This sounds interesting, I meant to go but couldn’t make it.

I agree this is a strong suit for the Lib Dems to play. But to be fair to Straw, he didn’t call the UDHR a “villain’s charter”. He said he could “understand” how the HRA could be seen as such. Admittedly the HRA simply incorporates into law the European Convention – itself heavily based on the UDHR and drawn up shortly after it – but there is a difference.

Good to hear Clegg say, “We must marry the issue of human rights to the increasingly deeply-held concerns around privacy and the abuse of government power, in order to mobilise a broad coalition of public opinion”. He might have mentioned the forthcoming Convention on Modern Liberty, which aims to do precisely that and which he is down to speak at:
http://www.modernliberty.net/

Having re-read my comment I thought I should make it clear that my slightly pedantic point about the UDHR/HRA shouldn’t be interpreted as suggesting I have any sympathy for Jack Straw! I agree with Laurie, the man is unprincipled and the preposterous “Responsibilities” he’s touting are a transparent attempt to discipline the population in the way the Daily Mail hopes – whoever heard of a Bill of Rights aimed at giving certain people LESS rights? (…apart from the Tories that is)

Wow – almost makes the LibDems worth voting for.

This is certainly an issue on which, even if I agreed with everything else they said) I don’t anyway), would keep me from voting Tory. Issues such as section 28, both its initial creation and the willingness of the party to allow some of its members to continue to support it and try to prevent its repeal, say to me that they fundamentally believe that human rights are divisible and alienable; that they, politicians, can withold from certain groups of people.

And actually, whilst I appreciate that these issues were Labour conference policy, when in power their parliamentary party’s procrastination in repealing S28 and equalizing the Age of Consent (which they did not do of course until the European Courts had ruled they must), seem to say they too, in the parts of the party at least who hold and want to hang onto power, believe it is also permissible to hold groups hostage.

As a pretty hard core libertarian/anarchist I would prefer there never to be a need for the sort of codification of rights that UDHR and ECHR represent, that we should, in some memorable but also often forgotten words, regard “these things as self-evident”. But of course the most frequent violaters of human rights are those in power, even democratic power, over others. And we need certain core rights to defend ourselves against them.

In my opinion the extension of the state into our lives over which the Labour government has presided puts them precious close to Locke’s idea that when a government ceases to work for all its people, the people have a right to take the power vested in them away from them. Vive la revolution!

On immigration and asylum, I happen to know that when Jack boot Straw was at the Home Office, they tried to initiate what they called “evidence based policy making” and commissioned some work colleagues of mine to do research on the sort of measures that actually had an effect on the numbers of, shall we say, “speculative” migrants who tried to come here.

Whilst the research did in fact suggest that Britain was seen in the world as a bit of a “soft touch”, they also pretty convincingly showed that what you did to people *after* they arrived made very little if any difference to them trying to come here. Unfortunately the research was completed a month before the 2001 election and was suppressed in case the Daily Mail and co got hold of the “soft touch” conclusion about which they had already been banging on.

It was quietly forgotten it seems as policy switched back to humiliating and impoverishing those who had got here, rather than taking the measures such as PR n the countries of origin warning people not to bother trying to come here that the research suggested would have had mmore effect, but probably been less newsworthy than the “get tough” stance that has predominated before and since on people who made it here.

Most did/do not arrive expecting lots of handouts, whatever the message and anecdotes the press peddled here, and the message that they did/do not get those hand-outs was not important enough to pass back to others from the same countries trying to follow. So the only effect of “get tough” is only to have stigmatized and made life hell for existing migrants, not put others off.

Good write-up, and it’s nice to see Clegg marking the anniversary by doing something other than telling the Daily Mail that he’d like to eviscerate our Human Rights Act.

On a slightly more positive note, Mehdi Kazemi was eventually granted asylum by the Home Office. Doesn’t excuse their initial decision to deport him, of course, nor the months of fear & anguish that decision will have caused to the poor lad. Nor does it excuse the fact that if it wasn’t for LBGT groups, human rights groups & a few MPs & peers championing his cause, he’d probably be dead by now.

Just out of interest, Laurie, I don’t suppose Clegg mentioned giving prisoners the right to vote, did he? Charles Kennedy was very good on that issue, and attracted more than his share of tabloid scorn for so, but it proved that he could ‘walk the walk’ on human rights, and it’d be interesting to see if Clegg, for all his rhetoric, shares the same commitment

“as leader of the party which perhaps stands most to gain by a fairer and more representative political selection and voting process.”

Experience shows that we actually do incredibly craply in proportional elections, because we don’t have the resources to fight in anything other than a targetted way. We fight for PR because it’s right, not because it will sweep us to power.

For a minute there, Guy AC, it looked like you were defending Straw. Glad you clarified. New labour’s problems with human rights is that they’d like to be seen as signed up, but can’t accept that it’s not a pick’n’mix. Such rights are universal, and apply to the scumbag as much as the saint, and new Labour won’t abide by this principle if it thinks it may lose votes/alienate the mail/Sun crew (incidentally, aren’t New Lab running scared of a mythical beast in this mail/Sun reader:more in depth research always seems to show that the bulk of such readers are more liberal than their paper’s line, which deems to pander to/be written by a very vocal but actually small number of right-wingers).

Lord Lester’s resignation on the Govt’s lack of principles on this is very telling.

The Human rights act was imposed from, abroad was unnecessary and has been cordially loathed by the British who see it as a clumsy bullying erosion of our right as a people to decide how we shall live. It has been used by a small “progressive2 pressure group to justify the imposition of their outlook on everyone else and has no real mandate here . Known as a criminals charter its bureaucratic clown show errors have been rightly held up for ridicules at every turn because inevitably it does not mesh well with legal realities here . On top of all this it is yet another unnecessary expense and parasitic lawyers pay cheque .
The problem is that the British are largely communitarian in outlook .They regard rights as part of network of duties and responsibilities which you discharge as a taxpayer here and a contributor over generations to the country . This network of rights, duties and responsibilities had expression in British Law which was functioning better prior to the Continental style code .So what is the point of it ? Were we incapable of running our own affairs ? Do we need the imposition of alien methods and silly fashions ? Was this so uncivilised a country as to require remedial lessons in humanity from foreigners? No . It is driven by arrogant empire building elites who care for little except their own sanctimony

Immigration at five times 97 levels against the clear wishes of the people , a referendum avoided on the EU in terror of actual democracy , faddy foreign systems imposed against the wishes of almost everyone .What beats we must be that our betters cannot trust us with any say in our lives at all , beasts or simply children waiting for the parental guidance .

“Immigration at five times 97 levels against the clear wishes of the people”

What do the wishes of the people matter if there is no harm being done to the people, as is proved time and time again? Xenophobia at it’s worst, that’s all this view can be described as.

“Known as a criminals charter its bureaucratic clown show errors have been rightly held up for ridicules at every turn because inevitably it does not mesh well with legal realities here”

It meshes perfectly fine with ensuring people are treated as human beings from an objective sense rather than based on mob rule you clearly would rather employ.

What Lee said. Plus, it’s worth pointing out that at present, the European Court of Human Rights is the only institution restraining this government from its excessive expansion of the DNA database. People who rail against the authoritarianism of New Labour, whether pro-europe or euro-sceptic, should at least be grateful for that.

Giving prisoners the right to vote is interesting in itself and also interesting in the light of the recent ruling on DNA, fingerprint, and sample retention, in terms of what the Government does about adverse judgements. There is a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this very issue. Strangely, it seems that if the adverse judgement coincides with Government policy, the Government will act swiftly; on the other hand, if it doesn’t, the Government will act slowly. Isn’t that odd? *

(* loads of sarcasm.)

What do the wishes of the people matter if there is no harm being done to the people, as is proved time and time again? Xenophobia at it’s worst, that’s all this view can be described as.

I shall treasure that. Well of course great strains have been put on services especially education in inner cities , the economy has been warped away from training and full domestic employment into May fly operations dependent ion cheap migrants ( Other side of the coin being the million on benefits fit for work) Wages have been suppressed social coherence has been eroded to the point the country no longer feels responsibility for others passing through .
I `m not sure it is necessary to get into all that though the contempt for other people and their views is frankly appalling and lends credence to the suspicion abroad that the Liberals left is something quite sinister .

9. Newmania – well put. We are supposed to live ina democracy. If people could vote on the system which allows people in the country, which included the numbers entering and effective deportation system for those who are criminals or threaten the way of life; then I think far more people would look favourably on the HRA. However new laws should not be cash cows for left wing lawyers . We should be able to deport anyone who plans or encourages acts of violence against this country . Also if violent crime in the inner cities was much lower then people would be more concerned about the loss privacy from CCTVs and ID cards. If one has just been mugged or especially elderly parents or children, then CCTVs and ID cards probably do not appear a bad thing. The problem is that much of the left wing white collar middle class bien pensants of metropolitan Uk only talk amongst themselves. Only 400,000 people buy the Guardian, 250,000 the Independent and 2,000,000 the Daily Mirror ; 2,500,000 buy the Daily Mail, 1,000,000 The Daily Express , 900,000 The Telegraph,700,000 The Times and 400,000 The FT. Many older people remember with pride, taking in the refugees from the Nazis. However not being able to deport those who preach violence against this country and other criminals ( such as the Somalis who murdered the police officer in Bradford) combined with lawyers earning £100,000s in fees in dportation cases makes people furious. France has no problem deporting those it considers a threat, even though it has signed the HRA- why cannot we follow?
Let us have an effective border controls, tight controls on immigration, deport those who are undesirable and see how the British public react. This combined with effective policing in inner city areas would probaly make people far more keen on the HRA.

Strangely, it seems that if the adverse judgement coincides with Government policy, the Government will act swiftly; on the other hand, if it doesn’t, the Government will act slowly. Isn’t that odd?

One of the more glaring examples of selective hearing, isn’t it? It’s been four years and counting, and there are no plans to introduce it during the next Parliament. Methinks the JCHR’s request that action is taken soon to ensure the next election is, y’know, lawful, will have fallen on deaf ears.

Newmania, there are a few things wrong with your comment @9.

First, I think you are conflating the Human Rights Act with the European Convention on Human Rights. Second, neither of these were “imposed from abroad”: we signed the latter after we helped write it, and Parliament wrote and passed the former. Third, there is nothing alien about the Convention, (again) Brits were major contributors and we already had a number of the freedoms and rights in our constitution.

Fourth, I do wonder, when people bang on about how awful the HRA and ECHR are, which of the articles in the Convention they think we should abolish. Prohibition of torture? Prohibition of slavery? Habeas corpus? Right to a fair trial? No ex post facto law? Right to a private life? Freedom of thought, conscience and religion? Freedom of expression? Freedom of assembly?

Lee,

What do the wishes of the people matter if there is no harm being done to the people, as is proved time and time again? Xenophobia at it’s worst, that’s all this view can be described as.

Well, it seems to be a question of whether you think freedom of movement trumps the right of a nation to control the territory it occupies. (I’m not saying I have the answer.)

“the right of a nation to control the territory it occupies.”

We haven’t lost that right though, so it’s not really any argument.

“Well of course great strains have been put on services especially education in inner cities”

Then that is a problem with services funding, not with immigration. Meanwhile services outside the inner city that are helping “British” people are helped to survive by immigration propping up the numbers in dying communities and giving them a lease of life they would have lost long ago.

UK Liberty
There was I imagining that I lived in a country where torture was illegal without the HRA and oddly enough the same goes for slavery fair trials habeus corpus and the rest of the chocolate box assortment of nebulous goodies you quote . Thank god for the good old HRA without which I should be allowed to torture my slave without a fair trial , publicly and quite possibly in denial of his or her right to a family life .

You must have wondered if it might not be better to dispense with this whole voting malarkey an simply let the French or Germans rule us . After all they run their own countries perfectly well . That way we could be relieved of the burdensome and expensive business of running our own affairs entirely without any loss . Why not let Millipede sneak over to Brussels and sign something to that effect ,, that we can all say it was mandated as well .

Who could object to that ?

France has no problem deporting those it considers a threat, even though it has signed the HRA- why cannot we follow?

Presumably you mean the Convention, and in fact it does have ‘problems’ deporting people.

Newmania, it’s strange you think that we haven’t had problems relating to fair trials and habeas corpus, in the last eleven years especially: have you not noticed the proposals to extend detention without charge, and people being imprisoned without trial for months if not years? People being made subject to control orders, and a growing number of other types of civil orders intended to prevent crime (from ASBOs to Serious Crime Prevention Orders), doing away with traditional notions such as the presumption of innocence and the criminal standard of proof?

And no, I do not claim the French or Germans* are any better. The people need protection from the Government (indeed, from themselves), whatever country they are in – the Convention has helped provide that protection, just as it was intended to do.

(* Although, as I understand it, German Basic Law would prevent the deployment of a German equivalent of our National Identity Scheme).

I would add to that, it was seriously proposed by the Government in 2004 that we should lower the standard of proof in serious crime cases.

have you not noticed the proposals to extend detention without charge, and people being imprisoned without trial for months if not years? People being made subject to control orders, and a growing number of other types of civil orders intended to prevent crime (from ASBOs to Serious Crime Prevention Orders), doing away with traditional notions such as the presumption of innocence and the criminal standard of proof?

Indeed, to which the answer is to get rid of New Labour its army of bossy bureaucrats, its tax and control instincts and contempt for Liberty and democracy . It would also help if we refrained from importing an army of people intent on carnage which provides the perfect excuse. It is no good replacing one unwanted set of controls with another though.
I confidently expect this to be achieved at the first opportunity , if that is , people could get up off their knees. Judging by the clear legislative programme the tax bribe and the bills due to come in for the latter part of next year we will all have the chance to strike a blow against authoritarianism by voting for David Cameron next June .

UK Liberty “Fourth, I do wonder, when people bang on about how awful the HRA and ECHR are, which of the articles in the Convention they think we should abolish. Prohibition of torture? Prohibition of slavery? Habeas corpus? Right to a fair trial? No ex post facto law? Right to a private life? Freedom of thought, conscience and religion? Freedom of expression? Freedom of assembly?”

Those rights all existed for centuries before HRA, as did the right to do anything which wasn’t illegal. I would question what rights I have now that I did not have before HRA, I can’t think of any. In fact, pre-HRA in many scenarios you had more rights. Police couldn’t retain records of any contact with them for 100 years, there wasn’t a protestor exculsion zone around No 10, you couldn’t be forced to give evidence against yourself (speeding fines), you could smoke indoors etc etc etc. The only people who benefit from Human Rights legislation are lawyers.

Quite so, Matt Munro.

Matt, I didn’t suggest the Convention gave us new rights. Indeed I deliberately chose my wording to reflect rights we already had (e.g. you will find no mention of habeas corpus in the Convention). What I suggest is that the Convention makes it a bit more difficult for the Government to ride roughshod over our rights, and the HRA makes it a little easier for people to assert their Convention rights.

(I think I am correct in saying, however, that we didn’t have a right to privacy before the Convention.)

Newmania,

the answer is to get rid of New Labour its army of bossy bureaucrats, its tax and control instincts and contempt for Liberty and democracy .

I was hopeful we would find common ground, and indeed we have. Well said.

Or, not quite so, Matt Munro. My recollection of, say universal franchise only goes back to 1918 or so, Habeus Corpus seems to be something we’ve given up on even after the HRA. The HRA is no panacea, obviously, but it is better to start there than to eliminate it, I’d have thought.

My recollection of, say universal franchise only goes back to 1918 or so….

Ah yes that fcat must be great source of frustration to embryonic despot Lee Griffin “What do the wishes of the people matter if there is no harm being done to the people….”

(He never sleeps you know …)

So people should be able to stop something from happening that is of itself not causing them any problem? And yet you are the first person that I would have thought that would have agreed with me on this, given the idea to ban cigarettes from anywhere other than under the counter?

Newmania – what, exactly, is so very great about David Cameron? Man’s a fool.

I would question what rights I have now that I did not have before HRA, I can’t think of any. In fact, pre-HRA in many scenarios you had more rights. Police couldn’t retain records of any contact with them for 100 years, there wasn’t a protestor exculsion zone around No 10, you couldn’t be forced to give evidence against yourself (speeding fines), you could smoke indoors etc etc etc. The only people who benefit from Human Rights legislation are lawyers.

You seem to be attributing those interferences to the HRA rather than a Government with a large majority.

Murder has not directly effected me thus far I nonetheless take a dim view of its practice and immigration levels effect everyone . I think the right to govern your own country and for its governance to reflect the concerns of the majority is not an unreasonable thing to ask for when those feelings are consistently and strongly felt .I do not recall hiding cigarettes appearing at the top of public concerns recently , perhaps I missed it ?

Laurie the subject of golden princeling David Cameron’s many qualities is too is large for today . I can only hope that at some stage you will scrub up a bit so you may attract such a complete Englishman . I would model yourself on his lovely wife whose dress sense ,I am sure you will agree , is quite exquisite

Great write up Laurie. Whilst the Lib Dems have an excellent record in defending both Human Rights and Civil Liberties, I feel that the standard methods of arguing for them are insufficient. We must find new ways for people to care about the erosion of their liberties at home and those of people abroad. Unfortunately, us kicking up a big fuss and quoting Locke, Paine, or Jefferson does not work alone. We must tap into greater angst about everyday things like data loss and so on. The “taking Jane” video that is doing the rounds is a step in the right direction. We need to make this a mainstream issue.

“Murder has not directly effected me”

Bullshit argument alert. murder does affect people when it happens, thus even if the majority of the population lost their minds and stopped being against murder we would still need to do something about it. Immigration in itself doesn’t affect anything, poor infrastructure and services are the problem that governance should “reflect the concerns of”.

You basically have decided for us all that immigration is bad and a problem and that this is one issue that suddenly the government should act “for the people”, handily ignoring a raft of other issues the public are aggravated about so that you can cherry pick your argument about democracy. We don’t live in a democracy by any definition you would wish to prescribe, and for some part that is shit and for some part this is good. Either way, the only things that should *ever* be done are things that make sense objectively and for the overall good of the people…this is something potentially completely independent of what people think is good for them. Curbing immigration and repealing the HRA falls in to the category of people not knowing what the fuck they’re talking about while being goaded along like insipid students of the tabloids, and thus shouldn’t be touched by our “governance”.

Why thank you for setting me straight there Lee , I do have a minor quibble about who would decide what was an objective good and what was “not knowing what the fuck they’re talking about”. Some sort of committee presumably? I hardly like to complain when the overall scheme is so evidently wise . Still you are clearly a profound thinker yourself, have you though that you might personally undertake this onerous task ?

‘Laurie the subject of golden princeling David Cameron’s many qualities is too is large for today . I can only hope that at some stage you will scrub up a bit so you may attract such a complete Englishman . I would model yourself on his lovely wife whose dress sense ,I am sure you will agree , is quite exquisite’

I’m starting to belive that you might actually be taking the piss a little bit.

Glad you guys liked the write-up! I’m hoping to do some more of these….

Although, having said that, Samantha Cameron is really quite fit. I would, although she mightn’t enjoy it.

The Left and Right agree on right to freedom of speech, trail by jury, freedom from torture etc. The divisions open over issues such as the right of prisoners to vote. Personally I lean towards the Right on this one, can’t see why it’s a vital human right seeing as criminals have after all a)broken the law and b)are nevertheless protected from torture. In short, if it’s not in the American Bill of Rights I’m not sure sure it’s fundamental. A right perhaps, but not an inviable human right.

Joint Committee on Human Rights:

The European Court of Human Rights has given clear guidance that individuals’ fundamental human rights, including the right to vote, are not contingent on their continuing to be ‘good citizens’. Interferences with those rights can only be justified in accordance with the law. When considering whether to limit an individual’s right to vote, proportionality requires a clear and close link to the specific conduct of the individual concerned. The Grand Chamber implies that this link should include some connection to the stability of the electoral system, the rule of law or the democratic settlement within a state. General breaches of any vague concept of civic duty are, in our view, unlikely to meet the standard of justification envisaged by the ECtHR.