Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Is the UK Government Reforming the Human Rights Act Behind the Scenes to Strip Individual Freedoms & Bodily Autonomy?


The UK made headlines when Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an end to most COVID-19 measures.

Soon after, the NHS scrapped its COVID-19 jab mandate that would have fired around 80,000 healthcare workers.

While Britain resembles normality more than many parts of the United States, I have suspicions of something sinister going on behind the scenes.

That’s when I stumbled upon a UK government document titled “Human Rights Act Reform: a Modern Bill of Rights.”

The document refers to a consultation to reform Human Rights Act 1998.

As stated on the Ministry of Justice webpage:

The government is committed to updating the Human Rights Act 1998. This consultation seeks views on the government’s proposals to revise the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, in order to restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest.

Chapters 1 and 2 provide a background of the domestic and international human rights context. Chapter 3 explores issues that have emerged with how the Human Rights Act 1998 operates in practice and outlines the case for reform. Chapter 4 sets out the government’s proposed reforms and their rationale in detail.

Each proposal is accompanied by specific consultation questions. We welcome responses on those questions. Submissions which do not focus on the questions but deal with the subject of the Human Rights Act more generally are also welcome.

To help us take full account of all potential impacts, including equality impacts, we shall complete a full Impact Assessment as necessary, once we have considered the responses to the consultation. We welcome responses from consultees on these proposals with regard to the potential impacts.

The key statement above is “restore a proper balance between the rights of individuals, personal responsibility and the wider public interest.”

An attempt to balance individual rights and the ‘wider public interest’ sounds like socialism/communism.

Digging through the document reveals disturbing information about how the UK government wants to redefine human rights.

Page 35 contains vague, dangerous language that threatens individual rights and bodily autonomy:

I’ve highlighted the page from the Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights:

124. The international human rights framework recognises that not all rights are absolute and that an individual’s rights may need to be balanced, either against the rights of others or against the wider public interest. Many of the rights in the Convention are ‘qualified’, recognising explicitly the need to respect the rights of others and the
broader needs of society.

125. The idea that rights come alongside duties and responsibilities is steeped in the UK tradition of liberty, but is also reflected in the qualifications in the Convention and is explicit in Article 29 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (‘Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is
possible’). The increasing reliance on human rights claims over the years has, however, led to a culture of rights decoupled from our responsibilities as citizens, and a displacement of due consideration of the wider public interest.

126. Since 2000, human rights claims have been brought by many people who have themselves showed a flagrant disregard for the rights of others. We have seen, for example, the right to respect for a family and private life used to avoid deportation by foreign offenders who have committed serious crimes.73 The case against the UK on prisoner voting was originally brought by John Hirst, convicted of manslaughter for killing his landlady with an axe.74 The government believes that the policy decision as to whether prisoners ought to vote in elections ought to lie with elected representatives rather than the courts.75 We have also seen the right to a family life used to challenge the separation of sexual partners in prison,76 and to challenge the refusal of all telephone contact and inter-prison visits between a couple who married in one prison but were later separated.77

The UK government may use vague language to justify countless immoral laws or policies for the ‘wider public interest.’

Individual rights go out the door, and citizens become slaves of collectivism.

For instance, say there’s an outbreak of a future illness, and health authorities want to inoculate the country’s population.

They could use this ‘Modern Bill of Rights’ to say mass vaccinations are for the ‘wider public interest.’

There’s no need for mandates since the Human Rights Act would justify the actions after the proposed reform in this document.

It’s a WICKED precedent that UK citizens must stop at all costs.

March 8th, 2022, is the deadline for all responses, and I recommend UK citizens voice their opinion about this nefarious Human Rights Act reform.

99.9% Fine Silver MAGA Collector Coins!

Page 116 has details on how to respond:

Contact details / How to respond

Please submit your response by 8 March 2022 by filling in the online response form which can be found here:

Alternatively, you can also send your response via post or email to:
Human Rights Team
Ministry of Justice
International, Rights and Constitutional Policy Directorate
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 334 3555

Complaints or comments
If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Ministry of Justice at the above address.

SHARE with everyone to inform them of what’s going on behind the scenes!


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!