HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

 

STATEMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

ARTICLE 8:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, 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.

ARTICLE 9:

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

UNLESS it can be shown that the possession or cultivation of cannabis for own use or the consumption and / or sharing of cannabis alone or with others, poses a risk to “public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”, then any interference by any authority with the Rights under Article 8 and 9 IS CONTRARY TO Human Rights Act 1998, and CONSTITUTES AN OFFENCE IN LAW.

 

Human Rights, the higher law

 I never asked for Human Rights, they were given to me even before I was born.

I only ever demanded that my Rights and the Rights of others be protected by law.

Human Rights are not subject to or limited by laws.

Laws are subject to and limited by Human Rights, the higher law.

Human Rights were written down and signed by many nations in the late 1940's in order to limit and stop tyrannical and unjustifiable laws created by Governments, in the name of the Brotherhood of Mankind.  They were incorporated into UK law as late as 1999.

Governments cannot put their own interpretations, limits or conditions upon our Rights.  In fact Human Rights put restrictions on Governments and their statutes, although there is some interpretations on how Rights can be ignored, clearly specified in the Articles, that is in the interest of Public Health, Public Order, National Security or the Rights of Others, but it the onus should always be on the authorities to prove those criteria are satisfied.

Ultimately the European Court of Human Rights has the final say on whether or not a Government or Authority has contravened Human Rights although taking a case there can be along and difficult process which can be thrown out without reason and with no Right of appeal at the administrative level before a case can even get to court.  They are the obstacle.

We all have equal Rights.

Rights are not subject to or limited by race, religion or lifestyle;  they are not only for the wealthy and powerful, they are for everyone, for all time.

Those Rights include the Right to choose and practice ones own religion or belief and the Government cannot limit that unless they can show a threat to public health, national security or the Rights of others.  Governments cannot make laws limiting that choice willy-nilly, there is no list of acceptable or unacceptable beliefs.  The practice of those beliefs can be alone or in the company of others.

Similarly, we have the Right to a Private Life and what we do in that private life cannot be limited by arbitrary or politically-motivated laws - so long as there is no threat to public health etc.

So the fact that what a person does in their Private Life or in the practice of their beliefs cannot be interfered with only because a government has made it "illegal" - it must be in the interests of law AND to prevent a risk to public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others - that is very clearly specified in the Article of Human Rights.

That cannot be stressed enough - when a Government cannot satisfy the criteria and sends its forces such as police to interfere with our given and inalienable Rights, then that Government and its forces are guilty of a crime and we are the victims. 

This should be paramount in any consideration of the application of laws, for example, in the possession, production, supply and consumption of some drugs by some people in their own homes.

Cannabis law is the problem, not cannabis

The UK Government continues to try to justify their stance on the possession and cultivation of cannabis in Private, for own use, claiming that it is a dangerous and harmful drug.

Harm has nothing to do with it;

We are all allowed to engage in many activities and consumer many substances that carry a risk to the individual - but what an individual does in Private Life is supposed to be protected by Human Rights laws.

The authorities have no right to step in and stop us unless there is a risk to public health or the Rights of others.

BUT it is also supposed to be the duty of government to protect people and their health

That duty does not include the Right stop one doing what one wants in one’s Private Life.

Human Rights law demands that there is a risk to public health (etc) NOT Private Health.

We are entitled to make ourselves ill by drinking too much or taking too much sugar, coffee, over-the-counter medicines, eat out houseplants (unless it's cannabis), smoke our plants s(o long a sits not cannabis,and a couple of others) ...... and the law can do nothing so long as we do not put others at risk.

It obviously has nothing to do with harm.

Leaving the supply of cannabis in the hands of dealers that may sell bad quality, unknown strength, contamination, other "drugs" certainly risks harm.

The Government realised that it had a duty to protect people that want to drink alcohol by restricting sales to "adults", ensuring quality, recording strengths and giving drinkers somewhere to go to buy and consume in safety. People can also brew their own wines and beers and the authorities can do nothing about it so long as it is not sold and causes not problems outside the premises.

And even if everything the government says is true about risks of use, or that consumption would go up, or that we're all going bald, or that some people or children are better off without it, EVEN if the mental health service was flooded with cannabis patients, even if we all get ill ... even if it did lead some people to hard drugs and / or crime, split up families, ruin lives ... THAT IS NO REASON TO PUNISH EITHER THOSE THAT SUFFER OR THOSE THAT DON'T.

So what is the purpose of giving a person a criminal record because they chose to consume one plant product over another, if they are doing no harm?

It is important to realise that Human Rights law is a higher law than national laws and meant to stifle unacceptable and unjustifiably tyrannical laws.

It is important to distinguish between a person in possession or cultivation of cannabis alone or with others on private premises, and those people that supply others, with our without profits.

It is only on supply that the authorities step in to protect people. It is only those that risk harm to others that deserve punishment.

Dear MP, please explain my Human Rights

Dear .... MP

I have read that I have Human Rights.

In particular I am interested in my Right to a Private Life and my Right to choose and practice my own beliefs.

Could you please explain to me what that actually means in law?

Yours sincerely

Name and Address

YOUR Right to choose and practice your religion or beliefs. Your Right to a Private Life.

UK law and International Treaty protect the Right of every person to choose and to practice his own belief. There is no stipulation on what that belief should be; there is no list of acceptable religions. Each to his or her own. The practice of that belief, alone or with others, is also part of that Right. In addition, we have the Right to a Private Life.  

 

These Rights are being abused by the way in which The Misuse of Drugs Act is applied, by invading the Private Lives of people who pose no risk or do no harm due to their possession or cultivation or non-commercial sharing of cannabis alone or with consenting adults in their private, in belief that such activites improve the quality of their lives.

 

The Law and the Articles in the Treaties quite specifically limit and set criteria for when authorties are allowed to interfere with those Rights. Unless they can show that the criteria demanded is satisfied, then those authorities are themselves accussed of breaking the law.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the possession or cultivation of cannabis for own use or sharing in private poses a risk to public health or the Rights as others. 

 

The UK Human Rights Act 1998 states: 

 

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 

 

Right to respect for private and family life

 

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, 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. 

 

Prohibition of abuse of rights

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention. 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

 

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf  

 

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

 

image thanks to Karl Turner

 

Our RIGHT to practice our own beliefs, alone or in the company of others

Sadhu's, Jains and others that use cannabis for "religious" reasons have been exempted from prosecution of possession for many years, I believe, due to Human Rights Articles - but the Indian Government limits that exception to religions that it accepts, whereas Human rights says "Every person can choose their own religion or BELIEF"

Almost every Government in the world is acting illegally when they prosecute any person that believes that cannabis is beneficial to them unless they can show that a ban is in the interests of public health, public order or national security, or the Rights of others.

WE are allowed to practice our belief alone or in the companies of others - that is a RIGHT that cannot legally be taken away.


THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

SO WHY ARE OUR RIGHTS CONTRAVENED BY THE UK AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS WITHOUT GOOD REASON?

http://www.ccguide.org/lca/challengeintro.php

Invasion of privacy - the law demands justification

“There is such a thing to the RIGHT TO A PRIVATE LIFE and the criteria by with authorities can justify interfering with that Right are clearly specified in the Act: it must be in the interests of law AND to protect public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others - law itself is NOT enough.

How does the SUSPICION that a person MAY be growing cannabis (breaking the law) pose such risks and how can the invasion of people homes be justified in terms of Human Rights.

If there is no known or potential victim, then how can there be a crime?

And at what cost?”

Cannabis factory find prompts Hull City Council to plan more inspections
Hull Daily Mail, March 27 2012
ROUTINE inspections of council-owned commercial premises could be stepped up after the discovery of Hull's biggest illegal cannabis factory to date.

Councillors want to tighten procedures despite warnings from one officer that checking for criminal activity could be viewed as "intrusive and offensive" by some tenants.

Three Vietnamese men – Toan Nham Vo, Dat Truong and Vuong Van Vu – were each jailed for a two and a half years in January after being caught growing more than 2,700 cannabis plants at the council-owned unit in Fountain Road just before Christmas.

The plants could have produced more than £2 million of cannabis.

Police officers took almost ten hours to clear the factory of plants, along with more than 320 lightning units, 283 transformers, 14 filters, 17 extractor fans and eight propagators. The operation was spread across ten rooms.

The unit had been empty, having previously been used as a skills training centre.
In a report, the council's assistant head of property, Nick Howbridge, said: "Historically, incidents of criminal activity in the 1,700 commercial properties leased by the council are rare and there have been less than a handful of cases over the past decade.

"Previous instances have involved a cannabis factory, sale of illegal cars and drug smuggling through hiding it in pallets."

In the report, Mr Howbridge said vacant units are inspected every three months while all units are reviewed annually as part of a statutory valuation process.
But he said introducing more inspections to check on possible illegal activity could cause problems.

"Our tenants are likely to find checks for criminal activity in their businesses both intrusive and, in some cases, offensive
.
"A much more formal approach or inspection to check criminal activity is likely to carry resistance and a poor response from our tenants."

Councillor Simone Butterworth, chairman of the council's value for money scrutiny commission, said reviewing the inspection regime was necessary.

She said: "We still want to see what can be done in terms of having more informal inspections of properties."