Democracy, free speech and TV: the case of the BBC and the ProLife Alliance

Freedom of political expression generally receives a very high degree of protection from the courts. Political expression in the UK’s broadcast media, by comparison, receives far lower levels of protection. This has been graphically demonstrated recently by the decision of the House of Lords in R (on the application of the ProLife Alliance) v BBC in which a majority of their Lordships upheld a refusal by the BBC and independent broadcasters to transmit a Party Election Broadcast by the ProLife Alliance, depicting an abortion, prior to the 2001 general election. It will be argued that this decision is inconsistent with the jurisprudence underlying the free speech right and with the Article 10 case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular it will be argued that the court failed to have due regard to the type of expression at issue in the case resulting in an inadequate assessment of the proportionality of the restriction

What not to wear: religious rights, the European Court and the margin of appreciation

The issue of religious dress, specifically female Muslim religious dress, has been the subject of intense controversy within Europe over recent years. In the United Kingdom comments by Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House of Commons and a former Home and Foreign Secretary, that he felt uncomfortable talking to women at his constituency surgery who wore the Muslim veil sparked a storm of intense and, at times, acrimonious debate. In France the banning of headscarves in State schools has provoked major controversy. In the Netherlands the Dutch Parliament voted to ban the burka in public places and in five Belgian towns its wearing has been banned on pain of a fine

Rights lost in translation? Fact-insensitive laws, the Human Rights Act and the United Kingdom's ban on political advertising

This article explores the issue of blanket legal prohibitions and how these sit with proportionality under the ECHR and the HRA as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and English courts. The author first looks at Strasbourg case law and factors examined by the European Court in deciding whether a fact-insensitive law is proportionate. He then considers the domestic decision of R. (on the application of Animal Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and finally analyses the difficulties this approach raises in giving effect to Convention rights under the mechanisms of the HRA

Food, Brexit and Northern Ireland: Critical Issues

This report is the third in our Food Brexit Briefing series. It argues that the absence of serious consideration of food flows into, out of and through Northern Ireland is a significant policy omission in the ongoing Brexit negotiations. There has been much talk of the importance of Northern Ireland, but next to no detailed attention to the food implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland. The report makes the case that there is an urgent need to get down to detail over border arrangements, contingency planning and resource allocation. This is too important to leave to last-minute makeshift or muddle. Food is central to the economy of Northern Ireland, and the continuing supply of safe, high quality, healthy food is currently dependent on the absence of border controls between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and the rest of the European Union. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of food criss-cross these borders every year. They are currently free from inspection because of shared, underpinning EU Single Market regulation. An unplanned or mishandled food border imposition is likely to have powerful, destabilising consequences for the integrated nature of food supply, trade and access within Northern Ireland for many years to come. It would raise important challenges for food safety, put jobs at risk, potentially constrain Northern Ireland’s access to health-supporting foods such as fruit and vegetables, and create opportunities for food fraud and crime. The report, by Gary McFarlane and Tony Lewis, both senior environmental health professionals and officers of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and Professor Tim Lang, of the Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London, is based on a thorough review of food flows into, from and through Northern Ireland, and the practical experience of its authors. The report dismisses talk of ‘technological fixes’ to help maintain the smooth flow of goods as vague, unavailable now and unrealistic. It calls for all the governments and bodies involved in food and Brexit – the European Union, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland itself – to set political differences aside in order to resolve the considerable practical challenges of cross-border food traffic. The authors make more than 30 recommendations to help that process

Feeding Britain: Food Security after Brexit

This Food Brexit Briefing brings together three interlinked issues that demand policy attention as the clock ticks towards Brexit: 1. The question of whether the Government is paying enough attention to agri-food in the negotiating process, given its central role in both public wellbeing and the national economy. 2. The threat a careless Brexit poses to the UK’s short-term food security – and any long-term attempt to develop a genuinely sustainable food strategy for the whole of the UK. 3. The risk generated to the UK’s status as a potential trading partner of the EU by the Food Standards Agency’s decision to press ahead with major reform of UK food safety regulation, at a time when regulatory stability and clarity have never been more important. The report was written by FRC’s Professor Tim Lang, with Professor Erik Millstone (Sussex), Tony Lewis (Head of Policy at Chartered Institute for Environmental Health) and Professor Terry Marsden (Cardiff). It takes stock of ‘food Brexit’ and argues that a hard Brexit or no-deal Brexit (and retreat to WTO rules) would imperil the sustainability and security of Britain’s food supply. The report recommends that the Government should: - Maintain a clear and explicit focus on the potential adverse effects of Brexit on food security in the UK, while negotiating the UK’s future trading relationships with the EU and other jurisdictions. - Publish Brexit impact studies on the UK’s agricultural and food system for the White Paper and Chequers Statement and any subsequent proposals. - Ensure that high food standards remain at the heart of any future trade deals. - Provide clarity on its proposed migration policy, taking account of the contributions that non-UK citizens of the EU are making to the quantity and quality of the UK’s food supply and services. - Avoid a hard Food Brexit at all costs.The UK must not retreat to a WTO-rules-based regime. The EU would then categorise the UK as a ‘3rd Country’, which could be a recipe for chaos. - Create a new Sustainable Food Security Strategy. This would engage with the complexities of the food system and the multiple criteria by which it should be evaluated; and identify clear priorities and pathways for progress. The report also calls on the Food Standards Agency to: - Address the calls for clarification and evidence posed in the paper in respect of its Regulating Our Future (ROF) Where such clarification or evidence is not available, then the Agency should modify or suspend the introduction of its proposals, at least until after Brexit