The freshly elected government of Prime Minister David Cameron intends to abolish the Human Rights Act and substitute it with a British Bill of Rights.
The ruling Conservative party and other critics say the Human Rights Act now in force in Britain has led to "perverse" judgements, including a ruling that found the United Kingdom's blanket ban on prisoners voting to be unlawful. More conspicuously to the British public, an order that the radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada shouldn't be deported to Jordan to face trial on terrorism charges predictably caused outrage.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) said some of the evidence used against him may have been obtained under duress.
After years of legal battles, though, not to mention the huge cost to the British government, Qatada was ultimately extradited.
In a separate case, there was a ruling that the UK was violating an individual's right to privacy by holding fingerprint and DNA information of people who hadn't been charged or convicted of a crime. The ECHR said retaining the information 'could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'.
The Human Rights Act came into force in 2000, bringing the rights contained in the ECHR into British law.
The Act includes the rights to life, liberty and security, a fair trial, respect for private life, and freedom of expression. Torture, slavery and discrimination are all banned as well.
Supporters stress that if the UK scraps the Human Rights Act then it will lose legitimacy and effectiveness in speaking out against human rights abuses elsewhere.
The Tories argue they want a Bill of Rights specifically designed to fit British needs and traditions.
They say the Bill would allow the ECHR to apply a "margin of appreciation" - more discretion - in its rulings, so judges would be more likely to take into account British culture and history.
Opponents say the plans could dilute human rights laws.
