Some AS Citizenship students have been having difficulty with the following homework question:

'We can depend upon our elected representatives to protect our human rights, we do not need the Human Rights Act of 1998.' Discuss the relevance, or otherwise, of articles of the HRA. 

I would advise all students to download and read the attachment to this post which explains the purpose and function of the Human Rights Act 1998. Also Chapter 6 of Duncan Watts textbook.

The question is effectively asking you - Is the Human Rights Act 1998 really worth the paper it's written on? Are the 'rights' contained within for individuals important (what do they protect?).

In essence, the Act means that all legislation (law) passed in the UK must be compatible with the Convention on Human Rights (i.e. follow it)...

So for example, under Article 10 - Freedom of Expression journalists and the media can publish without fear of state interference or having to reveal their sources (such as the recent expenses scandal).

Does the state have the right to look at your personal information or do you have a right to privacy?

When you are arrested and detained at a police station, do you have a right not to be tortured?

Do you always have a freedom of expression - even if what you want to say could be damaging (possibly even to the Government)?

If the state has breached your rights, what remedy can be given?

Our elected representatives such as our MPs, are voted in by members of the public to serve their local area (constituency). However, they are also members of their respective political parties - where does their duty and their loyalty lie?