scholarly journals Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation: A comparison between the United Kingdom and New Zealand

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Joshua Charles Raymond Aird
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
Similar Fact ◽  
The Way

<p>This paper compares the way in which the United Kingdom and New Zealand approach discrimination claims on the ground of sexual orientation. This paper uses the recent judgment in the case of Bull v Hall as an avenue to explore this issue contrasting it with a similar fact situation in New Zealand, the Pilgrim Planet Lodge discrimination. This paper illustrates that the majority in Bull v Hall were able to take a substantive equality approach to their reasoning. This approach is the most consistent with the principle of nondiscrimination. The paper then focuses on the legislative and process differences in the United Kingdom and New Zealand and the results they produce. Finally by looking and the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches this paper concludes that to build a human rights culture and respect the principle of non-discrimination there needs to be more availability of pubic litigation of discrimination claims.</p>

scholarly journals Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation: A comparison between the United Kingdom and New Zealand

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Joshua Charles Raymond Aird
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
Similar Fact ◽  
The Way

<p>This paper compares the way in which the United Kingdom and New Zealand approach discrimination claims on the ground of sexual orientation. This paper uses the recent judgment in the case of Bull v Hall as an avenue to explore this issue contrasting it with a similar fact situation in New Zealand, the Pilgrim Planet Lodge discrimination. This paper illustrates that the majority in Bull v Hall were able to take a substantive equality approach to their reasoning. This approach is the most consistent with the principle of nondiscrimination. The paper then focuses on the legislative and process differences in the United Kingdom and New Zealand and the results they produce. Finally by looking and the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches this paper concludes that to build a human rights culture and respect the principle of non-discrimination there needs to be more availability of pubic litigation of discrimination claims.</p>

scholarly journals Protection Against Slavery in New Zealand

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Heesterman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Modern Human ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Modern Problem ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
European Court

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in CN v The United Kingdom highlighted that slavery remains a modern problem. It may no longer resemble the traditional picture of slavery dramatically presented by Hollywood but it is no less an issue. Modern slavery is less visible; it is hidden away within homes, normal workplaces or in overseas factories. This article argues that New Zealand's current treatment of slavery is inadequate, exemplified by the absence of prosecutions. Thorough protection of slavery requires clear definitions that courts can easily apply. This article explores how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 could be used to remedy this situation. This article argues for the application of the Drittwirkung concept to give a horizontal effect to a right against slavery. Furthermore it is argued that New Zealand is under positive obligations to actively prevent rights violations, not merely avoid them. These positive obligations are a key component of modern human rights jurisprudence and can be read into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This article speculates that one action courts could take is to undertake the development of a tort action against slavery.

THE COURTS AND THE ECHR: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO THE STRASBOURG JURISPRUDENCE

2013 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
EIRIK BJORGE
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe way in which the courts in the United Kingdom have interpreted and applied the Ullah principle has created problems in the national application of the European Convention on Human Rights. As is evident particularly in Ambrose, this is partly because Lord Bingham's approach in Ullah has been misunderstood. The article analyses these issues in relation to the notion of binding precedent, finding that judicial authority belongs to principles. The national courts ought not, though that is what the Ullah–Ambrose approach enjoins, to expend their energies seeking to align the case before them with the least dissimilar of the reported cases. Rather they should stand back from the case law of the European Court, and apply the broad principles upon which the jurisprudence is founded.

scholarly journals The Politics and Law of Trade Union Recognition: Democracy, Human Rights and Pragmatism in the New Zealand and British Context

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Bogg ◽  
Tonia Novitz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Collective Bargaining ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Union Representation ◽  
Politics And Law

In this article, we seek to examine the potential for cross-fertilisation of legal regimes relating to trade union representation of members in collective bargaining. The United Kingdom has moved from an entirely voluntarist model in the 1980s to a statutory regime which facilitates recognition of a trade union following majority support from workers (usually by a ballot). By way of contrast, New Zealand has shifted from a highly regulated award-based model in the 1980s to an "agency" model whereby an employer is required to bargain in good faith with any union representing two or more of the employer's employees, but with some balloting also contemplated for coverage of non-unionised workers. It is uncontroversial that the United Kingdom legislation has been severely limited in its effects in a context of ongoing decline in collective bargaining, while the New Zealand model offers only faint remediation of the dismembering of the collective bargaining system by the Employment Contracts Act 1991. In both legal systems, a Labour Party is now proposing implementation of forms of sectoral bargaining. We explore the reasons for these political and legal developments, exploring democratic and human rights rationales for their adoption, as well as more pragmatic approaches. In so doing we examine the scope for democratic trade union representation via consent or ballot, the role of individual human rights and regulatory rationales. We conclude by considering how representative and regulatory approaches may be mutually reinforcing and address different understandings of "constitutionalisation". In so doing, we reaffirm the emphasis placed in Gordon Anderson's writings on substance over form.

scholarly journals Human Rights in Hong Kong

1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Robin Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The World ◽  
The Republic

In this address to the UNDR commemorative seminar in April 1998 Lord Cooke speaks of human rights, his current judicial roles and the prospects for a common law of the world. Lord Cooke discusses the importance of human rights law in both substance and implementation. The author reports on the process of implementing constitutional law and human rights in New Zealand, Samoa, the Republic of Fiji, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong. 

Human Rights and Legislative Supremacy

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Mason
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Conditioning Effect

This chapter outlines the measures implemented for the protection for human rights available in New Zealand, Australia, and Hong Kong. It examines the influence of jurisprudence from the United Kingdom and European Court of Human Rights on those systems, and traces the conditioning effect of the doctrine of legislative supremacy on the development and implementation of rights instruments in New Zealand and Australia.

Women's Health Informatics

2009 ◽  
pp. 13-36
Author(s):  
Premila Fade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Health Informatics ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
Common Sense Morality ◽  
In Pregnancy

Principlism (derived from common sense morality) is the most common theory used within the healthcare sphere. The elements of this theory are explored and discussed in context. A theoretical woman presenting in pregnancy is used to identify issues which can arise and explore the potential conflicts. In the second half of the chapter, health informatics and the law are discussed. Issues such as consent, confidentiality, privacy, and human rights are discussed in general. Legislation in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are discussed in detail.

The Prospective (Ir)Relevance of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act: A Comparative Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedict Coxon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Theory ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract This article suggests that the power conferred on United Kingdom courts by section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UKHRA) is legitimate as a matter of the interpretation of that provision. It sets out a contextual approach to the interpretation of section 3(1) consistent with general principles of statutory interpretation. This differs from most analyses of this provision, whether comparative or jurisdiction-specific, which tend to use constitutional theory as the framework for analysis. The article adopts a comparative perspective, applying the same approach to section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). It concludes that the approach of New Zealand courts to section 6 is also correct as a matter of the interpretation of that provision. The different approaches of United Kingdom and New Zealand courts to these equivalent provisions is explained by a number of important differences between the UKHRA and NZBORA; including especially the context in which each statute falls to be interpreted. Some implications of this analysis for the development of the principle of legality in the United Kingdom in the event of repeal of section 3(1) of the UKHRA are briefly identified.

scholarly journals The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Victorian Charter) was enacted 16 years after the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). Like the NZBORA and the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), the Victorian Charter is an ordinary act of Parliament which seeks to preserve parliamentary sovereignty by limiting the courts’ ability to strike down legislation. The Victorian Charter drew heavily upon the experience of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The Victorian Charter expressly adopts some aspects of the NZBORA and the HRA (such as the interpretative rule), rejects other aspects (such as the ability to obtain damages for breach), but also includes some provisions that are quite different from either the NZBORA or the HRA. 

scholarly journals Governance of the Young Unemployed – A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom, Germany and Norway

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-377
Author(s):  
Aina A. Kane ◽  
Julia Köhler-Olsen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Social Citizenship ◽  
Human Right ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Substantive Equality ◽  
Professional Discretion ◽  
Individual Professional

In this article, we focus on how the United Kingdom, Germany and Norway govern and balance young unemployed claimants’ right to social benefits with conditions of compulsory activities, with the aim of their transition into employment. In the three countries mentioned, we have examined and compared the national legislation and regulations, as well as how case workers in job centres experience these tools in their work with activating the young unemployed.Balancing the individuals’ right of benefits with the job centre’s right and duty to impose conditions and activities as well as to sanction non-compliance, is also a matter of balancing national legislation with international human rights instruments. We have therefore analysed the three countries’ legislation and job centre conduct in light of the human right to non-discrimination and equality.To find answers to our research questions, we have studied the legal framework and human rights instruments addressing social security, conditionality and non-discrimination, and interviewed caseworkers regarding their leeway for individual professional discretion.We find that the human right of substantive equality is challenged in all three countries. Claimants’ commitments can entail stigma, stereotyping and shame, legislation can fail to provide the leeway necessary for accommodating for differences between the individuals, and sanctioning can represent a system of paternalism rather than social citizenship.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document