The sooner this human rights nonsense is scrapped the better! They only ever seem to apply to the wrong people!
Well, that's certainly what the media would have you believe. But most of the achievements of the Act are never realised and a few things about the Act might come as a surprise.
For instance, did you know
* British courts are not required to follow the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights blindly - they must only 'take account' of them. They can then choose to disregard them.
* The Act protects everyone and a particular concern is the right to privacy.
* The Act protects only 15 well-established fundamental freedoms, like the right to life and the right to a fair trial.
* The Act requires the state to take steps to protects the rights of all its citizens - and in particular to deal with those who attempt to infringe the rights of others. Punishing criminals is required.
* Our Act requires the government to balance freedom against the risk to public safety.
In general, the effect of the HRA has been to protect and enhance freedoms for everyone, but what exercises the tabloid press so much is the issue of foreign criminals not being thrown out of the UK.
But they can be. There's no prohibition in the Act anywhere that prevents it. There's only one exception: the government can't send back anyone to any state which condones the use of torture.
If we examine that carefully, what does it mean? Simply put, are we prepared to support the repatriation of anyone to a country where they could be tortured? Because if we do then it follows we support or at least accept the use of torture. If that's the case then it's a relatively short step before torture is introduced here. And where you might assume it will only ever be used in extreme cases, such as terrorism or to save potential victims, then what you have to remember is that where the power to use any means is approved it is never long before the use of those means is condoned, piece by piece, in other situations.
It's also worth remembering that well before our HRA the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights prevented the UK from deporting people to places of torture. So that's not a new function of the Act.
Finally, although it may not come as news to some there is evidence that the tabloids don't always tell the truth. Leading the braying pack of depraved media moguls is, of course, the DFM which loves to scream headlines such as "
Prisoners access pornography because of human rights". Their headline was based on a story that the serial killer Dennis Nilsen was using human rights law to demand access to hardcore pornography in prison. The only tiny detail they forgot to mention was that the court denied him permission to even bring the claim, let alone have it heard.
In terms of the current situation, the Mirror's story is not quite what it seems from the headline. Deep in the text the reporter becomes far more cautious about what was being paid and to whom, exactly, only saying about a 'possibility'. This has nothing to do with the HRA, however; it's to do with the DWP's own rules and regulations and their interpretation of the various chunks of legislation which are updated every budget, or twice a year. Given also that the egregious Osborne's cuts have been aimed mostly at the poor and those who seek to help them, the DWP's staff has been consistently cut, but there's been no let-up in legislation. Thus, mistakes are being made, and often on a grand scale.
I appreciate the Mirror has to attempt to combat the pusillanimous verbal excretions of the DFM but they do themselves and the cause of social justice no favours by running with this story in the way they do.