Category Archives: Human Rights

How To File Your Case With The European Court Of Human Rights

17 Thursday Nov 2016

Posted by in Human Rights, Researching Reform, The Buzz

≈ 2 Comments

One of the things we are asked regularly is how and when a family can apply to the European Court Of Human Rights to hear their case, and now the ECHR has provided a really useful guide explaining this, and it’s been really well done.

If a family, parent or child wish to apply to the ECHR, first, they need to have exhausted all the remedies available to them in their home country. This usually means allowing a case to run its course from the lower courts all the way up to the appropriate highest court for that case. Once all avenues have been tried, if the parties still feel their case hasn’t been properly dealt with, they can then apply to the European Court.

The ECHR’s home page for the guide is divided into sections, including:

The page even offers a full breakdown of the Rules Of Court, and related Practice Directions.

We love the level of detail here and the simple language that’s been used to make all this information easily accessible. It’s something we try hard to do in our spare time with our LIP Service videos, but we’re really delighted to see that the ECHR has taken the initiative and put together this guide.

Worth holding onto as well is this brochure from the House of Commons Library which was published this month, and also offers information on how to apply to the ECHR. Although it’s been prepared for Members of Parliament who are asked by their constituents about how to apply to the ECHR, it is also well written and offers a nice summary of the application process. At a comfortable 24 pages, we would recommend reading this first before diving into the ECHR’s own guide.

european_court_of_human_rights_logo-svg

 

 

 

 

Conference: Protecting Children from Unnecessary Genital Surgeries

26 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Circumcision, FGM, Human Rights

≈ 2 Comments

Charity Genital Autonomy is holding its next symposium at Keele University on 14-16 September, and everyone is welcome to attend.

Genital Autonomy is also a concept, sometimes defined as the freedom and moral independence of every human being to choose what to do with his or her sexual organs. This right can be removed from children for religious or perceived hygiene reasons, despite growing evidence showing that non-medical genital surgery is incredibly painful for children and does not protect against disease. Practices which are often discussed when looking at Genital Autonomy include Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), and circumcision.

The charity’s aim is to promote, preserve and protect the health and well-being of male, female and intersex children by protecting them from unnecessary genital surgery or modification; and to promote the human rights of children in relation to genital surgery or modification as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights Of the Child throughout the world.

The symposium’s speakers are leaders in their fields and should make for a very interesting and progressive conference in an area where little research still exists. The conference itself aims to expand on new developments and take issues surrounding genital autonomy forward.

The agenda for the conference will include thought-provoking debates such as, “Cultural v. cosmetic surgery: Challenging the Distinction,” which has been put forward by Clare Chambers, who is University Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. The Abstract for her topic of discussion is added below:

“There is a general consensus in liberal theory, practice, and law that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a violation of rights and justice that should be banned. However, there is no such consensus about male circumcision or cosmetic surgery, including cosmetic genital surgery. These practices are legal in most liberal states and there is no general critique of them in mainstream liberal theory. This talk will consider and challenge the philosophical reasons in favour of distinguishing FGM from male circumcision and labiaplasty. There is no clear distinction between “cultural” genital surgery and “cosmetic” genital surgery, so that male circumcision and cosmetic surgery should be regulated in the same way as FGM.”

If you’d like to attend the symposium, you can book your tickets here.

Researching Reform is a passionate advocate of changing the culture surrounding FGM and circumcision. We wish the charity a successful few days.

 

GA

 

Justice Committee: Bill Of Rights Will Damage The UK

09 Monday May 2016

Posted by in Bills, child welfare, Human Rights, Researching Reform

≈ 7 Comments

In their latest report, The Justice Committee has launched a withering attack on the Government’s proposal to introduce a UK Bill of Rights designed to replace The Human Rights Act.

In a formal statement on Parliament’s website, it has concluded that the evidence received made ‘a forceful case’ for the Government to think again on the policy.

The Sub-Committee’s key findings were as follows:

  • The Government’s proposals will not depart significantly from the existing Human Rights Act.
  • The proposals are likely to “affirm” in a Bill of Rights all the rights contained within European Convention on Human Rights [as Stated by the Secretary of State], making the necessity of a Bill of Rights unclear.
  • These proposals may damage the UK’s standing within the Council of Europe and the EU, and its moral authority internationally;
  • And may, lead to an increasing reliance on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK courts if the scope of the Human Rights Act is reduced.
  • What is being proposed may also risk constitutional upheaval with the devolved nations, with the consequence that the proposed UK Bill of Rights could end up as an English Bill of Rights.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, Chairman of the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, said:

“Our evidence from the Secretary of State for Justice was the first time the Government has explained why it wants to introduce a British Bill of Rights. The arguments seemed to amount to restoring national faith in human rights and to give human rights a greater UK identity. The proposals he outlined were not extensive, and we were not convinced that a Bill of Rights was necessary.

“Many witnesses thought that restricting the scope of the Human Rights Act would lead to an increase in reliance on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK courts, which has stronger enforcement mechanisms. This seemed to be a perverse consequence of a Bill of Rights intended to give human rights greater UK identity

“We heard evidence that the devolved administrations have serious concerns about the plans to repeal the Human Rights Act. If the devolved Parliaments withheld their consent to a British Bill of Rights it might very well end up as an English Bill of Rights, not something we think the Government would want to see.

“The more evidence we heard on this issue the more convinced we became that the Government should think again about its proposals for a British Bill of Rights. The time is now right for it to do so.”

If you’d like to read the report and other related information, we’ve added links below:

The Human Rights Act has been instrumental in protecting children since its inception, and has become a significant piece of law used by family lawyers in the UK.

humanrights