2674-A Fixing Human Rights Law ppi-pp94 WEB.indd

The latter alternative is for the minister responsible for a Bill in Parliament to: ‘…make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.’17 This does not affect the validity of the Bill. [...] The rights balancing those of a human rights claimant are not confined to those of the opposing party in the lawsuit in question but must always also include the human rights of the mass of law-abiding members of society. [...] The High Court was scathing in its criticism of the District Judge’s decision, mainly on the ground that the District judge had failed to balance the protestors’ rights to freedom of expression (Art 10 ECHR) and freedom of peaceful assembly (Art 11 ECHR) against the public’s right of access to the highway. [...] The second paragraph in both those articles makes the rights in question subject to certain restrictions (in the case of Article 11): ‘…as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others’. [...] Strikes in public services such as the NHS and transport have a negative impact on the human rights of the mass of law-abiding members of the public, who have the right to go about their daily business without let or hindrance, and, as far as the NHS is concerned, have the right to a ‘free’ service at the point of use.