Prince Harry, Duchess Meghan, The UK Monarchy Rules and Human Rights – Conclusion.
Back to Article 8
- Family Life – there is no set description for what constitutes a family. This element is usually applied in cases where children are removed from the family home, for whatever reason.
- Respect for Your Home – You have a right not to have your home interfered with, such as by surveillance, or unlawful entry or evictions which have not followed due process.
- Respect for Your Correspondence – You have the right to uninterrupted and uncensored communication with others; a right that is particularly relevant when challenging phone tapping and the reading of your private communications.
It is time for sensible people of the UK to cease thinking of members of the Royal Family as people that you own based on the minuscule contribution you pay towards their existence. And even if they were owned by Brits, why do the British people want to fund an institution that is clearly violating fundamental human rights, in order to prop itself up? It is a travesty that should not be condoned, let alone subsidized by scarce public resources. There are questions to be asked about whether a modern society needs and should pay for a Monarchy?
If it is needed for whatever reason, should they be required to ascend to a higher standard? Is it right in this day and age to have children brought into this world, to be used as chattels and have a life mapped out for them from birth to grave? Is it right that the first born child of a senior Royal is considered a future King or Queen regardless of whether they wish to take on that role, and more importantly have the competence to do it?
Are we saying that modern day slavery within Royal circles is acceptable? Because that is exactly what it is. Simply because of birth order, children are prevented from reaching their full potential, are used as objects not human beings, some are denied rights they will otherwise have, if born outside of it. Anywhere else, this would be considered abusive. When a human being is “owned” and used for another’s benefit…
Prince Harry and his wife Meghan have been treated like pariahs because they dared to assert their own human rights within the confines of the institution. They did not demand anything beyond the pale, just fair and equitable treatment. Nothing the other members were not being afforded.
The right not to be treated in a degrading way, the right to marry and found a family, the right to not be discriminated against, the right to respect for private family life, home and correspondence, the right to not be punished for something that is not against the law, the right to be free from slavery and forced labour, the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions- yes, that too is a human right. For some reason, Harry and Meghan are denied these rights while other members are accorded them, and even treated like they are owed those rights.
Why were The Sussexes (even their young son) singled out for such poor treatment, which continues unabated? None of what the Sussexes have done in leaving an abusive environment is against UK or International Law. The only reasonable explanation for most people is racism, by proxy for Harry, which has been vehemently denied. But everyone who has ears and eyes and an objective head can see clearly.
Recently one Queen’s Counsel wrote on a social media platform about the “undertones of racism” in Meghan’s coverage and the implications for people of colour in the UK: If someone like Meghan could be treated this way, what hope for ordinary people?
Promptly, one from the royal rota, who regularly posts negative comments about Meghan responded to the Queen’s Counsel admitting that “there were indeed undertones of racism in the reporting but that the Queen’s Counsel should know that “undertones” is not against the law. Let that sink in for a moment. We have always known that this has existed from the start 4 years ago, and we were gas-lighted every time. Now that same pack feel confident and secure enough to admit they choose their wording carefully but it is indeed racism that is the main theme here.
One of the Royal photographers attempted a half-baked mea culpa and was begging Harry to return to help out the Cambridges. He said the reason for all the disgusting press coverage was because Meghan would not meet with them(for what?) and that if Meghan had allowed access, the press could have seen her as human (as opposed to what??) and she could have seen them as human too. Who raised these people? Less than two months later, that same photographer had an article in one of the tabloids this month, now stating that the Sussexes “deserve all the abuse” that they are receiving. No more needs to be said, other than the fact of that photographer having the backing of the royal family, and feeling confident to write those words.
I think the Royal family should just get on with the cards that they dealt themselves, and be glad that the Monarchy is still hanging on by a thread. Human lives are worth more than some sham popularity. I personally, if given the opportunity to remove the structure of the Monarchy, would vote to do so. I have gone from an indifferent Brit, to now wishing for the Monarchy to end, based on their appalling behaviour towards Harry and Meghan and their son and the enabling (and sanctioning) of equally abhorrent behaviour by the press over the last 4 years, and what that spells for a diverse Britain in general. That should not stand.
Articles 1 and 13
Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR do not feature in the Act. This is because, by creating the Human Rights Act, the UK has fulfilled these rights.
For example, Article 1 says that states must secure the rights of the Convention in their own jurisdiction. The Human Rights Act is the main way of doing this for the UK.
Article 13 makes sure that if people’s rights are violated they are able to access effective remedy. This means they can take their case to court to seek a judgment. The Human Rights Act is designed to make sure this happens.
** Universal Declaration of Human Rights:- all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and…