Tuesday, December 14, 2021
UK government abandons evidence-based law-making for rhetoric
And so the long march to Hungarian-style authoritarianism continues, with 'Justice' Secretary, Dominic Raab set to outline a sweeping overhaul of human rights law that he claims will counter “wokery and political correctness” and expedite the deportation of foreign criminals.
As the Guardian reports, Raab claims that the highly controversial reforms will create a new bill of rights, including a permission stage to “deter spurious human rights claims” and 'change the balance between freedom of expression and privacy'.
However, lawyers believe the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act are dangerous and fuelled by political rhetoric rather than necessity:
Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, said any changes to the Human Rights Act should be led by evidence and not driven by political rhetoric.
She said: “British judges deliver British justice based on British laws, looking closely at how judgments fit into the national context, and disapplying them if there is good reason to do so. UK courts do not, as government suggests, ‘blindly’ follow case law from the European court of human rights.
“Equally, foreign criminals already can be deported in the public interest even where there are arguments against this from the right to family life. Every case is different, making it necessary to weigh each on its own particulars. Talk of restricting rights is dangerous and does not reflect the nuanced job the courts have to do.”
The MoJ has highlighted the fight over prisoners’ voting rights, and the requirement for police to issue “threat to life” notices – known as Osman warnings – to gang members as examples of unwelcome interference from Strasbourg.
Without explaining how, the MoJ said its plans would also reduce pull factors to the UK being exploited by people-smugglers facilitating dangerous small boat crossings. But it confirmed that the UK would remain a party to the European convention on human rights.
Martha Spurrier, director at Liberty, highlighted instances of the Human Rights Act helping people achieve justice, including LGBT military veterans getting their medals back after they were stripped of them because of their sexuality, and unmarried women receiving their widow’s pension after the death of their partners.
She described the plans as “a blatant, unashamed power grab,” adding: “Today’s announcement is being cast as strengthening our rights when in fact, if this plan goes through, they will be fatally weakened. This government is systematically shutting down all avenues of accountability through a succession of rushed and oppressive bills. We must ensure the government changes course as a matter of urgency, before we very quickly find ourselves wondering where our fundamental human rights have gone.”
Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International, said human rights are not “sweets” ministers can “pick and choose from” and the “aggressive” attempt to “roll-back” the laws needs to be stopped.
He added: “If ministers move ahead with plans to water down the Human Rights Act and override judgments with which they disagree, they risk aligning themselves with authoritarian regimes around the world.”
Prof Philippe Sands QC, who sat on the 2013 commission on a bill of rights, said: “The concern is that this will mark a further step in the government’s eager embrace of lawlessness, undermining the rights of all individuals, the effective role of British judges and the European court, and the devolution settlement into which the Human Rights Act is embedded.”
What is most disturbing is the lack of proper scrutiny of these measures in the media, much of whom is fuelling this popularist nonsense in the first place. It is just a shame that those Tory MPs revolting over covid passports cannot extend their concern for civil liberties to opposing this bill.
As the Guardian reports, Raab claims that the highly controversial reforms will create a new bill of rights, including a permission stage to “deter spurious human rights claims” and 'change the balance between freedom of expression and privacy'.
However, lawyers believe the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act are dangerous and fuelled by political rhetoric rather than necessity:
Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, said any changes to the Human Rights Act should be led by evidence and not driven by political rhetoric.
She said: “British judges deliver British justice based on British laws, looking closely at how judgments fit into the national context, and disapplying them if there is good reason to do so. UK courts do not, as government suggests, ‘blindly’ follow case law from the European court of human rights.
“Equally, foreign criminals already can be deported in the public interest even where there are arguments against this from the right to family life. Every case is different, making it necessary to weigh each on its own particulars. Talk of restricting rights is dangerous and does not reflect the nuanced job the courts have to do.”
The MoJ has highlighted the fight over prisoners’ voting rights, and the requirement for police to issue “threat to life” notices – known as Osman warnings – to gang members as examples of unwelcome interference from Strasbourg.
Without explaining how, the MoJ said its plans would also reduce pull factors to the UK being exploited by people-smugglers facilitating dangerous small boat crossings. But it confirmed that the UK would remain a party to the European convention on human rights.
Martha Spurrier, director at Liberty, highlighted instances of the Human Rights Act helping people achieve justice, including LGBT military veterans getting their medals back after they were stripped of them because of their sexuality, and unmarried women receiving their widow’s pension after the death of their partners.
She described the plans as “a blatant, unashamed power grab,” adding: “Today’s announcement is being cast as strengthening our rights when in fact, if this plan goes through, they will be fatally weakened. This government is systematically shutting down all avenues of accountability through a succession of rushed and oppressive bills. We must ensure the government changes course as a matter of urgency, before we very quickly find ourselves wondering where our fundamental human rights have gone.”
Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty International, said human rights are not “sweets” ministers can “pick and choose from” and the “aggressive” attempt to “roll-back” the laws needs to be stopped.
He added: “If ministers move ahead with plans to water down the Human Rights Act and override judgments with which they disagree, they risk aligning themselves with authoritarian regimes around the world.”
Prof Philippe Sands QC, who sat on the 2013 commission on a bill of rights, said: “The concern is that this will mark a further step in the government’s eager embrace of lawlessness, undermining the rights of all individuals, the effective role of British judges and the European court, and the devolution settlement into which the Human Rights Act is embedded.”
What is most disturbing is the lack of proper scrutiny of these measures in the media, much of whom is fuelling this popularist nonsense in the first place. It is just a shame that those Tory MPs revolting over covid passports cannot extend their concern for civil liberties to opposing this bill.
