Dear All
There has been much talk from the Tories before the Westminster election of tampering with the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Act is not the problem but the people who make decisions under it.
Tories wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights but regardless of that, they couldn’t change the fact that the rights contained are still available via the European Court.
So, the issue is will the Tories try and reform Human Rights at the source?
The source being the European Parliament!
This question doesn’t appear to flash up on the political radar from what I can tell from any political party.
Recently the case of Al-Qaeda operative Abid Naseer who won a case which stop him from be deported to Pakistan flagged up why the European Parliament need to revisit the Convention on Human Rights.
This decision was wrong in the Abid Naseer case.
The state has a right to deport him but was unsuccessful because his defence used an argument which in a nutshell was ‘what if’.
What if he was sent back to Pakistan and was tortured, this wasn’t evidence but subjective opinion and therefore had no place or merit in the case.
Human Rights are important, they are supposed to stop abuse but the application has allowed them to become a criminal’s charter to circumvent justice.
Abid Naseer used article 2 and 3 to escape justice.
ARTICLE 2
Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
ARTICLE 3
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
However, Article 8.2 on private and family life states;
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
This section in my opinion gave the Special Immigration Appeals Commission the right to deport Abid Naseer back to Pakistan.
Nick Clegg has warned that any government tampering with the Human Rights Act “did so at its peril”.
This was echoed by Senior LibDem figures now in government who added they would resign rather than be part of a Government that ditched the Human Rights Act.
So, a number of things must be done politically.
David Cameron and the Tories have to seek EU wide support to review the Convention of Human Rights and there needs to be better training of those who use the legislation in the UK.
There has been much talk from the Tories before the Westminster election of tampering with the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Act is not the problem but the people who make decisions under it.
Tories wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights but regardless of that, they couldn’t change the fact that the rights contained are still available via the European Court.
So, the issue is will the Tories try and reform Human Rights at the source?
The source being the European Parliament!
This question doesn’t appear to flash up on the political radar from what I can tell from any political party.
Recently the case of Al-Qaeda operative Abid Naseer who won a case which stop him from be deported to Pakistan flagged up why the European Parliament need to revisit the Convention on Human Rights.
This decision was wrong in the Abid Naseer case.
The state has a right to deport him but was unsuccessful because his defence used an argument which in a nutshell was ‘what if’.
What if he was sent back to Pakistan and was tortured, this wasn’t evidence but subjective opinion and therefore had no place or merit in the case.
Human Rights are important, they are supposed to stop abuse but the application has allowed them to become a criminal’s charter to circumvent justice.
Abid Naseer used article 2 and 3 to escape justice.
ARTICLE 2
Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
ARTICLE 3
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
However, Article 8.2 on private and family life states;
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
This section in my opinion gave the Special Immigration Appeals Commission the right to deport Abid Naseer back to Pakistan.
Nick Clegg has warned that any government tampering with the Human Rights Act “did so at its peril”.
This was echoed by Senior LibDem figures now in government who added they would resign rather than be part of a Government that ditched the Human Rights Act.
So, a number of things must be done politically.
David Cameron and the Tories have to seek EU wide support to review the Convention of Human Rights and there needs to be better training of those who use the legislation in the UK.
At present the Tories have backed away from tampering with the Human Rights Act because I feel they haven’t fully thought through how the Act should be amended in order to protect the rights of the individual.
But the Human Rights Act isn’t solely about the rights of the individual but also the rights that the state can exercise. Very little weight has been given to that part of the Act.
The Act shouldn’t be used by the state as a rubber stamp to allow them to get away with anything.
This is one debate that needs to be EU wide because although there is a lot of good in the Act, there is also a lot of scope to allow others to make incredibly bad decisions in its name.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
But the Human Rights Act isn’t solely about the rights of the individual but also the rights that the state can exercise. Very little weight has been given to that part of the Act.
The Act shouldn’t be used by the state as a rubber stamp to allow them to get away with anything.
This is one debate that needs to be EU wide because although there is a lot of good in the Act, there is also a lot of scope to allow others to make incredibly bad decisions in its name.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
No comments:
Post a Comment