The broader point is that if our inalienable basic rights were properly recognised distinguished and defended in law in a New Bill of Rights, then any government response to a future emergency situation would be properly constrained.
No Parliament can bind the hands of a future Parliament. Any bill of rights can be set aside by Parliament.Parliament can make or unmake any law.
I see that Mr Tony Blair recently graced the vaccine passport debate, arguing for a reconsideration on the basis that it would not be discrimination to treat people differentially over the jab because they are being given the free choice about it.
Following this logic, it would not be discrimination to treat people differentially over their religion, or their membership of a political party or trade union because they have free choice about such things.
Blair may be a lying, cheating war criminal who deserves to be locked up but he does know the law. An NHS website give this handy definition of "protected characteristics" in the UK The protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010 are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership (but only in respect of eliminating unlawful discrimination), pregnancy and maternity, race—this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, religion or belief—this includes lack of belief, sex, sexual orientation.So, in UK law treating people differently on the basis of religious affiliation IS discrimination. Neither political party nor trade union membership is a protected characteristic under this legislation. It's not a question of whether people have chosen to belong to a particular group, it's a question of what the law says.
Blair may be a lying, cheating war criminal who deserves to be locked up but he does know the law. An NHS website give this handy definition of "protected characteristics" in the UK The protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010 are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership (but only in respect of eliminating unlawful discrimination), pregnancy and maternity, race—this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality, religion or belief—this includes lack of belief, sex, sexual orientation.So, in UK law treating people differently on the basis of religious affiliation IS discrimination. Neither political party nor trade union membership is a protected characteristic under this legislation. It's not a question of whether people have chosen to belong to a particular group, it's a question of what the law says.
This is where the fun really starts..
Religion refers to any religion, including a lack of religion. Belief refers to any religious or philosophical belief and includes a lack of belief. Generally, a belief should affect your life choices or the way you live for it to be included in the definition.
I have a deeply held belief in empirical science and mathematics and the related philosophic traditions in Western Civilization over the last 2500 years and base on all my choices in managing my health conditions on thorough research on the relevant scientific literature and weighing up the evidence in accordance with the process and judgment used in all other areas of scientific.
So due to this personal belief in empirical science I am lead to believe that both the empirical evidence so far published, the evidence chain used by public health officials as a justification for the use of these vaccines at this time, and the evidence so far published for the efficacy and mode of action of these vaccines does to rise to the level of probable or even possible proof of the case for my taking any of these particular vaccines at this time.
If however better evidence is published in the future on any or all the above points I will of course reassess this conclusion. In accordance with the philosophical foundations of empirical science.
So my personal philosophical views and decisions made under them are very much under the legal remit of the Equality Act 2010. Like not getting vaccinated.
Parliamentary supremcy is a moot point as what is required is a new constitution settingout rights not a set of laws passed by Parliament. Or a system to entrench laws. It's been debated numerous times by constitutional lawyers but everyone seems to fall back on the fact our uncodified constitution is best as it is "flexible". I suggest we need the opposite now.
As of 31/7/21, 336,000 people have signed the petition to outlaw discrimination against unvaccinated people. Parliament will consider this for a debate, but has not set a date. Whilst a defeat looks unlikely, this is an opportunity to put pressure on our elected representatives. There will obviously be strong interest in the debate, and all MPs need to know that their contributions to the debate will be subject to intense scrutiny. I recommend contacting your MP before the debate, asking them what position they will be taking, and outlining your objections to what is happening. Please sign if you haven't already. It has already passed the 100,000 mark, but the more the better. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575801
