Everyone, in the UK, is entitled to human rights protection. By law.
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) provides that legal protection, enforceable by the UK courts, not the UK politicians too susceptible to the popularity of those protected. The HRA is part of our constitutional settlement.
And it is under threat.
The progressive forces in British politics, have until now, stood by the human rights settlement – a settlement not yet fully accepted by all political parties in the UK.
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in their general election manifestos for the 2010 election pledged not to reduce in any way the protections the HRA contained.
Whilst the Tories have said they will not withdraw from the European convention on human rights, in their manifesto they pledged to repeal the HRA and replace it with a British bill of rights. In 2006 Cameron said a modern British bill of rights will “guide the judiciary and the government in applying human rights law when the lack of responsibility of some threatens the rights of others.” In his speech to the Tory party conference in 2008 Cameron complained about the human rights culture which had “infected every part of our life.” In January 2010 he maintained that what we need is a “modern British bill of rights which clearly sets out people’s rights and responsibilities, and strengthens our hand in the fight against terrorism and crime.”
As Professor Klug has said: “The real target in this debate is those deemed unworthy or ineligible to claim legal entitlements under the HRA.”
We know who they will deem unworthy. The Afghan hijackers who could not be deported to Afghanistan because they remained at risk of assassination from the Taleban if they returned home; the murderers of Jamie Bulger whose right not to be assaulted or murdered will be protected by the anonymity required by the HRA; the Iranian mother and child who will not be deported because she may be deprived of custody of her child in favour of her violent husband who the child has never met; and gypsies of course.
This myopic Daily Mail-driven approach cannot see beyond the unpopularity of the individuals involved. If we don’t like you, then you aren’t entitled to our freedoms.
The coalition agreement said nothing about the HRA. Within weeks of office the ConDem coalition was faced with a case in which the authorities were forced to release two people, in respect of who there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges, but who the judge said the intelligence suggested were terrorists.
The HRA was perceived to have led to their release. And it had. If the courts had not struck down that part of the antiterrorism legislation introduced after 9/11, which allowed the government to detain foreign nationals without trial, those two people would have remained in custody.
The response of the ConDem coalition was not to accept the HRA and endorse the proposition that human rights was for all. No, they set up a commission to look into the HRA and whether it needed changing or repealing.
The Lib Dems should be ashamed of themselves. The HRA is basic to what we (and I thought they) believed in. And they know perfectly well human rights are meaningless if they are to be given only to those who the public like. They should have made it clear the coalition hangs at the very least on the government adhering to the HRA. They didn’t. Instead the ConDem coalition seeks a compromise.
A compromise on human rights. A compromise which perhaps Burma or North Korea or Russia might applaud, and say how very much they understand that you have to understand our local conditions to know why these compromises – superficially compromising on the commitment to human rights – are necessary.
No thank you. The Lib Dems are on a journey which has, within two months, taken them to places where we could no more follow than fly to the moon. That place on human rights is one shared in our political system with UKIP and the BNP.
I thought there were limits. Yes to compromise but no to abandoning the most basic values of political life. If the Liberal Democrats do not retrace their steps soon, then there may be no coming home.
A very good article Charlie.
As a Labour party member I am so proud of the changes the last government brought in; scrapping section 28, the Human Rights Act, rafts of discrimination legislation etc. However, I am concerned that the ex Lord Chancellor used the case of the Afghan hijackers who could not be deported to Afghanistan because they remained at risk of assassination from the Taleban if they returned home, as a case to attack what the Tories would do and to defend Labour’s own human rights record. Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the same case that (when he was Lord Chancellor in May 2006) Prime Minister Blair criticised saying that ‘the absolute human right of the defendant [was] taken into consideration too much’ and ‘an abuse of common sense’. Also I believe the Home Secretary at the time, John Reid, said some believed the criminal justice system was not fair and resented the fact that courts seem to make ‘bizarre decisions’ rewarding bad behaviour. And in fact Lord Falconer, himself suggested that the courts used too much ‘discretion’. May I be forgiven in suggesting that in this particular instance he may appear to be a little disingenuous? Yes, Labour has a human rights record to be proud of on many issues, however I feel the previous Lord Chancellor should admit to areas where maybe they/he did not get it right and not suggest that the Conservatives would be the only ones trying to ‘get around’ the European Convention on Human Rights.