There's a certain similarity with one of the basis tenets of libertarianism there in that you should be free to do whatever you wish as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else's person, privacy or property, but if you do, you and you alone should be fully liable for the consequences of your actions. I've always been a supporter of this belief, and Do No Harm clause to replace the human rights act could, in theory at least, be a good idea.

The major problem however is that there are far too many people in our society who are looking for any and every opportunity to predate on the weaker and more vulnerable members of society, and much as I don't like it, at least the human rights act, or parts of it, do protect those people. It'll take many years of re-education to change society to the point where complex legislation can be replaced by a few simple 'do not...' words.

didnt we have a bill of rights before the human rights act?