DOCSLIB.ORG

How Do We Stop Rights and Freedoms Being a Political Football? Francesca Klug & Helen Wildbore

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Do We Stop Rights and Freedoms Being a Political Football? Francesca Klug & Helen Wildbore Unlock Democracy incorporating Charter 88 Protecting rights: how do we stop rights and freedoms being a political football? Francesca Klug & Helen Wildbore years of Unlocking Democracy This pamphlet is based on a speech delivered by Francesca Klug at the Convention on Modern Liberty on 28 February 2009 in a workshop of this title. Our lecture and pamphlet series are intended to provoke debate on and interest in issues relating to democracy and human rights. As an organisation promoting democratic reform and human rights, we may disagree with what our contributors say - but we are always stimulated by and grateful to them. The views of the authors of this work should not be presumed to be the opinion of Unlock Democracy or its staff. First published by Unlock Democracy in 2009. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 2.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit www. creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc/2.0/uk/ Protecting rights: how do we stop rights and freedoms being a political football? Francesca Klug, Professorial Research Fellow, LSE As all academics tend to do, I will try to deconstruct this question and address it in two parts. First, how do we stop rights and freedoms being political? Second, how do we stop the debate on rights and freedoms becoming like a football match – although sometimes it feels like the current climate is more like a wrestling, than a football, match! How do we stop rights and freedoms being political? If this were the whole question, it would be a misguided one. Rights and freedoms come from political struggle, of course. Human rights values may endure, but you will never end debate about the appropriate balance between liberty and security; privacy and free expression; or freedom of association and protection from discrimination and incitement – nor should you! The issue that confronts us is not how to take rights out of politics but how to enable all to participate equally in politics – and society as a whole – by ensuring that everyone can fulfil their potential through the guarantee of certain fundamental rights; some of which inevitably tread on other people’s freedoms, of course. This is the whole point of bills of rights; in particular, to protect individuals and minorities whose views and aspirations are not necessarily represented by a system based on majority rule. Any bill of rights worthy of the name, whilst protecting everyone’s liberties, gives most succour to the marginalised and unpopular – or controversial causes and questions – precisely because these are the people and issues with least protection from other legislation and policy. When this happens, you will never eradicate negative headlines – they can still dog the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, more than 25 years after it was enacted. What bills of rights cannot do – of course – is create Nirvana, or Shangri-La. Think of the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, Real ID Act 2005, Detainee Treatment Act and the removal of habeas corpus from detainees that the former President of the US, George Bush, designated as unlawful enemy combatants (see appendix one). The American Bill of Rights stopped none of these being passed. All bills of rights are by their nature expressed in broad terms and are subject to wide interpretations by the courts. No bill of rights will guarantee freedoms in testing times if people do not remain vigilant. As the famous US Justice Learned Hand memorably said, “liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”2 This pamphlet is based on a speech delivered by Francesca Klug at the Convention on Modern Liberty on 28 February 2009 in a workshop of this title. 2 The Spirit of Liberty, speech at I Am an American Day ceremony, Central Park, New York City, May 2, 944. Page Rights and freedoms as a football match? But politics is only one side of the equation we are asked to consider. The second part of this question, football, is altogether another issue. This is a game which ignites passion, without doubt. A game in which scoring points is the whole point, and backing your side against the other team is the whole pleasure. Point scoring in the current debate about a new bill of rights and the Human Rights Act (HRA) is evident, although sometimes the race seems to be to the bottom rather than the top (of the division). The irony is that whilst giving an appearance of being two opposing teams, the two main political parties have at times seemed strikingly close on this issue. Both have resented the sometimes significant incursions on state power brought about by the HRA. Both have stated that their reason for supporting a bill of rights is to underline the responsibilities of the individual and the importance of ‘good behaviour’. It is the Liberal Democrat frontbenchers, the long time supporters of a bill of rights, who have been expressing the greatest reservations about the way the current debate is framed. Why? Well partly because it feels like only yesterday that the HRA, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law just eight years ago, was itself widely regarded as a bill of rights. The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in a speech at the end of last year, called for “a clear and responsible stand on the Human Rights Act…Human rights are not something you pick up one day and put down the next. They are the unwavering, unshakeable commitment to the dignity of people. They are the principles by which we can call ourselves civilised.”5 The leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, kicked off the current ‘debate’ about a Bill of Rights with a promise to “replace” the HRA with a “British Bill of Rights”. He has repeated this commitment to “abolish” the HRA several times. One of his central reasons is that the HRA “has made it harder to protect our security. It is hampering the fight against crime and terrorism”. Of particular concern to Mr Cameron is the (exaggerated) belief that “we’ve got to a position where the Home Secretary doesn’t seem able to deport people who would put the country at risk”; the same restriction on executive power that led former Labour Home Secretary John Reid to regret that his government had ever introduced the HRA. It is difficult to think of a precedent outside the former Soviet Union where the case for constitutional rights has been made on the back of increasing the powers of the state. The (relatively few) deportations that have been prevented by our courts (stemming from a European Court See Jack Straw, Uncorrected Evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 20 January 2009. Dominic Grieve was quoted in a Northern Ireland newspaper in January as saying that the Conservative Party intend to create a bill of rights which would have in-built safeguards to prevent those “whose own behaviour is lacking” from abusing its powers. ‘Rights culture is out of control – Tory MP’, News Letter, 0 January 2009. 4 When the ECHR was drafted after World War II, largely at the behest of the British government, all political parties took the view that, unlike most of the rest of Europe, it should not become part of domestic law (although UK governments became subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg). After a sustained campaign, spearheaded by groups like Charter 88 and Liberty, the New Labour government relented and passed the HRA. Speech at Amnesty International to mark Human Rights Day, 0 December 2008. Other front bench spokespeople, and the former Lib Dem leader, have made similar remarks. David Cameron, ‘Balancing freedom and security – A modern British Bill of Rights’, Centre for Policy Studies, 26/06/06. Cameron on Cameron: Conversations with Dylan Jones, Fourth Estate, 2008, p.. 8 Interview in News of the World, 16 Sept 2007. Page of Human Rights ruling which preceded the HRA9) all revolve around a concern that the deportees will be killed or tortured if they are returned to their home country. The second, and perhaps even more unusual argument for replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights, relates to the power of the judiciary. Cameron has advanced the case that a British Bill of Rights would somehow allow UK governments to ignore European Court of Human Rights rulings it does not agree with, a proposition which has been demolished by research from Oxford University which demonstrated that, if anything, the reverse applies.10 As a variant of this argument, former Shadow Justice Secretary, Nick Herbert, advanced the case that a bill of rights would bolster parliament. Protecting parliamentary sovereignty from judicial scrutiny is the classic argument for opposing bills of rights, not supporting them!11 Rights and freedoms are not a game, of course. Least of all one whose rules should change to suit political leaders12 – across the political spectrum – or to respond to newspaper headlines. People who call for a new bill of rights have got to make up their mind exactly what vision they are conjuring! If they are seeking enduring values which are constitutionalised, they will have to accept that although we might be the lucky ones to have a say in what these fundamental rights and freedoms should be, we will deprive future generations of this pleasure. It will inevitably fall to unelected judges, not ‘the people’, to interpret their application, and flesh out their meaning, as the years go by.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Solidity Or Wind?": What's on the Menu in the Bill of Rights Debate?
    Francesca Klug "Solidity or wind?": what's on the menu in the bill of rights debate? Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Klug, Francesca (2009) "Solidity or wind?": what's on the menu in the bill of rights debate? Political Quarterly, 80 (3). pp. 420-426. ISSN 0032-3179 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.01997.x © 2009 The Author © The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25118/ Available in LSE Research Online: April 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. “Solidity or Wind?” What’s on the menu in the bill of rights debate? [This article was written before the government published the Green Paper Rights and Responsibilities: developing our constitutional framework in March 2009 and provides a political context to it.] Many of us in the UK will have felt a twinge of envy when Barack Obama, in his Inaugural speech, affirmed “the ideals of our forbears” and the need to stay “true to our founding documents.” These American forbears had, of course, fought ‘our’ British forbears to gain their freedom and, with no written constitution, we have precious few founding documents to turn to.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost of the Cops
    Policy Exchange Police staffing and resources are at unprecedented levels. On any basis England and Wales have never been more policed, and police forces have never been so rich in technology or staff support. But budget reduc)ons for the police in England and Wales Cost of the Cops over the next four years and the need for improved produc)vity will focus a*en)on on the costs of policing, the pay and condi)ons of staff and the way in which those resources are deployed. Manpower and deployment in policing Edward Boyd, Rory Geoghegan and Blair Gibbs Eighty per cent of police funding is spent on personnel, so the impera)ve to ensure Cost of the Cops efficient staffing arrangements has never been greater. Unfortunately the debate about police funding con)nues to be played out in line with a damaging two decade-long obsession with officer numbers, and a lack of understanding about how police manpower is presently deployed. Cost of the Cops examines the cost base of policing over the period 2001-2010 and explores whether current resources of staff and uniformed officers are being used effec)vely. This report examines in detail manpower and deployment issues affec)ng the police – including civilianisa)on, deployment and frontline visibility. This report finds that low rates of civilianisa)on s)ll persist in the police, which prevents the right people from being in the right jobs, resul)ng in inefficiency and a poorer service to the public as warranted officers perform civilian roles far away from the frontline.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking out of Britain's Neo-Liberal State
    cDIREoCTIONmFOR THE pass DEMOCRATIC LEFT Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State January 2009 Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett 3 4 r Tr hink e b m m u N PIECES 3 4 Tr hink e b m u N PIECES Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett “In the big-dipper of UK politics, the financial crisis suddenly re-reversed these terms. Gordon Brown excavated a belief in Keynesian solutions from his social democratic past and a solidity of purpose that was lacking from Blair’s lightness of being” Compass publications are intended to create real debate and discussion around the key issues facing the democratic left - however the views expressed in this publication are not a statement of Compass policy. Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 1 Breaking out of Britain’s reduced for so many, is under threat with The British Empire State Building Neo-Liberal State no state provisions in place for them. The political and even military consequences England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett could well be dire. created a framework of compromise between monarchy and Parliament. It was Nonetheless we should celebrate the followed by the union of England with possible defeat of one aspect of neo- Scotland of 1707, which joined two he world we have lived in, liberal domination. It cheered the different countries while preserving their created from the twin oil-price destruction of a communist world that distinct legal traditions. Since then the T shockwaves of 1973 and 1979 was oppressive and unfree.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Agenda for Constitutional Reform
    UCL DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The Constitution Unit Department of Political Science UniversityThe Constitution College London Unit 29–30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU phone: 020 7679 4977 fax: 020 7679 4978 The Conservative email: [email protected] www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit A genda for Constitutional The Constitution Unit at UCL is the UK’s foremost independent research body on constitutional change. It is part of the UCL School of Public Policy. THE CONSERVATIVE Robert Hazell founded the Constitution Unit in 1995 to do detailed research and planning on constitutional reform in the UK. The Unit has done work on every aspect AGENDA of the UK’s constitutional reform programme: devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, reform of the House of Lords, electoral reform, R parliamentary reform, the new Supreme Court, the conduct of referendums, freedom eform Prof FOR CONSTITUTIONAL of information, the Human Rights Act. The Unit is the only body in the UK to cover the whole of the constitutional reform agenda. REFORM The Unit conducts academic research on current or future policy issues, often in collaboration with other universities and partners from overseas. We organise regular R programmes of seminars and conferences. We do consultancy work for government obert and other public bodies. We act as special advisers to government departments and H parliamentary committees. We work closely with government, parliament and the azell judiciary. All our work has a sharply practical focus, is concise and clearly written, timely and relevant to policy makers and practitioners. The Unit has always been multi disciplinary, with academic researchers drawn mainly from politics and law.
    [Show full text]
  • How Much Do Elections Increase Police Responsiveness? Evidence from Elected Police Commissioners∗
    How Much Do Elections Increase Police Responsiveness? Evidence from Elected Police Commissioners∗ Tobias Nowacki,† Stanford University Daniel M. Thompson,‡ UCLA May 24, 2021 Abstract How much do elections increase police responsiveness to public preferences? In 2012, directly elected police commissioners replaced a committee of appointed officials overseeing local policing in the UK. We pair police force-level data on arrests, budgets, and voting behavior with a continuous difference-in-differences design to estimate the change in responsiveness. We find that, when police forces switched to directly-elected oversight, left-leaning districts reduced their drug arrest share relative to right-leaning districts, while right-leaning districts reduced administrative staff levels relative to left-leaning districts, both consistent with the different preferences held by partisans on the left and right. We also present evidence that this effect is not concentrated in places with a change in the political party responsible for oversight, suggesting that the increased responsiveness may come from encouraging the parties already overseeing the police to pursue policies the public wants rather than voters changing which party controls the office. ∗For helpful discussion, the authors thank Graeme Blair, Cameron DeHart, Andy Eggers, Ted Enamorado, Saad Gulzar, Justin Grimmer, Jens Hainmueller, Andy Hall, Sandy Handan-Nader, Neil Malhotra, Will Marble, Greg Martin, Julia Payson, Michael Sances, Sarah Thompson, Matt Tyler, Jesse Yoder, and members of the Stanford Democracy Policy Lab. For survey data on drug policy preferences, the authors thank Chris Curtis and Sam FitzPatrick at YouGov and Ben Lauderdale at University College London. †Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Reform Put on Hold in This Issue
    | THE CONSTITUTION UNIT NEWSLETTER | ISSUE 41 | JANUARY 2009 | MONITOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PUT ON HOLD IN THIS ISSUE Amidst the gathering economic gloom the be considered against the ‘backdrop’ of declining government’s constitutional reform plans are voter turn-out. The Conference’s mandate to PARLIAMENT 2 being quietly shelved. After the fanfare for The discover ways to make parliament’s membership Governance of Britain in summer 2007, the mirror the diversity in the UK population at large draft Constitutional Renewal Bill was greeted by is as urgent as ever: since 1918 a total of 4,659 PARTIES AND ELECTIONS 2-3 parliamentarians as a bit of a disappointment when Members have been elected to Parliament. Of they scrutinised its detailed proposals a year later. these, just 291 (6%) have been women. Of 646 That might be why the Constitutional Renewal current Members, only 15 are black or Asian. WATCHDOGS 3 Bill did not feature in the legislative programme announced in the Queen’s Speech in November. Speaker’s Conferences are rare: this will be only the sixth ever. Five were formed in the It may yet be included; but more likely is that CHURCH AND STATE 3 some proposals (eg the Civil Service bill) will be 20th century to consider reforms to the electoral introduced separately, in the summer. system, such as seat distribution and minimum voting age. They embody a parliamentary HUMAN RIGHTS 3 A similar sense of slippage afflicts plans for convention that controversial changes to electoral a British Bill of Rights. The government first law should be agreed on an all-party basis, promised to publish a consultation paper by the although this convention has not always been DEVOLUTION 4-5 spring of 2008; then the summer; then the autumn.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Monit Or the Association of Members of Independent Monitoring Boards
    November 2012 Issue 106 INDEPENDENT MONIT OR THE ASSOCIATION OF MEMBERS OF INDEPENDENT MONITORING BOARDS MARTIN NAREY EXCLUSIVE SEX OFFENDERS’ FAMILIES PENAL POLITICS EDITORIAL CONTENTS few days before this Monitor went to press came AMIMB 3 some startling news from Noms. ‘A new approach to Angela Clay drive efficiency and cost reduction in public sector 30 years on 4 A prisons’ is how Justice Secretary Chris Grayling Martin Narey described it. It was a mixed bag. The bad news for the Prison Service was that it will lose Northumberland prison (Acklington HMIP reports 7 Helen Banks and Castington prisons before they were clustered last year) as well as the South Yorkshire group of Lindholme, Hatfield and Telling stories 8 Moorland. The next stage of the competition for private Writer in residence Jessica Berens contracts to run them will involve Serco, Sodexo and Trouble ahead? 9 MTC/Amey – but no gold medal possibility for G4S: it’s been Rod Morgan disqualified from the race. G4S are also losing The Wolds, which rather dramatically will Koestler awards 10 return to the public sector next July, but in a cluster with They won’t know we’re coming 11 Everthorpe. And Coldingley, Durham and Onley prisons will HMCIP Nick Hardwick not be privatised after all. The bids from the private sector were Sentence mismanagement 12 ‘less convincing’ according to Noms boss Michael Spurr. This Bob Knowles was a surprise to the City, where private custody sector share prices slumped. A view from the Ivory Tower 15 On the other hand, big business must be rubbing its hands at Carol Hedderman what is perhaps the most significant bit of news in all this.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministers Reflect Nick Boles
    Ministers Reflect Nick Boles 28 November 2017 Biographical details Parliamentary history 2010–present: Member of Parliament for Grantham and Stamford Government career 2014–16: Minister of State for Skills (Jointly with the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) 2012–14: Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning (Department for Communities and Local Government) Nick Boles was interviewed by Daniel Thornton and Tess Kidney Bishop on 28 November 2017 for the Institute for Government’s Ministers Reflect project. Nick Boles recalls dealing with opposition to his planning reforms, working as a joint minister, and developing the apprenticeship levy. Beyond being a minister, he reflects on taking time away from Westminster due to illness and being flattered by a parody Twitter account. Daniel Thornton (DT): Could you tell us about your first appointment as a minister and how that happened? Nick Boles (NB): It was 2012 and I was appointed as part of a big reshuffle. David Cameron didn’t do very many reshuffles, in fact it was his first big reshuffle since the 2010 election. I had been elected in 2010. I had been PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary] to the Schools Minister Nick Gibb, who is one of the great survivors – I think now the longest-serving Schools Minister ever. There are certain people, and certain kinds of minister, where actually the longer that they can last the better and I think Nick would be a great example of that. Anyway, I’d been his PPS and then I was appointed as Planning Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government [DCLG].
    [Show full text]
  • UK Justice Policy Review
    UK Justice Policy Review Volume 3 6 May 2012 to 5 May 2013 By Richard Garside, Arianna Silvestri and Helen Mills Justice Policy Review About the authors Richard Garside is Director, Arianna Silvestri and Helen Mills are Volume 3 Research and Policy Associates at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. 6 May 2012 to 5 May 2013 Acknowledgements By Richard Garside, Arianna Silvestri Our sincere thanks go to the Centre’s interns Samantha Harding, and Helen Mills for her meticulous background work on the NOMS spend data and Jordan Beaumont, for his impeccable checking and proofing contribution. Thanks too go to Tammy McGloughlin for her attention to detail and production steering and to Steve Swingler, our designer. For clarification on the raw data we worked on to arrive at our tables and charts we are particularly grateful to Michelle Main at the Community Justice Operational Unit in the Scottish Government and Martin Birrell at the Scottish Prison Service. Both of them graciously helped by providing access to and background information about third sector contractual and other funding arrangements in Scotland, which we explored in the Special Focus data section in this volume. Our thanks also go to Mairead Burns, Probation Board for Northern Ireland, for her helpful response to our requests for information. We are grateful to The Hadley Trust, to whom this volume, and the Justice Policy Review series overall, owe their existence. We thank them for their generous support. Registered charity No. 251588 A company limited by guarantee Registered
    [Show full text]
  • Election 2001 Campaign Spending We Are an Independent Body That Was Set up by Parliament
    Election 2001 Campaign spending We are an independent body that was set up by Parliament. We aim to gain public confidence and encourage people to take part in the democratic process within the United Kingdom by modernising the electoral process, promoting public awareness of electoral matters, and regulating political parties. On 1 April 2002, The Boundary Committee for England (formerly the Local Government Commission for England) became a statutory committee of The Electoral Commission. Its duties include reviewing local election boundaries. © The Electoral Commission 2002 ISBN: 1-904363-08-3 1 Contents List of tables, appendices and returns 2 Conclusions 45 Preface 5 Political parties 45 Executive summary 7 Third parties 46 Spending by political parties 7 Candidates’ expenses 46 Spending by third parties 7 Future work programme 47 Spending by candidates 7 Introduction 9 Appendices The role of The Electoral Commission 10 Appendix 1 49 Campaign expenditure by political parties 11 Appendix 2 50 The spending limit 12 Appendix 3 87 Interpretation of legislation 12 Appendix 4 89 Public and media interest in the campaign 13 Appendix 5 90 Commission guidance 13 Appendix 6 97 Completing and reviewing the expenditure returns 13 Candidates’ election expenses at the Analysis of returns 14 2001 general election 99 Northern Ireland analysis 15 Great Britain analysis 17 Problems in categorising expenditure 18 Breakdown of total expenditure: the main three British parties 18 Other parties and trends 19 Apportionment and spending in England, Scotland
    [Show full text]
  • Centre for Political & Constitutional Studies King's College London
    CODIFYING – OR NOT CODIFYING – THE UNITED KINGDOM CONSTITUTION: THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION Centre for Political & Constitutional Studies King’s College London Series paper 2 2 May 2012 1 Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies The Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies is a politically non-aligned body at King’s College London, engaged in and promoting interdisciplinary studies and research into contemporary political and constitutional issues. The Centre’s staff is led by Professor Robert Blackburn, Director and Professor of Constitutional Law, and Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Research Professor, supported by a team of funded research fellows and academic staff at King’s College London specialising in constitutional law, contemporary history, political science, comparative government, public policy, and political philosophy. www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/groups/ich/cpcs/index. Authorship This report of the Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies was written by Dr Andrew Blick, Senior Research Fellow, in consultation with Professor Robert Blackburn, Director, and others at the Centre, as part of its impartial programme of research for the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee into Mapping the Path towards Codifying – or Not Codifying – the United Kingdom Constitution, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. Previous publications in this series Codifying – or Not Codifying – the United Kingdom Constitution: A Literature Review, Series Paper 1, February 2011 ©
    [Show full text]
  • Why Have a Bill of Rights?
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 26 Number 1 Symposium: The Bill of Rights Yesterday and Today: A Bicentennial pp.1-19 Celebration Symposium: The Bill of Rights Yesterday and Today: A Bicentennial Celebration Why Have a Bill of Rights? William J. Brennan Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William J. Brennan Jr., Why Have a Bill of Rights?, 26 Val. U. L. Rev. 1 (1991). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol26/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Brennan: Why Have a Bill of Rights? Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 26 Fall 1991 Number 1 ARTICLES WHY HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS? WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR.- It is a joy as well as an honor to speak to you today about a subject that has been at the heart of my service on the Supreme Court. The American Bill of Rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press, along with other important protections against arbitrary or oppressive government action, provides a noble expression and shield of human dignity. Together with the Civil War Amendments, outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude and ensuring all citizens equal protection of the laws and due process of law, the Bill of Rights stands as a constant guardian of individual liberty.
    [Show full text]