The post you are reporting:
Please don't interpret Charlie's Bill merely in the light of tabloid headlines and party dogma. This is a synopsis of the Bill's provisions.
"......... my first principle is that the UK Supreme Court should be the final court in UK law for human rights matters.
Secondly, serious foreign criminals and persons in the UK illegally should not be able to avoid deportation by using human rights claims, as has happened in the past.
Thirdly, the right to family life should not be available as a tool to avoid justice and escape answering criminal charges.
Fourthly, suspected foreign terrorists should not be able to subvert national security or our personal security, or avoid deportation, by using human rights claims.
Fifthly, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion should be protected to a greater extent than they are today. We have seen too many attacks on people's thoughts, feelings and beliefs. There has been too much aggressive secularism, which has sought to attack the Church and people who have deeply held religious beliefs. We have seen that in the case of the Plymouth Brethren and the Charity Commission, and in the constant attacks on the Church and on religion both in Parliament and outside it. We must ensure that there is a space for people to have religion and religious beliefs in this country, and that people should be able to set out and preach what they think. Their right to free speech should be better protected
The sixth pillar is that the right to vote should not apply to convicted prisoners, a matter on which this House has expressed concern.
The seventh is that legislation passed by Parliament should be changed only if Parliament so decides. Courts believing that legislation breaches human rights should declare their opinion, yet Parliament should make the final decision on whether laws ought to be changed.
The eighth pillar is that public authorities should not be penalised for applying legislation that is approved by Parliament, because that has happened too often, creating uncertainty and making their lives extremely difficult. They think they are doing what they have been told to do by Parliament and suddenly end up with a human rights claim and a member of the Bar pursuing a compensation claim, not only on his or her client's behalf but on his or her own behalf, to get money out of the taxpayer.
The ninth is that UK law should not be automatically interpreted in line with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. In deciding human rights cases, UK cour ts should take into account centuries of common law rulings from the UK and elsewhere in the common law world.
Finally, the UK social contract is not just about rights. It is about responsibilities and the contract should include responsibilities as well as rights."