The Pocket Guide to Hate Crime, produced by the LGBT National Youth Council in 2011, has information on how to identify and deal with hate crime.
Click here for guide
Click here for LGBT Youth Scotland website
In January-July 2011, the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute at London Metropolitan University held a series of public seminars on ‘Human rights and social justice in an age of austerity’.
Podcasts and transcripts from the seminars are available online.
Click here for details
TAEN (The Age and Employment Network) has collaborated with the AARP, the largest US membership organisation for people aged 50+, to produce a UK version of their Workforce Assessment Tool.
The online tool can help employers assess their current and future workforce needs and enables HR managers to:
Click here for details
A briefing by the LSE’s Human Rights Futures Project explores the role of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in phone hacking convictions.
Interception of mobile phones and voicemail is regulated by law under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), passed in 2000. That Act was introduced in direct response to both the 1998 Human Rights Act and a European Court of Human Rights case in 1997. RIPA has been used to convict a News of the World private investigator for voicemail hacking in 2005-6.
In June 2011, the Human Rights Futures Project at the LSE also published a briefing on ‘Human Rights Act Reporting in the Media: corrections and clarifications’.
Click here for ‘The role of the Human Rights Act in the phone hacking convictions’
Click here for ‘Human Rights Act Reporting in the Media: corrections and clarifications’
On 11 July 2011, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced its application to intervene at the European Court of Human Rights in four cases involving religious discrimination in the workplace.
Following the announcement, the EHRC circulated the following ‘Q and A’ providing clarification:
Q. Why did the Commission make applications to intervene in these four cases?
These four cases were already before European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) before the Commission considered intervening and it is our expectation that all four are highly likely to be heard together because they involve the same legal question.
Commissioners on our Regulatory Committee took the view that, given our role as the National Human Rights Institution and equality regulator, it was not appropriate for these important cases to be heard without our input into the complex equality and human rights issues, including to ensure the principle of ‘reasonable accommodation’ is considered by the court.
We recognise that our stakeholders have important practical experience of how these issues affect the workplace and we intend to seek the views of our stakeholders before making submissions to the ECtHR . We will therefore be contacting our stakeholders as soon as we receive notification from the Court that our intervention is permitted for their views in the anticipated 3 week period during which we prepare our submissions.
Q. Who is the Commission supporting?
The Court does not permit interventions to support one party or to comment on the facts. In our role as an intervener in existing legal proceedings, we do not support either party in a case but simply seek to aid the court with the benefit of the Commission’s policy input and interpretation of the law.
The purpose of our intervention is to explain that the law should consider how it may give better respect for religious rights within the workplace than has hitherto been the case, without diminishing the rights of others. We want to change the view that there needs to be an either/or situation. The spotlight and focus is placed too frequently on conflict in place of dialogue that could help identify other acceptable workable solutions.
The accommodation of rights is not a zero sum equation whereby one right cancels out or trumps another. We believe that if the law and practice were considered more widely, then in many situations there would be scope for diverse rights to be respected.
Our view is that careful, sensitive and balanced treatment and consideration is discouraged by the approach taken by the courts to date. In turn, this hinders the development and dissemination of better practice amongst those with duties. We believe that where possible ways should be found within the law of promoting the resolution of disputes at an early stage, without protracted, costly, complex legal proceedings that irretrievably damage relations between the parties.
Q. Does this intervention reflect a new approach to the Commission’s work to ensure equality and prevent discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation?
Certainly not. We do not and will not licence discrimination and we continue to believe in the importance of taking action to eliminate it. For example, we will continue to support the appeal to the Court of Appeal to defend the rights of the gay couple who were not allowed to share a double room at a hotel on behalf of civil partners Martyn Hall and Steve Preddy.
There is not – and cannot be – any change in the Commission’s role as the NHRI and equality regulator with responsibility for preventing discrimination against people on grounds of sexual orientation, a responsibility that we aspire to fulfil to the best of our ability.
We would like to reassure our stakeholders that under no circumstances would the Commission condone or permit the refusal of public services to lesbian or gay people.
Click here for Stonewall response
Click here for response by Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association on the Guardian website (13 July 2011)