The are mostly a derivative of The European

The following paper will discuss the history behind The Human Rights Act 1998, with several examples of the laws which pre-dated the Act, and the needs for these laws to be created, as well as post-dated laws which were influenced by the Act. It will also provide a brief overview of what provisions are given within the Act. According to (Linebaugh.2008) Although British human rights have their origins in historical decrees, such as the Magna Carta 1215, and The British Bill of Rights 1869, they are mostly a derivative of The European Convention of Human Rights 1950, which in itself was derived from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UNHR). These laws were established post World War 2, in direct response to the atrocities that occurred during the war in an effort to ensure that people would be protected from things such harmful stereotypes and prejudices, as occurred with the Hebrew communities in Germany and caused them to be slaughtered in their millions. Yet there appears to be exceptions to UNHR, with the most notable perhaps being Stalin, who slaughtered millions, starving them and using forced labour, with little consequence (Niamark.2011). (Feldman.1999) Describes how the Human Rights Act 1998 was established in the latter half of the 20th century, by a Labour government, in an endevour to protect the British public. These laws encompassed previous legislations, such as the Race Relations Act 1965, which was set in place to address race relations within the UK. The Act replaced the Sexual Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA), which made it illegal to give employment, education and services based on gender, and also drew from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which covered all the provisions of the SDA, with the addition of transport and premises being represented. The Human Rights Act 1998 also had the benefit of human rights cases set being able to be defended in a UK court of law, as opposed to the precursor human rights courts held in Strasbourg, France, which, when seeking judicial help, was a lengthy and costly affair, often times running into the tens of thousands in order to ascertain a verdict. This was brought to light in a 1997 white paper titled Rights Brought Home (House of commons.1998) Although The Human Rights Act 1998 was created in 1998, it was not put into force until the year 2000. The Act was introduced into domestic law, consisting of articles two to twelve, and article fourteen, of the European human rights. The Act included three protocols, the first containing three Articles pertaining to property, education and voting. The second protocol abolishes the death penalty. European articles one and thirteen stipulate that a state must secure the rights of a convention in their own jurisdiction, and a person must have an effective remedy if their rights are violated. As these are already covered in the other twelve acts and protocols, they have been omitted from British human rights.  The main provision of The Human Rights Act 1998 is to give citizens of the UK certain rights. These rights include the right to life, as demonstrated in Article 2. (James.2014) states that Article 2 makes it a legal requirement that the state has an obligation to protect life, including the prohibition of the state intentionally ending a life. It also requires that the state must make enquiries into any deaths that occur, be it criminal or medical. Article 5, as stated by (Trechsel.2005), protects the right for a person not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty. Contrary to popular belief, the act does not prevent limitations of movement, such as a security guard holding you for questioning, but rather it addresses the deprivation of liberty. These would include incarceration following a court proceeding with a verdict of a custodial sentence, a child being taken into protective custody, or to prevent unlawful entry into a country. Article 5 also lays out provisions for a person to be notified of why they have been detained, as well as the right to be brought in front of a judge in prompt time. Furthermore it allows for a person to file for compensation when falsely imprisoned. This right was effectuated in 2004 with the Bournewood case, when,  according to (Shah.Dickenson.1998), a severely autistic male was deprived of his liberties at Bournewood hospital for three months. The courts found the staff had acted unlawfully in the treatment of the patient, as he lacked the mental capacity to give consent to any treatment given, and was not given an option to refuse. The defendant was awarded £20,000 by way of compensation. These two acts, and a further ten acts, have a profound impact upon Britain. There are the economical factors, (Farmer.2004), such as having access to housing, food, healthcare and the right to an education. (Articles 2, 5 and protocol 1). (CullyM. Et al. 1999) explains that the laws also cover a persons right to a fair wage, as well as gender and racial neutrality with equal pay for equal work. (Articles 4 and 14). Further to this, medical factors are influenced, covering the treatment a person will receive in a hospital in regards to poor health and dignity, as well as having access to facilities such as doctors surgeries and dental surgeries. (Articles 2, 3 and 14). Even a persons right to choose who they marry, regardless of race, and most recently sexuality, with the advent of Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (Smart.2013), allowing same sex couples to be wed in the UK, excluding Northern Ireland, is protected. (Article 12 and 14). The human rights also provides for the publics safety in relation to the justice system, with restrictions being placed on upon police and how much force they can use, as well as how a prisoner is treated in custody. It also protects against racial discrimination, such as persons of colour being stopped and searched based on prejudice, rather than suspicion. (Articles 3, 6, 7 and 14). Human rights are integrated into the very fibre of British society and values, helping to form social policies and laws that benefit all. Laws such as the Equality Act 2010, (Great Britain.2010), protect the rights of people, regardless of their age, race, religion, gender (including transgender), as well as the disabled. Without The Human Rights Act 1998, society would most likely look very different to the vibrant, multi-cultural, accepting (for the most part) countries of the UK. Bearing this in mind, the current government have put forward proposals for a return to a British Bill of Rights post Brexit. What impact this will have upon society can only be speculated upon, but it is clear that human rights have dramatically impacted how individuals are treated, both by government bodies, courts, employees and the public in general and have improved the lives of many citizens and foreign nationals.Such impacts can be seen within the mental health profession, with the British Psychological Society (Ethics committee.2009), setting guidelines within its Code of Ethics, alongside guidelines set by the Health Professional council (HPC). These guidelines explain the duties and responsibilities of a Psychologist, pertaining to how they conduct themselves and their research, as well as how they interact with service users. According to (HPCP. 2011) a psychologist is responsible for following guidelines set in place, as well as knowing and understanding what these mean, to create a safe and effective practice. It is also the responsibility of a psychologist to ensure patients are treated within their scope of practice. If a Doctor wishes to broaden their ability of treatment, they must have all necessary training and experience before proceeding. A psychologist should also be aware of how race, culture, sexuality, age and upbringing have an impact on a persons psychological well-being and be able to adapt practice to suit a diverse client base. (HPCP.2011) states that further to this, a psychologist has a duty to be non-discriminatory, as well as work appropriately with all service users. Appropriate behaviour includes being able to plan treatments with a service user, to meet goals and needs, treating service users with dignity and respect, and being able to create professional relationships. Contrasting this, a psychologist has protected rights, such as the right to work in a safe working environment, especially with dangerous or unstable clients, as within the prison system, this being covered in Article 2 and 5 of The Human Rights Act 1998. Article 11 also comes into play with a psychologist becoming a member of the BPS, exercising their right to freedom of association. Regarding Article 14, a Doctor will also have the right to work in an environment free of discrimination. It should be explained that a right is a legal term, enforceable by law, a responsibility is an individual choice. (Great Britain.1998.)A service user also has several rights protected by law. Perhaps the most relevant is Article 8, more specifically the right to correspondence. Anything said between a counsellor and a service user must remain private, unless, according to (Rowman.L.1998), in special circumstances. If a service user raises concerns about harming themselves or others, or admits a serious crime, a psychologist is duty bound to report this to officials. Article 3 also protects a service user from a psychologist misusing their status to cause a patient mental, or even physical harm, as well as preventing being degraded. Like a psychologist, a service user has the right, under Article 14, to be treated without discrimination. They should be treated fairly and promptly, regardless of their religion, skin colour, circumstances, or even a crime they may have committed. A service user also has responsibilities within counselling. A service user should endevour to keep all appointments made, thus aiding in their treatment. They should also follow a doctors action plan because not doing so will cause the help they’re receiving to be less effective. A patient will also have the responsibility to treat themselves and others within a psychological setting with respect and decency