This essay is going to demonstrate the possible legal difficulties that will be faced in the passage and enforcement of the Clothing Degrading to Women (Prohibition) Bill 2011, and go on to argue that it will not be a legally feasible legislation. The argument will be established as follows: first, it will illustrate that the envisaged legislation is in interference with the principle of minimum criminalisation by showing it is not absolutely necessary to criminalise conducts detailed in the bill; second, it will argue that the bill is incompatible with the principle of legality and will not be legally feasible in enforcement; last, it will contend that such legislation violates the right to the freedom of religion and the right to the freedom of expression, thus resulting in a breach of Article 9 &10 and possibly a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Identification and Discussion of Legal Issues
Interference with Principle of Minimum Criminalisation
In a written reply to a parliamentary question, Lord Williams of Mostyn stated that criminal offences ‘should be created only when absolutely necessary’ and whether ‘the behaviour in question is sufficiently serious to warrant intervention by the criminal law’ should be considered before the creation of new offences. Husak also suggested in his work that the criminal law should not be used to prevent ‘trivial harm or evil’. The underlying reason for the principle is to ensure potency of criminal censure. If less serious conducts are being criminalised, criminal law will be at risk of losing its censure function. It should also be noted that it is preferable to use alternative social control to deal with undesirable behaviours, such as education and rewarding good behaviours. Considering section 1(1) of the envisaged legislation in question, liberalism and individual autonomy in the United Kingdom will be significantly undermined if the Government start...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document