I am beyond shocked
by David Cameron’s pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act if he becomes Prime Minister at the next election. The United
Kingdom was one of the first countries to give formal consent to the European Convention
of Human Rights in 1951, when it was passed through Parliament, championed by
Sir Winston Churchill.
We
live in a democracy that is loosely based on utilitarianism, i.e. the belief
that the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people should be the
guiding principle of those that rule us.
I
know certain cases ruled upon by the European Court of Human Rights have upset many people because they seem overtly
wrong. For instance, the idea that prisoners can vote.
The
media seem to think that once a person goes to jail that they should never be
permitted to be a citizen again upon their release. Yet more than half of all
those currently in jail will be free within five years. Why, upon their release,
should they not have a voice with which to speak with a Member of Parliament? If
they should be permitted to talk with an MP, then why shouldn’t they have a right
to choose whom that MP might be. Simply missing the election because of being
in Jail shouldn’t prevent them choosing their MP.
Being
holier than thou over this appears irrationally prejudicial. But I do agree
other odd cases that have won in the ECHR need to be vetoed in some way. Nevertheless,
to do away with human rights could certainly have an impact on the liberties we
currently enjoy, without even being aware of it. I wanted to go through the Acts
with some discussion on how these Articles might impact our lives if they are
taken away and not replaced with a closely fitting alternative under the Tories
proposed, “British Bill of Rights.”
This
is the agreement by the Signatory Countries that they will secure the rights of
their citizens as stated in the following Articles within their jurisdiction.
The
Right to Life will disappear. At the moment everyone’s right to life is
protected by law. When this is not in place the State can exterminate its
citizens if it so chooses as Pinochet did. On
September 11th in 1973 General Pinochet seized power of Chile in a
bloody military coup. In almost two decades of his dictatorship he became
notorious for his abuse of Human Rights. Under his rule, more than 3,200 people are known
to have disappeared or been executed, with thousands of others being detained,
tortured or exiled. Article 2 prevents human rights abuses on this scale
happening in Europe.
The
media often reports on alleged British involvement or complicity in torture and
rendition sometimes conducted by the USA.
In 2012 a criminal investigation into M16 officers
involvement of torturing Libyan dissidents,
under Tony Blair’s leadership, was carried out. More recently, in the wake of
the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the US Senate has produced a report
on torture of suspected terrorists. Malcolm Rifkind has requested access to redacted
passages of the report, which might detail the UK’s part in breaking Article 3
of the Human Rights Act. More commonly, in countries outside of Europe,
appalling acts of torture still happen. The UK has always prided itself on having the highest standards of human
rights. I’m afraid all this would slide without Article 3 in its current form,
and incidents of the UK becoming involved in torture would become more
frequent.
Between
1971 and 1975 the authorities in Northern Ireland exercised a series of
extrajudicial Powers of Arrest, detention
and internment
of terrorist suspects. Arrests and convictions during this time
included The Guildford Four, Maguire Seven and the Birmingham Six, all later proven to have been wrongly convicted. Although
the claims of torture and police brutality they endured were not brought before
the European Court of Human Rights, many more were, including the ‘Hooded Men Case’, where it was found that five interrogation techniques were used on
suspects. This included forcing detainees to remain standing ‘spread eagled’ in
stress positions for hours on end, putting hoods over their heads, subjecting
them to loud continuous noise and deprivation of food, drink and sleep. The
European Court of Human Rights held that these techniques caused, if not actual
bodily injury, at least intense physical and mental suffering, and were humiliating and degrading. As such,
the UK was held to be in breach of Article 3 by allowing its security forces to
use such techniques.
Abolition of this Human Rights Law would mean
the State could force those they wanted to work for nothing. Everyone knows slavery is wrong, but abolish human rights and what’s in place to
prevent the State enslaving a section of its citizens to work for nothing
should it so choose? Modern day slavery
takes many forms and occurs in many more countries than you could imagine. The
victims are the most vulnerable in society, women and children forced into
prostitution, migrants trapped in debt bondage, and sweatshop or farm workers,
usually foreign nationals, who are paid little or nothing. This does not just
happen in third world countries but also here in the UK. Without the protection of Article 4 it’s worrying to imagine how the
money hungry could exploit British Citizens even more in this way.
This
means the State shall be forced to justify depriving a citizen of their liberty
and entitling citizens to take proceedings against the State by which the
lawfulness of his or her detention
shall be speedily decided. Without Article 5, the police could arrest and detain
a suspect for however long they choose.
This Article also ensures that if you were to be arrested, the charges
against you would be explained promptly in a language you understood, and a
trial held within a reasonable period of time.
This
Article also protects the rights of people in hospital, and in care homes,
particularly people who have mental health problems.
This
seems an obvious thing, but without human rights, the State could simply punish
a citizen if it wanted to, without them having broken any laws. For example,
because he or she is part of a minority group. UK Human Rights Laws have
already been eaten away by terrorism bills,
so that suspects can be held in prison or under house arrest for many years without charge, or knowing what the
evidence against them is. This erosion to civil liberty is already having an
effect on our society and without Article 7 it will get worse.
David
Cameron often speaks about his love of family life, but without Article 8 the State
could choose to interfere with a citizen’s family unit. Either someone British
born or an immigrant could be affected, for example, if as a family unit it might not fit
with the States ideals. Without this Act in place, prisoners could be denied the right to have
contact with their families. The
impact of this on the children and relatives of those in prison would be huge,
not to mention hindering the rehabilitation of prisoners. Currently, prisoners
are denied photographs with their family. The prospect of a child growing up
without photographs of its father or mother could result in unimaginable upset
to the child and subsequently cause untold damage to that child’s sense of identity.
Article
8 also covers areas such as respect for your sexuality; the right to make
choices for yourself; respect for private and confidential information; the
right not to be followed or recorded by the Government; the right to have confidential, unlimited
communication with others; and the right to control how information about your
private life is shared. These are all vital and basic rights that everyone
should have.
Without
human rights the State may choose to punish people whose thoughts and beliefs
they don’t agree with. Citizens might no longer be allowed to choose how they
behave based upon their conscience. For instance, being a vegetarian could be
banned by the State. Furthermore, the State could abolish certain religions and
force its citizens to practice a religion that it has chosen. The Spanish Inquisition shows how things can go so terribly wrong. The
Spanish Inquisition held some parallels to Nazi rule. It was a group within the
Roman Catholic Church, which tried to suppress heresy. Baptized members of the Church
who held opinions contrary to the Catholic faith were systematically tortured
and executed, simply for following a different religion.
Without
our human rights there will be no right to march against the issues people
believe in and no gathering together of like-minded people. If the State doesn’t like it, then if it chooses,
without human rights, the state will prevent it from happening. Earlier this year,
thousands of Solicitors and probation workers staged numerous walkouts and
marches in protest at the Government’s decision to cut £215 million out of the
annual criminal legal aid budget, cuts
that would affect every UK citizen. These people protested under the Freedom of
Assembly and Association Law.
It
seems such a basic human right, but without it, the State may choose to stop any type of marriage. For example, it could
prevent UK Citizens from marrying those from other countries.
At
the moment, the State is held accountable, and there’s always a method by which
citizens can seek remedy if the State gets it wrong or fails its citizens.
There may be certain things done by the State that are above the law. Perhaps
medical negligence, for instance, the NHS might become exempt from official
scrutiny. In the UK, people who have had their convictions overturned are seldom entitled to
compensation. They’re innocent
enough to be released but not innocent enough to be compensated by the State.
Another
example might be that if a prison officer damaged the personal property of a prisoner but there is now no recourse for the prisoner. This
might be okay with some people, but the same applies on the outside. If the
police damaged your property for whatever reason, maybe they crashed through a
water feature in your garden while doing a car chase, there would be no way you
could recoup compensation.
All
our rights and freedoms contained within the Human Rights Act must be protected
and applied with no discrimination. This simply means that the Human Rights Act
is there for everyone, irrelevant of age, sex, race, colour, language, religion
or sexual orientation.
Derogation
in Time of Emergency; Restrictions on Political Activity by Foreigners; Prohibitions
on Abuse of Right and Limitation on use of Restrictions on Rights. These four
rights set out when and why certain human rights can be modified or set aside, such
as when a country is at war, or during such times that emergency situations
threaten the lives of the nation.
David
Cameron thinks it’s a vote winner to tell British Citizens that they no longer
have these rights. Maybe you agree with him, but at least if you’ve read this you
will have had the opportunity to think about it a little more. Human rights are
often essential to the most vulnerable members of our society or those who are
in minority groups. From my perspective, I often see and feel how extremely vulnerable prisoners can be, and more so
recently without Legal Aid to help them fight injustice.
Important
thoughts for us all this New Year.
Jeremy.
Content Research for
Jeremy Bamber by Yvonne Hartley.
Developmental edits
by Sarah Hanover. Proof reading by
Heidi Hawkins.
