Events | 2010.03.09
The parties' woolly thinking is putting our human rights at risk | Trevor Phillips
These rights are universal. It is outrageous for politicians to suggest they have to be earned by good behaviour
No modern democracy has ever approached a debate about potential reform of human rights safeguards contemplating even the possibility that they could be weakened. Unless we are careful, this country may become the dishonourable exception.
We are weeks away from a general election in which rights loom large. Political parties have begun to set out their stall. The Labour government has outlined some general intentions in a green paper, including the suggestion that responsibilities should be articulated more explicitly alongside rights. The Conservative party has said that it will replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights . Yet we are still, at this late stage, alarmingly short of specifics.
Some of the unanswered questions relate to process: who would hold the pen in drawing up a bill of rights? Some relate to territorial scope: how would plans for reform fit with devolution? But perhaps most disturbingly, some relate to the most fundamental principles of human rights. Do our politicians accept that torture is always, unconditionally, wrong? Do any of them really think that burglars " leave their human rights at the door "?
We should be considering analysis and detail, not soundbites. At an event today, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is giving the secretary of state for justice and his shadow counterparts a chance to explain their proposals and raise the level of debate. We are also, as a national champion for human rights recognised by the UN, setting out our own non-negotiable claims about what any reform should achieve.
First and foremost, this debate must be an opportunity to strengthen the protection of human rights in UK law. The Human Rights Act protects society\'s most vulnerable people. Elderly couples have asserted their right to stay together as they go into care. Young offenders have been protected from inhumane forms of "restraint". A positive approach to human rights has helped public authorities – from police forces to hospitals to schools – do their job more effectively.
And in an age of ever-more sophisticated security technology, from DNA storage to airport scanners, human rights are essential. They help find the right balance between freedom and safety. Where it\'s necessary, they help the individual to tell the over-mighty state to butt out.
Today, woolly thinking is putting these essential safeguards at risk. Both of the biggest political parties, for example, have emphasised that responsibilities must accompany rights. Yet individual responsibility is already woven into the fabric of domestic legislation and international treaties. Human rights do not prevent the punishment of those who are found guilty of a crime after a fair trial: rather, they defend all of us from summary justice, which is no justice at all. The very essence of human rights is that they are universal and inalienable. To suggest that they must be earned by good behaviour would fly in the face of every historical and international precedent.
Instead of nibbling away at the edges, we should be looking to expand our laws into new areas, such as children\'s rights or the right to dignity, and to reinforce existing provisions, such as the right to trial by jury. How we enter this debate will speak volumes about our values as a nation.
Allegations of complicity in torture have already prompted foreign partners to question our record. We are calling for an independent body to establish whether there is any truth behind the allegations. The commission, as a national human rights institution, must report to the United Nations on compliance with international standards. How can we expect to speak with any authority to countries such as Zimbabwe or Iran about human rights if we appear to be lukewarm about them ourselves?
The debate about the future of rights must be properly democratic, involving people from all backgrounds and all walks of life. Human rights do not belong exclusively to the rich and powerful, to lawyers and lobbyists. They belong to us all. The Human Rights Act 1998 was a major step forward for this country, but its opponents are still able to represent it as being imposed from above. Genuine involvement and consultation must enable people to feel proud and positive about their rights.
Finally, this debate should be based on fact. Public debate about human rights is riddled with half-truths and myths, from the idea that human rights means that prison governors have to give serial killers hardcore porn (they don\'t) or that the police cannot publish "wanted" photos of suspected criminals (they can). It doesn\'t help when politicians themselves attribute unpopular decisions in complex cases to human rights. We are looking to our leaders to show genuine leadership.
This debate is far too important to be conducted on the basis of nudges and winks, bodges and fixes. At a time when the political classes are struggling to regain public respect, surely this is one area where they can raise their sights and do better.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]/human-rights-uk-debate-reform
