I see a fundamental problem with a charitable religious organisation doing something with Government money but wanting to be exempted from legislation. However, that is not relevant to the Human Rights Act, which does not cover adoption by same-sex couples. The right to marriage does not include anything about civil partnership. However, I agree that there is an issue if people who use public money do not want to comply with the law of the land.
We need to be clear that, when we are talking about human rights we are usually talking about the rights of ordinary people—the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled, the sick and the young. Careless talk about human rights sometimes implies that individuals or groups of individuals should not have rights. That is dangerous thinking and ignores the concept of the universality of human rights. Of course, difficult situations arise in which rights can conflict, and an appropriate balance has to be struck. But we have to remember the thinking behind the Human Rights Act, which was to bring the issue of human rights home. Instead of the need to spend years taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights, the same protection can be provided in this country. What matters now is that we ensure that there is proper understanding throughout society of what the HRA means and its sensible use to ensure the rights and dignity of all.
Human Rights
Proceeding contribution from
Nia Griffith
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 19 February 2007.
It occurred during Adjournment debate on Human Rights.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
457 c95-6 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:16:47 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_377706
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_377706
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_377706