Human Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Human Rights - Essay ExampleFor better brain the following explanations relevant to the case under study are noteworthy 1. bind 11defines assembly as a company of persons gathered for some common purpose, for example, a meeting or public display whereas freedom of assembly includes organisation of, and participation in marches processions, static assemblies sit-ins and both public and offstage events, whether formal informal (Interights, 2007, p. 7). Based on this definition, Riks group and activity qualifies. 2. The right to freedom of dovish assembly is not an absolute right, but is a qualified right. Meaning, such rights can be interfered with by the Government under specified circumstances. The manner by which clause 11 is constructed clearly manifests this, wherein section 1 defines the rights being upheld, era section 2 defines Government legitimate interferences that may curtail this right. (Ashcroft et al., 1999, p. 22) 3. The general principles as to Government legitim ate interferences are set by the European Court of Human Rights following the deuce cases Bukta v Hungary 2007 ECHR Application No 25691/04 (17 July 2007) and Makhmudov v Russia 2007 ECHR Application No 35082/04 (26 July 2007), whereby the concerned State parties had been found violating Article 11 (Marauhn, 2007, p. 120). The Court laid the burden of proof on the State, ruling that Government interference against Article 11 is legitimate provided a. It has legal basis in domestic law. In determining the necessity of a restriction, the European Court and Commission have always accorded a certain margin of appreciation to the case authorities (Rai, Allmond & Negotiate Now 1995) (Hamilton, 2007, p. 19-20). In Riks case the following UK laws apply for the power of the MP are the Public Order Act (POA) 1986 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) 2005 (Norton 2010) while for the restricted use of the Parliament Square are the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and the b attle of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square Garden (Amendment No. 1) Byelaws 2002 (Greater London Authority, 2002). b. It is grounded on permissible aims, which in Riks case as given by the MP is shelter. Although such given reason was unconvincing peculiarly so that in the past The Parliament Square has been the common centre for demonstrations and no recent security issue had been heard for the use of the Square. Furthermore, the HOOL as an organisation does not connote any violent goal and does not have any violent history in the past. c. It is indispensable in a antiauthoritarian society, which in Riks case to ensure security is necessary for a democratic society to savor its freedom and rights. However, the right being curtailed is in fact one of the cornerstone of democratic society. Meaning, the reason for its intrusion must be greater. In Riks case, the reason is unconvincing. d. It should be proportionate to the aim being pursued, which in the case of Riks, the po lice kettling which although favoured by the High Court in Austin v Commissioner of Police of the urban center (UKHL, 2009) of the protesters for four hours did result to the curtailment of the protesters freedom of movement and even put their health, especially the young children, at