Talk:Bill of Rights Bill

Abortion in the Bill

There are two sections on abortion in the Bill. Yet it isn't mentioned in the Bill and isn't a significant political issue in the UK. It is not generally considered a "human right" of anywhere near the same importance as the rights in the Bill. It is, as has been said, political settled. As such, it seems that the only reason such a large section has been included in this article is because it's either someone's personal bugbear or simply because of the recent American decision. However, despite this being an American website, this is a British article and it does seem a bit odd to focus so much on what is really quite a minor issue in British politics. With great respect to Dr Kirsty Hughes, a total replacement of the HRA with a new Act is a lot bigger than one minor area of health policy that she is personally enthusiastic about.

I also note that the section is hardly balanced, if balance is a concern, although I do not think it usually is on Wikipedia. She clearly has a very strong pro-abortion stance. I'm sure her opponents would have something to say in response to this which is just as notable, but which hasn't been included. And to include that would balloon the section even further. So I would suggest cutting down the mention of abortion to the "Labour interventions on abortion" section. That section could even be removed itself, as I think it smells a bit of recentism given the recent American decision. To be honest, all three of the 'reception' sections other than 'Impact on the Good Friday Agreement' read to me like quite desperate attempts to find any way to criticise it at all. Not unexpected from His Majesty's Opposition, that being their job, but I'm not sure every opposition criticism of every government Bill is notable enough to deserve its own section on Wikipedia. 2404:4404:27E4:EE00:A586:DBC5:944D:6FFE (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not averse to removing the larger section on abortion referencing Dr Hughes’ views as I take the point that it is a single academic’s view. I consider the Labour intervention relevant given that the early stage of the Bill means that ongoing Parliamentary debate is relevant material and the suggestion that amendments may be sought to involve abortion as a right in the Bill is more than mere health policy. As to the general reception of the Bill, my view is that it has been widely negative with even conservative members and SpAds criticising it after it was initially halted. I would welcome direction to any sources in support in order to add their views where relevant. ~~ MKT92 (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Binding over the UK in international law

An edit was made which I have reverted but I mistakenly did so without leaving a comment so will do so here and for future discussion. It was suggested a passage which states that Strasbourg remains a binding authority over the U.K. in international law was incorrect because the U.K. is a sovereign nation. Strasbourg is the binding authority over the U.K. in relation to Human Rights (insofar as this means ECHR rights) because those rights are required by treaty, which the U.K. signed and which makes the Strasbourg the final court of appeal. As a sovereign nation the U.K. has agreed to the treaty and is thereby bound. The passage is correct. The U.K. would need to leave the treaty (which as a ‘sovereign nation’ it could) in order to change this. The Bill of Rights does not propose leaving the ECHR MKT92 (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)