Rights, types of human

rights, human rights Act.

A debate between rights
and duties
 Human Rights

• Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our
nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color,
religion, language, or any other status.

• We are all equally entitled to our human rights without

discrimination.

• These rights are all interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible.

Cont.
• If the need is the traditional heart of social policy, rights are its new
blood.
• Rights are a very powerful form of language, more so than need:
compare ‘I need help looking after my husband’ with ‘I have a right to
help to look after my husband’.
• The latter is much more insistent, and this underpins the wide range
of rights-based movements – women’s rights, children’s rights,
disabled people’s rights, service users’ rights, and so on.
• Not all rights are human rights, but many ‘lesser’ rights – for example,
consumer rights – have at their core ideas about fairness, honesty,
and treating people with the respect that are certainly consistent with
broader human rights; and those principles are thoroughly consistent
with the values of traditional relationship-based social work.
• The international definition of social work states that ‘Principles of
human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work’
(IFSW/IASSW, 2001), and has argued that social work should be seen
as a human rights profession.
Types of Human Rights
• There are two core human rights types:
1. Civil and Political Rights
2. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• They have their roots in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights and were
written in order to give more detail and force to that declaration.
• They were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966
• Civil and political rights have been called ‘first-generation rights’, and have their
roots in libertarianism, where the state has a small but strong role to defend
people’s individual freedoms (the minimalist approach).
• Economic, social, and cultural rights have been called ‘second-generation rights’,
and have their roots in egalitarianism and social democracy. They imply a much
more active role for the state to ensure that they are achieved, not just to defend
them.
Civil and Political Rights
• the right to life
• the right to be free from torture
• the right to liberty and security of person
• the right to freedom of movement
• the right to a fair hearing
• the right to privacy
• the right to freedom of religion, expression, and peaceful assembly
• the right to family life
• the rights of children to special protection
• the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs
• the over-arching right to equal treatment
• the special rights of members of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities
Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights
• the right to education
• the right to housing
• the right to adequate standard of living
• the right to health
• the right to participate in culture, to benefit from scientific
progress, and to have a stake in their own contributions
to science and culture.
• First-generation rights are sometimes called ‘negative rights’, because
they limit the powers of the state (it must not infringe them except in
certain exceptional and clearly defined circumstances), in contrast to
the ‘positive’ second-generation rights, which bring many more
duties and tasks for the state.
 Difference
Between Both
Types of Human
Rights
 Civil and political rights Social, economic, and cultural rights

Differences
The Human Rights Act 1998
• The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 incorporates the European
Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms into UK law (usually known simply as the European
Convention on Human Rights, ECHR).
• The ECHR was written in 1950 and the UK signed it in 1951; since
1965 people who considered that their rights under the Convention
had been infringed have been able to apply for a remedy to the
European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
• So, the ECHR was not new to the UK, but the Human Rights Act 1998
introduced three vital changes.
• First, UK courts can now hear ECHR cases (although complainants are
still able to apply to Strasbourg after they have exhausted all domestic
routes).
• Second, all UK legislation since 2000 should be compatible with the
ECHR, and all legislation (whatever date) should, if possible, be
interpreted and applied in such a way as to be compatible with the
ECHR (HRA 1998, s. 3).
• Third, and crucially for social work, it is unlawful for a public authority
to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right (HRA
1998, s. 6).
• Box 4.4 highlights three key articles from the ECHR in order to demonstrate
the relevance of Convention rights to social work and the complexity of the
balancing acts involved.
• However, other articles have far-reaching implications too, notably: Article 2,
the right to life (e.g. for treatment of severely ill or disabled people); Article
5, freedom from unlawful detention (e.g. for people with severe mental
health problems or limited mental capacity, children and adults in care
settings – for example, action under the ECHR has led to the introduction of
‘deprivation of liberty safeguards for adults with limited mental capacity: DH
and OPG, 2009); and Article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion
(e.g. diet, daily activities and participation in acts of worship for people in
care settings or receiving community care services).
A Debate between Rights and Duties/responsibilities

• The government published a review of the implementation of the

Human Rights Act in 2006, which concluded (among other things) that
the Act ‘promotes greater personalization and therefore better public
services’ (DCA, 2006b: 1).
• The review considered that the Act had not seriously impeded action
against crime and terrorism and that its overall impact had been
beneficial.
• It concluded that the ECHR does allow suitable balances between
individual rights and public safety, but there are many myths and
misunderstandings about it, and people need to be more aware of the
protection aspects (pp. 39–42).
• The government published a green paper entitled The Governance of Britain in 2007, and
suggested new legislation about human rights, which would:
• provide explicit recognition that human rights come with responsibilities and must be exercised in a way
that respects the human rights of others. It would build on the basic principles of the Human Rights Act
but make explicit the way in which a democratic society’s rights have to be balanced by obligations.
• The idea of a new bill proved very controversial.
• The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) undertook an investigation and
reported in August 2008.
• It discussed what sort of rights should be included, and what force a new bill of rights should
have – that is, whether it should it be more like a declaration of general principles, or give
individuals the right to take cases to court.
• It argued that human rights ‘cannot be made contingent on the prior fulfilment of
responsibilities’ (JCHR, 2008: 71), and suggested that any new bill should be called a Bill of
Rights and Freedoms, rather than Rights and Responsibilities.
• The government accepts that rights are not dependent on responsible
behaviour but holds that both are necessary for a healthy society: The
challenge is how better to remind people of the importance of individual
responsibility and give this greater prominence.
• Individual rights must be promoted and protected without losing sight of the
essential contribution of responsibilities to collective harmony and prosperity.
• The green paper rejects the idea of any new economic, social, and cultural
rights that could give rise to individual claims in the courts.
• It argues that these are matters for Parliament to decide, not the courts
because they involve political decisions about spending public money. It
considers that the Bill could express the principles of the welfare state
without creating any individually enforceable legal rights
• It suggests that the Bill could include a right for children to achieve
well-being, but in this broad aspirational way, as a general principle,
rather than bringing individual entitlements.
• It links this idea with a proposal that the Bill could also specify the
mutual responsibilities of parents, society, the government, and
young people themselves.
• The debates about the Bill will be an intriguing issue to follow over
the coming years, with profound implications for all public services.