The Sun had a poll this morning suggesting that only one in four people wants to keep the Human Rights Act.
I carried out a very unscientific poll of my own this morning while I had coffee. I asked a few people having coffee at the cafe what they thought of the Human Rights Act. Two said they didn’t know anything about it. This is quite understandable – how many people really do, apart from lawyers, politicos and activists? Two said it had to be abolished, but admitted they had never read the Act or the European Convention and one person said it was absolutely vital we keep it – but he, too, admitted that he had never read the act or the convention. Intrigued by this, I rang up two lawyer friends. They are not Human Rights lawyers (Obviously, human rights lawyers tend to know what is in the Act and the Convention). They were only able to tell me about three of the freedoms enshrined in the convention. I was rather surprised – but not totally surprised. The truth of the matter is that most people don’t know the structure of the Convention or the Act, let alone the main provisions or the detail. This is totally understandable. They have a broad ‘feel’ based on news and reading in the newspapers.
But have a look at the list of freedoms below and see what you think. Do they look unreasonable ideals to you? I would be surprised if you do think they are unreasonable ideals.
The Human Rights Act has, almost certainly, been misused and has thrown up many anomalies – but is this a reason to remove it from our law? `We can repeal the Human Rights Act, but we can’t take ourselves out of the European Convention on Human Rights without coming out of Europe. It may well be useful to have a British Bill of Rights, building on the provisions on the HRA – a Commission may well recommend this in time.
An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.
Few, I suspect, if any, would want to live in a country where basic freedoms are not protected with the full force of law.
A British Bill of Rights would have to be consistent with the European Convention – so how much different would it be from the Human Rights Act? I suspect that a Commission may well improve and increase the freedoms. I hope so – the more free we are, the happier and more respected a country we will be. I do agree that we need to get rid of useless, repressive, laws and misuse of laws designed specifically to combat terror – but which appear to be being used against the people of our country rather than terrorists – ID, photography, protest, wheelie bins et al. I do agree that we need to remove a culture of compensation for everything and discard some of the more ludicrous aspects of political correctness.
Human Rights is important to everyone – the law guarantees our freedom from oppression by the state.
We have ‘relatively’ benign governments in this country – whatever your political leanings – compared to others less fortunate in other parts of the world. Nick Clegg and his LIb-Dems are saying that we don’t just need to return power to people, we need to give people back their rights. If he can pull this off, he is to be applauded. I am only sorry that Labour has not done this – rather surprising given their original political roots. Hopefully, Labour will have learned from the past 13 years in power that power has to be used wisely, be measured and considered, and not be responsive to knee jerking tabloid ranting….. and certainly not be misused against the people governed.
The present Coalition government wants to make those freedoms more real, more practical and more usable – but in a balanced way so that our greatest protection – freedom from harm by others – is properly addressed with open and effective laws designed for that purpose. I don’t see a Coalition government destroying the concept of freedoms. Clegg and his Lib-Dem colleagues are right to insist that this is their red line in the sand. Sabre rattling at election time is all very well, but we live a world of ‘real politik’.
Why do so many people ‘hate’ the Human Rights Act (and, of course the Convention)? I haven’t a clue – other than hatred of it whipped up tabloids concentrating on the more bizarre aspects and anomalies – which, is a minority of applications of the laws in daily practice. Abuse of the Act and the more insane political correctness aspects can be addressed – but do we really want to go back to a pre European Convention law structure?
What, below, is there not to like? Not much, I suspect, will your answer if you are not familiar with the provisions of the Convention and the Human Rights Act. So why do 75% of Sun Readers polled want to get rid of the Act? Are we living in a country populated by nutters and fascists? No… I suspect the truth of the matter – and I mean no criticism – is that most people don’t actually know how valuable the Convention and the Act is to our country and to maintaining peace in Europe, simply because they haven’t studied it in detail. They do not see the wood for the trees (and, again I mean no criticism) because Tabloids don’t want to look at success or detail, they just want to bang on about unelected judges releasing terrorists into the community so they can kill everyone, including themselves… and thereby, sell a few more newspapers. The Daily Mail, the Daily Express – and even The Sun and The Mirror are not exactly immune to such seductive money make ‘SCOOPS’.
Let a Commission get rid of some of the nonsense – but don’t be too quick to talk of ‘powers’ being handed to ‘unelected judges’. Our judges apply the law – that is what judges do. The judges apply human rights law to protect us – and that has, on occasion, been difficult for Home Secretaries and other politicians who usually use the rubric that they are ‘disappointed’ when a decision of the courts doesn’t go their way.
If you aren’t familiar with the structure – here are the headings. Wikipedia has more detail. (I have left wikipedia references in below)
Article 1 – respecting rights
Article 1 simply binds the signatory parties to secure the rights under the other Articles of the Convention “within their jurisdiction”.
Article 2 – life
Article 2 protects the right of every person to their life.
Article 3 – torture
Article 3 prohibits torture, and “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. There are no exceptions or limitations on this right. This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention.
Article 4 – servitude
Article 5 – liberty and security
Article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
Article 6 – fair trial
Article 6 provides a detailed right to a fair trial
Article 7 – retrospectivity
Prohibits the retrospective criminalisation of acts and omissions.
Article 8 – privacy
Article 8 provides a right to respect for one’s “private and family life, his home and his correspondence”
Article 9 – conscience and religion
Article 10 – expression
Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.
Article 11 – association
Article 11 protects the right to freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form trade unions, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”.
Article 12 – marriage
Article 13 – effective remedy
Article 13 provides for the right for an effective remedy before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. The inability to obtain a remedy before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the Convention.
Article 14 – discrimination
Article 14 contains a prohibition of discrimination.
Article 15 – derogations
Article 15 allows contracting states to derogate from certain rights guaranteed by the Convention in time of “war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”.
Article 16 – aliens
Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners. The Court has ruled that European Union member states cannot consider the nationals of other member states to be aliens.
Article 17 – abuse of rights
Article 17 provides that no one may use the rights guaranteed by the Convention to seek the abolition or limitation of rights guaranteed in the Convention.
Article 18 – permitted restrictions
Article 18 provides that any limitations on the rights provided for in the Convention may be used only for the purpose for which they are provided.
Protocol 1, Article 1 – property
Article 1 provides for the rights to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions.
Protocol 1, Article 2 – education
Article 2 provides for the right not to be denied an education and the right for parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views.
Protocol 1, Article 3 – elections
Article 3 provides for the right to regular, free and fair elections.
Protocol 4 – civil imprisonment, free movement, expulsion
Article 1 prohibits the imprisonment of people for breach of a contract.
Protocol 6 – restriction of death penalty
Requires parties to restrict the application of the death penalty to times of war or “imminent threat of war”.
Protocol 7 – crime and family
- Article 1 provides for a right to fair procedures for lawfully resident foreigners facing expulsion.
- Article 2 provides for the right to appeal in criminal matters.
- Article 3 provides for compensation for the victims of miscarriages of justice.
- Article 4 prohibits the re-trial of anyone who has already been finally acquitted or convicted of a particular offence (Double jeopardy).
- Article 5 provides for equality between spouses.
Protocol 12 – discrimination
Applies the current expansive and indefinite grounds of prohibited discrimination in Article 14 to the exercise of any legal right and to the actions (including the obligations) of public authorities.
Protocol 13 – complete abolition of death penalty
Provides for the total abolition of the death penalty.