The recent spat regarding the Human Rights Act, suggests the resurgence of a worrying trend – the use of myth to attack our human rights protection. Senior judges have confirmed that the cat of ‘catgate’ fame was simply one detail of many, used in a case to show the permanence of the man’s relationship with his partner. If one digs a little deeper, it seems absurd to suggest that one is able to prevent deportation simply by owning a pet. It is hard to believe that such senior figures are unable to grasp the legal reality, or at the very least have their advisors explain it correctly. Perhaps more plausibly, they were simply playing to the crowd with populist misconceptions.
The Human Rights Act (HRA) protects 15 fundamental rights and freedoms, including amongst others, the right to free speech, protest, and the protection from torture. Many have appeared in British Common law for centuries, and I would challenge any right thinking person to object to the protection of such rights. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the HRA implemented, was the brainchild of Churchill, with English lawyers at the heart of its drafting. For me, the essence of being a Conservative is support for individual liberty, and a suspicion of the state. Any individual can fall foul of its intrusive prying eyes, desire for control, or its potential for arbitrary decision making. I very much hope that you or I never need to rely upon the act – but one day, we all may.
This is not to say that such rights are absolute, and despite a common misconception, the HRA does not suggest they are. It explicitly allows the restriction of most of the freedoms it protects, when this is necessary and proportionate. For example, the rights to freedom, speech, protest, and liberty can all be restricted when national security in under threat. In the vast majority of cases, we are able to deport dangerous foreigners who pose a threat to us, unless they will face torture – a practice that we rightly condemn. However, as an aside, deporting a dangerous terrorist makes little sense to me. Surely we are better to try them under British law, and keep those found guilty safely locked up in prison rather than releasing them to try and harm us again.
The suggestion that we should repeal the HRA is also flawed on a purely practical level. There was no suggestion that we should leave the ECHR, an act which would see us required to leave the Council of Europe, alongside Belarus as the only European country not a signatory. Therefore, repeal of the HRA would mean cases brought under the Convention would go straight to Strasbourg, bypassing British judges and their ability to interpret rights in a way which is right for Britain, and infinitely increasing the cost and delay.
This is not to say I am an uncritical friend of the HRA and ECHR. There have been a number of cases where decisions appear to be unreasonable. The Strasbourg court could be improved if more rigorous standards were applied to all judicial appointments, it is outrageously inefficient and I believe greater levels of flexibility should be available to domestic courts. However, one does not have to agree with every judgement or process to see the HRA and ECHR as a good thing, and the improvements are at most minor adjustments, not wholesale change.
A British Bill of Rights may be the right way to go, and I think the government is travelling in the right direction with its Commission. Yet for me, fundamental support for the HRA is required for such a position. A British Bill of Rights could in my understanding only be a ‘Human Rights Act Plus’, protecting all of the same rights and freedoms and more. It would not be able to take rights away, and I believe that many who talk of it as a solution to what they see as the problems of the HRA are under the misapprehension this is what it would do.
The Conservative Party has been at the forefront of protecting civil liberties, and we should be rightly proud of our record whether it be scrapping Labour’s ID cards, resisting 42 days detention or passing the recent Protection of Freedoms Bill. What we need now is a sensible discussion around reform of Human Rights Legislation in the UK, and the possibility of a British Bill of Rights, stripped of the tabloid hyperbole. I for one know that as a Conservative I will be on the side of freedom in that debate.
New blogpost: @IainCarter in defence of Human Rights http://t.co/UPbfl5PD #fb
In defence of Human Rights http://t.co/ikI3KfHI
Iain, in principle I’d support the case for a British Bill of Rights and whilst there is some myth, there is also a lot of evidence of judicial legislation of which the privacy legislation. is only the most obvious example. One could credibly argue that not having the HRA would mean fewer frivolous cases given the time and expense of going to Strasbourg (at the pre HRA numbers would seems to indicate that is likely). Also many voters would take issue with your view that it is better for dangerous terrorists to be locked up in British gaols at vast cost to the hard pressed UK tax payer when they could be sent back to their country of origin. The intelligence services and UK border agency do a good job at keeping us safe which would seem to be a far more proven and cost effective way of protecting the UK. Also the survivability of a returned terrorist in (say) Yemen is far lower than the UK so on all counts we’d be safer. The reality of the HRA is that with the passage of time it has been interpreted in far wider ways than the founders in 1949 would have predicted and whilst it has certainly been a good protection for individuals against the state in some circumstances, equally there have been a number of cases where the guidance to judges has been too wide and this has caused resentment. I would posit that these cases cannot be wished away and when I was elected in May the HRA was mentioned a number of times on the doorsteps (although my power as a Councillor was nil on this issue!). There is justifiable anger abut the immigration provisions which go against the intent of the legislature. So let’s recognise the benefits that the HRA has given to the citizen against the state, a solid Conservative principle. But also there are areas where any British Bill of Rights should trim back the HRA – it is possible to derogate from some articles for instance. The debate will be an interesting one for a majority Conservative government