5 ms·
>If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a bill. Just strictly on this point, sometimes bills (or parts of bills) are intro
by d_theorist 11y ago
>If they didn't mean to change the status quo, they wouldn't have introduced a bill.
Just strictly on this point, sometimes bills (or parts of bills) are introduced to clarify existing law. It may be a matter of subtle semantics, but this is often what is meant when it is claimed that a bill will not change the law.
- toyg 11y agoWell, in this case the proposed act will basically supersede the Human Rights Act, by excluding authorities from respecting its article 8 ("Right to Privacy"), under which they've been repeatedly challenged (and defeated) since Snowden's revelations. Which is really a change in law, not a clarification. So yeah, what they really need is a change, because current law is very clear that what they do is illegal.
- pjc50 11y agoNo, it doesn't (and can't) supercede the HRA; there is actually no mechanism in UK law for doing that other than explicit repeal (Factortame principle). And article 8 has an ill-specified "national security" exemption. http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-8-of-the-echr/ http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-in...