Ocean
The Living Force
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/23/jackstraw-humanrights
Jack Straw's brave new world
The justice minister is lobbying for a new bill of rights – but he is in no position to lecture us on human rights and responsibilities
Afua Hirsch, Thursday October 23 2008
It's not often that you hear a minister admitting that their government has put respect for human rights "on the back burner", but that's exactly what Jack Straw did this week .
To be fair this admission was, as would be expected from the justice minister, firmly ensconced in a torrent of self-congratulation about Labour's deep-felt commitment to human rights. Straw even used the "s" word, proclaiming his fear that if further action is not taken soon, "the foundation in people's souls for human rights will not be as deep or strong as I would wish".
The issue so threatening our souls is, apparently, the lack of a bill of rights in the UK. There is of course, already a bill of rights dating from 1689, but that document is concerned with the rights of parliament as opposed to the crown, rather than the "human rights" which have become such a feature of the legal landscape in Europe since the second world war .
Human rights are now part of UK law through the human rights act, which was introduced in 1998 giving courts the obligation to deliver judgments that are compatible with the European convention on human rights. Since then rights such as the right to a private and family life have been used by litigants ranging from the elderly demanding better treatment by care homes or the NHS, to Max Mosley claiming that he should be protected from media intrusion should he choose to conduct sex sessions with dominatrices.
A new bill of rights, Straw says, would "build" on the human rights act, adding new rights and introducing responsibilities, requiring the benefit of rights to be "matched by a culture of duty".
There are several reasons to question this brave new world of rights and responsibilities. It is interesting timing, to say the least, just over a week after the government suffered a resounding defeat to its proposals for 42-day detention without charge, one of the main objections to which was that it would inevitably violate convention rights to liberty and due process.
The director of public prosecutions, who has watched more than five years of high-profile terrorism trials, suggested this week that the government had lost its cool in response to the threat of terrorism and that more than simply breaching the human rights act, was at risk of eroding the ancient civil liberties that lie at the heart of the British constitution. There are plenty of other provisions remaining in the new counter-terrorism bill that give good ground for scepticism as to the government's commitment to human rights; including procedures for freezing suspects' assets (including the cash in their pocket and gifts of food from friends) without any form of trial, and post-charge questioning, which gives the police unprecedented access to defendants whilst the trial process is already underway, potentially in breach of the right to a fair trial.
Second, the idea that the new bill of rights would make rights conditional upon responsibilities is misleading. Despite the best efforts of some quarters of the press to suggest that the main achievement of the human rights act has been to give prisoners a licence to demand luxuries ranging from fast food to avoiding slopping out duties, rights have always been tied to conditions. There wouldn't be any prisoners, for example, if the right to liberty wasn't qualified by the ability of the state to detain people for a whole range of valid reasons.
Some rights, on the other hand, can't be taken away for any reason under the current law; the prohibition of torture and of slavery. Presumably no government, even Cameron's (which continues to proclaim its determination to repeal the human rights act) is suggesting that torture and/or slavery be permitted if people behave irresponsibly. Which prompts the question, if the new bill of rights won't remove the basic rights people currently enjoy by tying them to "responsible behaviour", what would it actually add?
Symbolism, says Straw. Not all the rights in the new bill will be justiciable – which means that they won't necessarily be legally enforced, but they will make people feel better. "Rights can have great symbolic and totemic importance", he said and should be "a combination of law, symbolism and aspiration".
Which is all well and good, but maybe the government would do better to take stock of the symbolism already freely flowing from its chequered record on human rights. Despite claiming a moral platitude, with which we comfortably condemn the poor human rights records of other countries, we continue to deport people to countries where we know they are at risk of torture in return for diplomatic assurances, the validity of which the House of Lords is considering today. We already detain terrorist suspects for significantly longer than other comparable democracies, and would have extended this to 42 days, were it not for the actions of our supposedly unrepresentative second chamber, the House of Lords. We subject terrorist suspects to control orders essentially amounting to house arrest, despite lacking sufficient evidence to have them tried before a jury.
Terrorist suspects are never going to be the best selling point for human rights, however. It's all about re-balancing the system in favour of the rights of victims and responsible members of society, the government tells us. But there too, is some powerful symbolism, and not necessarily of the type Straw has in mind. Victims of violent crime including rape and sexual abuse as children are routinely having their claims for compensation dismissed for reasons ranging from alcohol consumption (does this count as failing to live up to your responsibilities?), to alleged "consent".
And last but by no means least, the main reason for this bill of rights and responsibilities, Straw tells us, is because of the increasing diversity of our society. Society today looks very different from the Britain the drafters of the European convention on human rights had in mind in the late 1940s, when minorities were, well – more minor – and the predominant threat was the resurgence of facism. But it is far from clear why the inclusion of minority groups in British society automatically amounts to a declining acceptance of responsibilities and shared values.
It's heartening to know that Jack Straw is interested in what's going on in our souls but maybe he needs to look a little harder before pronouncing so confidently on what he sees.
Jack Straw's brave new world
The justice minister is lobbying for a new bill of rights – but he is in no position to lecture us on human rights and responsibilities
Afua Hirsch, Thursday October 23 2008
It's not often that you hear a minister admitting that their government has put respect for human rights "on the back burner", but that's exactly what Jack Straw did this week .
To be fair this admission was, as would be expected from the justice minister, firmly ensconced in a torrent of self-congratulation about Labour's deep-felt commitment to human rights. Straw even used the "s" word, proclaiming his fear that if further action is not taken soon, "the foundation in people's souls for human rights will not be as deep or strong as I would wish".
The issue so threatening our souls is, apparently, the lack of a bill of rights in the UK. There is of course, already a bill of rights dating from 1689, but that document is concerned with the rights of parliament as opposed to the crown, rather than the "human rights" which have become such a feature of the legal landscape in Europe since the second world war .
Human rights are now part of UK law through the human rights act, which was introduced in 1998 giving courts the obligation to deliver judgments that are compatible with the European convention on human rights. Since then rights such as the right to a private and family life have been used by litigants ranging from the elderly demanding better treatment by care homes or the NHS, to Max Mosley claiming that he should be protected from media intrusion should he choose to conduct sex sessions with dominatrices.
A new bill of rights, Straw says, would "build" on the human rights act, adding new rights and introducing responsibilities, requiring the benefit of rights to be "matched by a culture of duty".
There are several reasons to question this brave new world of rights and responsibilities. It is interesting timing, to say the least, just over a week after the government suffered a resounding defeat to its proposals for 42-day detention without charge, one of the main objections to which was that it would inevitably violate convention rights to liberty and due process.
The director of public prosecutions, who has watched more than five years of high-profile terrorism trials, suggested this week that the government had lost its cool in response to the threat of terrorism and that more than simply breaching the human rights act, was at risk of eroding the ancient civil liberties that lie at the heart of the British constitution. There are plenty of other provisions remaining in the new counter-terrorism bill that give good ground for scepticism as to the government's commitment to human rights; including procedures for freezing suspects' assets (including the cash in their pocket and gifts of food from friends) without any form of trial, and post-charge questioning, which gives the police unprecedented access to defendants whilst the trial process is already underway, potentially in breach of the right to a fair trial.
Second, the idea that the new bill of rights would make rights conditional upon responsibilities is misleading. Despite the best efforts of some quarters of the press to suggest that the main achievement of the human rights act has been to give prisoners a licence to demand luxuries ranging from fast food to avoiding slopping out duties, rights have always been tied to conditions. There wouldn't be any prisoners, for example, if the right to liberty wasn't qualified by the ability of the state to detain people for a whole range of valid reasons.
Some rights, on the other hand, can't be taken away for any reason under the current law; the prohibition of torture and of slavery. Presumably no government, even Cameron's (which continues to proclaim its determination to repeal the human rights act) is suggesting that torture and/or slavery be permitted if people behave irresponsibly. Which prompts the question, if the new bill of rights won't remove the basic rights people currently enjoy by tying them to "responsible behaviour", what would it actually add?
Symbolism, says Straw. Not all the rights in the new bill will be justiciable – which means that they won't necessarily be legally enforced, but they will make people feel better. "Rights can have great symbolic and totemic importance", he said and should be "a combination of law, symbolism and aspiration".
Which is all well and good, but maybe the government would do better to take stock of the symbolism already freely flowing from its chequered record on human rights. Despite claiming a moral platitude, with which we comfortably condemn the poor human rights records of other countries, we continue to deport people to countries where we know they are at risk of torture in return for diplomatic assurances, the validity of which the House of Lords is considering today. We already detain terrorist suspects for significantly longer than other comparable democracies, and would have extended this to 42 days, were it not for the actions of our supposedly unrepresentative second chamber, the House of Lords. We subject terrorist suspects to control orders essentially amounting to house arrest, despite lacking sufficient evidence to have them tried before a jury.
Terrorist suspects are never going to be the best selling point for human rights, however. It's all about re-balancing the system in favour of the rights of victims and responsible members of society, the government tells us. But there too, is some powerful symbolism, and not necessarily of the type Straw has in mind. Victims of violent crime including rape and sexual abuse as children are routinely having their claims for compensation dismissed for reasons ranging from alcohol consumption (does this count as failing to live up to your responsibilities?), to alleged "consent".
And last but by no means least, the main reason for this bill of rights and responsibilities, Straw tells us, is because of the increasing diversity of our society. Society today looks very different from the Britain the drafters of the European convention on human rights had in mind in the late 1940s, when minorities were, well – more minor – and the predominant threat was the resurgence of facism. But it is far from clear why the inclusion of minority groups in British society automatically amounts to a declining acceptance of responsibilities and shared values.
It's heartening to know that Jack Straw is interested in what's going on in our souls but maybe he needs to look a little harder before pronouncing so confidently on what he sees.
