbole.

(9)(0)

justlaw

So the UK want to join Belarus in not having the Human Rights Act?, the fact is that the Human Rights Act was in the main a creation of British lawyers and supported by Winston Churchill who wished to create a legal framework that would prevent a State from denying basic rights to its citizens as occurred in Nazi Germany . The right wing press have been active in falsely reporting cases to the public regarding human rights cases and making out that it is Blair s creation in 1998, in fact the Human Rights Court was established in 1959. The fact that the Tories have not issued a so called Bill of Rights to enable a debate shows that they have no idea of what should supersede the present Human rights law. All member countries of the EU are obliged to sign to the convention and it is interesting to note that Cameron has not raised this issue in his so called “reform” demands of the EU. Even if the UK leaves the EU they will have to observe the same EU laws as is the case of Norway and the Swiss do in order to trade within the EU but without the influence or right to set policy. As usual the comic book portrayal of law and lawyers by the media in reference to human rights cases, is a winner with certain uniformed public

(36)(4)

Anonymous

This website is for real lawyers mate. Please see the mail online for nonsense.

(6)(8)

Anonymous

To the poster at 8:50:
I’m horrified that you’re allowed to be a teacher when you make such ill-informed comments. How on earth can someone who appears to have gathered their information from biased, over-blown, articles be allowed to teach a human rights outreach programme? The number of cases in which what you raise applies is minuscule, and you should be teaching children about the really important aspects of the HRA, namely that it allows individuals protection from the state. It has done more for victims of crime, children’s rights and people with disabilities than any other laws. If you are teaching about Article 8, are you also teaching about cases like Keegan? How about cases like P, or E and FC? No? What a surprise..
By the way “even” ethnic minorities are outraged. Why? Because only ethnic minorities are supporters of the act? Or are you suggesting that only ethnic minorities rely on it? Either way you come across as ignorant and prejudiced. Also “blacks”? Wtf? How are you allowed to be a teacher?

(36)(3)

Anonymous

That’s why the HRA is needed so individuals understand they have rights and know when they are being violated. This gives them the capacity to act

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Can somebody explain to me why Tfl has allowed these posters to be put up? According to their own guidelines: Advertisements will not be approved for, or permitted to remain on TfL’s services if, in TfL’s reasonable opinion, the advertisement falls within any of the following categories….(p) The advertisement relates to a political party or parties or a
political cause.

(13)(16)

justlaw

amusing comment. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act gives the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference. So you prefer if the State decides?

(17)(6)

Anonymous

Justlaw – Tfl has its own guidelines as to what is and what is permissible for adverts. I for one think their rule against political content is a sensible one – I don’t want to be stuck in a crowded train with pictures of Cameron or Corbyn plastered all over the place – and it is hardly an infringement of free speech if applied consistently. ActfortheAct is by any measure campaigning for a political cause. Tfl have clearly breached their own guidelines in this case. It is not unreasonable to ask why.

(11)(3)

Anonymous

political cause no no no. Let us see to it that human rights are available to everybody everyday across the board.

(8)(3)

Anonymous

I entirely agree with you that human rights should be “available to everybody everyday across the board”. However, how exactly these rights are enshrined in law is a political decision. ActfortheAct want the HRA to be maintained in its current form. This is a political cause. You should be concerned when a public body, Tfl, seems to be bending its own rules in favour of a particular political campaign, even if you support it. I have contacted Tfl and am awaiting their reply.

MJ

Quite right – Art 10 is irrelevant here – TfL’s own guidance states that it will not promote political causes. If ActForTheAct is not a political cause, then what is?

Anonymous

The HRA is beyond the political arena. This is why it cannot really be subject to change by the whim of any political party. It is the ultimate human protection from corrupt governments worldwide.

(3)(3)

Anonymous

The HRA can be changed just like any other Act of Parliament, so yes it can be changed on the whim of a political party (provided they have a majority). It also only applies in the UK, so I’m not sure corrupt governments worldwide have much interest in it.

Anonymous

@Justlaw: Article 10 is a (qualified) freedom for the speaker in respect of state intervention against the speech. It’s not an obligation on the media to carry the advertising.

(3)(1)

Mik

Firstly democracy and then human rights. If human rights violate popular sovereignty scrap them effective immediately. And then allow the people to decide what human rights laws desire.

(2)(5)

Jayson carmichael

I am taking on both the Bedroom Tax and human rights act abolition Heres my video entitled -Jayson Carmichaels Bedroom Tax Human Rights War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x76fmBxKSHU

(0)(2)

Jayson carmichael

I am taking on both the Bedroom Tax and human rights act abolition My video is entitled -Jayson Carmichaels Bedroom Tax Human Rights War ——its on utube

(0)(2)

TrevorJ

Now i do not care about this, i am earning around $5000 a month. There is useful method i found on the web. If you want to learn it too, simply type in google: Ruthiezx’s method to earn online

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.