The first discussion starters of a new Government may not be the most important, or the ones that will come on to the statute books immediately. But they signal intent. Less than a week after the election we are already into the big stuff. When it comes to politics and human flourishing it doesn't get much bigger, or more important than Human Rights.
During the last Government coalition the UK courts found themselves in significant tension with the ECHR Courts about such matters as the deportation of terrorists, anti-terrorist measures and is currently facing an enquiry into how certain welfare cuts are impacting unfairly on disabled and vulnerable people. There are a number of informative articles from different perspectives which have already commented on and critiqued the proposed Bill of Rights as a replacement for the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA). But this is where, exactly where, I find myself already at considerable odds with the Conservative Government.
Why is the United Kingdom even considering unhitching itself from the accountability and international intentionality that comes from a Convention agreed after the devastation and inhumanity of the Second World War? How does it serve the interests of British people to be out of step with Europe on a matter of such fundamental moral and political importance? Put more pointedly, what exactly in the provisions outlined in the image above does the Conservative Government object to? More pointedly still, why is the word 'human' omitted from the term British Bill of Rights? And why is the word British deemed to be so damned important that it trumps our international obligations and existing legal commitments, which be it noted were undersigned by unanimous and cross party Parliamentary approval?
When an appeal to human rights is seen by a Government as an inconvenience, and a higher Court in Brussels is seen as obstructive and inimical of our national interest, then the time has come to worry, to argue, and to dissent. Bella Sankey is the Director of Liberty, and a barrister specialising in Human Rights. Her piece in the Huffington Post is well worth reading, if only because she has been party to the debates, the issues and understands where the head of steam is coming from to push through the repeal of the HRA. You can find it here.
One more thought. The HRA cannot be repealed in Scotland without the explicit consent of the Scottish Parliament. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Scotland will support the repeal of the HRA, and even the English broadsheets acknowledge, and largely applaud that. If Mr Cameron is serious about wanting to heal the divisions in the United Kingdom, then he needs to try harder to understand Scotland. The repeal of the HRA is such a regressive and arrogant piece of Westminster hubris that the attempt will be a decisive own goal against that stated intent, and the Scottish people will be forced to acknowledge a major cultural rift opening up at the level of international law, moral imperatives, national identity and ties with the international community, and the social ethos that is the relational bond between the nations on these islands.
And all the above is argued on grounds of moral philosophical, political and social ethics. As a Christian I find the weakening of law which protects the vulnerable and holds the State accountable is also theologically insupportable. Until the alternative legislation is produced, and shows itself to be an improvement in that it enhances and strengthens the human rights of everyone in this country, I am settled in opposition to the repeal of HRA. The pragmatic urgencies of a Government lacking imagination and moral parameters notwithstanding, the intended repeal of the HRA by a Government commanding 37% of the national vote, is another powerful argument for electoral reform.
Comments