David Cameron and the Human Rights Act
Okay, let's look at:
There are two entirely different things here, and one piece of idiocy.
In the first place, a British Bill of Rights could be a good thing. I would broadly be in favour of a Bill of Rights if it was reasonably concise, written in accessible language, encompassed "core" values that had a broad cross-section of appeal (rather than those of whichever party was governing when it was written) both politically and among the country at large, and wasn't full of political footballs and tokenism for short term gain. Now, obviously, 100 years from now, some burning issue of conscience and substance will be seen as a political football (much as many Brits look at the USonian right to arm bears as being an anachronism), and a product of its time. It's not those I'm talking about. It's just... you can imagine New Labour spin-dcotors drafting a Bill of Rights that appointed the People's Ombudsman, and an official Diana, Princess of Wales. (Helen Mirren for official Diana, Princess of Wales, I reckon.)
This is, broadly, not a bad idea. A statement of who we are, and the things we believe, is not a bad thing. The actual implementation might be, but that's separate. Such a drafting process could form a basis for discussion of what we believe as a country. We have things such as citizenship classes explaining our somewhat confusing constitutional beliefs, customs and laws. A Bill of Rights could be much more accessible to people than a confusing mish-mash. Of course, it wouldn't, couldn't explain everything. That's not the point. It's a statement of intentions as much as a codification of rights as we see them.
I've stolen this from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G'Kar The Universe speaks in many languages, but only one voice. The language is not Narn, or Human, or Centauri, or Gaim or Minbari. It speaks in the language of hope; It speaks in the language of trust; It speaks in the language of strength, and the language of compassion. It is the language of the heart and the language of the soul. But always, it is the same voice. It is the voice of our ancestors, speaking through us, And the voice of our inheritors, waiting to be born. It is the small, still voice that says: We are one. No matter the blood; No matter the skin; No matter the world; No matter the star; We are one. No matter the pain; No matter the darkness; No matter the loss; No matter the fear; We are one. Here, gathered together in common cause. we agree to recognise this singular truth, and this singular rule: That we must be kind to one another, because each voice enriches us and ennobles us, and each voice lost diminishes us. We are the voice of the Universe, the soul of creation, the fire that will light the way to a better future. We are one.
The second distinct point is abolishing the Human Rights Act. Cameron is quoted by the BBC News on Radio 4 just now as saying the HRA is "hindering the fight against crime and terrorism." No. For most practical purposes, the HRA allows the British courts to enforce the convention on human rights in our courts. Prior to the HRA, everyone could still have those rights enforced but it required you to go to the European Courts. This is a long and tedious process. While getting a case to the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Law Lords can be a long and difficult process in itself, it is often positively spritely compared to going to Europe. It's largely inevitable that getting to higher and more powerful courts takes longer. The shadow Attorney General, I think it was, was on the Westminster Hour earlier, explaining that we'd essentially be reverting to this system. British courts would enforce British law, including the British Bill of Rights, as before, and you'd go to Europe for anything that wasn't covered by them. (Some issues would clearly overlap, but there must be areas of conflict or omission.) Andrew Rawnsley was saying that it would be a mess. The speaker was claiming that the previous set-up wasn't a mess. Yes it was. Why the buggery hell did we have to go to Europe to get them to tell us what we already knew, that the age of consent was discriminatory?
Previously, it was certainly arguable that the situation was an anomaly of omission - we hadn't integrated the ECHR into British law, because we hadn't got around to it. But now it's there, it's a retrograde step to make it harder for people to get the rights they are legally entitled to enforced. If something is legally my right, why shouldn't the High Court be able to enforce it? Why do I need to go to Europe? Are only rich people, or those backed by high-profile campaigns, entitled to have their rights enforced? It does seem rather that way.
The idiocy is this idea that repealing the HRA will actually do anything, except by making it longer and more tedious and more expensive to get your rights enforced. I can't fathom how anyone could believe the best way to stop terrorism is to make it harder for people to get a fair trial, where all of their rights are considered rather than just the ones that make it quicker for you to do whatever you want. That's not a fair process, in any way, shape, or form. If the legal rights people are entitled to are wrong, in whatever fashion, address that. That's appropriate. Simply making it difficult to get these things enforced is obfuscating the process. Rich terrorists have more rights than poor ones, because they can afford to appeal at a European level? Ace. (That's also going to take rather longer than handling it in the British courts.)
This weekend, Tony Blair has been attacking the justice gap. I fear the Conservatives are seeking to create a very different justice gap.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5114102.stm
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5910339,00.html
- Cameron is in favour of a British Bill of Rights
- Cameron would reform or, if necessary, scrap the Human Rights Act
- In any event, people could still go to Europe to claim their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
There are two entirely different things here, and one piece of idiocy.
In the first place, a British Bill of Rights could be a good thing. I would broadly be in favour of a Bill of Rights if it was reasonably concise, written in accessible language, encompassed "core" values that had a broad cross-section of appeal (rather than those of whichever party was governing when it was written) both politically and among the country at large, and wasn't full of political footballs and tokenism for short term gain. Now, obviously, 100 years from now, some burning issue of conscience and substance will be seen as a political football (much as many Brits look at the USonian right to arm bears as being an anachronism), and a product of its time. It's not those I'm talking about. It's just... you can imagine New Labour spin-dcotors drafting a Bill of Rights that appointed the People's Ombudsman, and an official Diana, Princess of Wales. (Helen Mirren for official Diana, Princess of Wales, I reckon.)
This is, broadly, not a bad idea. A statement of who we are, and the things we believe, is not a bad thing. The actual implementation might be, but that's separate. Such a drafting process could form a basis for discussion of what we believe as a country. We have things such as citizenship classes explaining our somewhat confusing constitutional beliefs, customs and laws. A Bill of Rights could be much more accessible to people than a confusing mish-mash. Of course, it wouldn't, couldn't explain everything. That's not the point. It's a statement of intentions as much as a codification of rights as we see them.
I've stolen this from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G'Kar The Universe speaks in many languages, but only one voice. The language is not Narn, or Human, or Centauri, or Gaim or Minbari. It speaks in the language of hope; It speaks in the language of trust; It speaks in the language of strength, and the language of compassion. It is the language of the heart and the language of the soul. But always, it is the same voice. It is the voice of our ancestors, speaking through us, And the voice of our inheritors, waiting to be born. It is the small, still voice that says: We are one. No matter the blood; No matter the skin; No matter the world; No matter the star; We are one. No matter the pain; No matter the darkness; No matter the loss; No matter the fear; We are one. Here, gathered together in common cause. we agree to recognise this singular truth, and this singular rule: That we must be kind to one another, because each voice enriches us and ennobles us, and each voice lost diminishes us. We are the voice of the Universe, the soul of creation, the fire that will light the way to a better future. We are one.
The second distinct point is abolishing the Human Rights Act. Cameron is quoted by the BBC News on Radio 4 just now as saying the HRA is "hindering the fight against crime and terrorism." No. For most practical purposes, the HRA allows the British courts to enforce the convention on human rights in our courts. Prior to the HRA, everyone could still have those rights enforced but it required you to go to the European Courts. This is a long and tedious process. While getting a case to the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Law Lords can be a long and difficult process in itself, it is often positively spritely compared to going to Europe. It's largely inevitable that getting to higher and more powerful courts takes longer. The shadow Attorney General, I think it was, was on the Westminster Hour earlier, explaining that we'd essentially be reverting to this system. British courts would enforce British law, including the British Bill of Rights, as before, and you'd go to Europe for anything that wasn't covered by them. (Some issues would clearly overlap, but there must be areas of conflict or omission.) Andrew Rawnsley was saying that it would be a mess. The speaker was claiming that the previous set-up wasn't a mess. Yes it was. Why the buggery hell did we have to go to Europe to get them to tell us what we already knew, that the age of consent was discriminatory?
Previously, it was certainly arguable that the situation was an anomaly of omission - we hadn't integrated the ECHR into British law, because we hadn't got around to it. But now it's there, it's a retrograde step to make it harder for people to get the rights they are legally entitled to enforced. If something is legally my right, why shouldn't the High Court be able to enforce it? Why do I need to go to Europe? Are only rich people, or those backed by high-profile campaigns, entitled to have their rights enforced? It does seem rather that way.
The idiocy is this idea that repealing the HRA will actually do anything, except by making it longer and more tedious and more expensive to get your rights enforced. I can't fathom how anyone could believe the best way to stop terrorism is to make it harder for people to get a fair trial, where all of their rights are considered rather than just the ones that make it quicker for you to do whatever you want. That's not a fair process, in any way, shape, or form. If the legal rights people are entitled to are wrong, in whatever fashion, address that. That's appropriate. Simply making it difficult to get these things enforced is obfuscating the process. Rich terrorists have more rights than poor ones, because they can afford to appeal at a European level? Ace. (That's also going to take rather longer than handling it in the British courts.)
This weekend, Tony Blair has been attacking the justice gap. I fear the Conservatives are seeking to create a very different justice gap.