The long-threatened, misleadingly titled and highly controversial government rights bill is finally here. He has been under scrutiny by Dominique Raab and other ministers for years, but the European Court of Human Rights’ intervention in Rwanda’s infamous refugee scheme last week was clearly the right time to launch this unwanted, unnecessary legislation.
The Ministry of Justice has taken a hatchet for the most powerful rights instrument this country has ever had. Still, his press release announcing the bill suggests that this is somehow good news for all of us. Stop your disbelief, but obviously “diluting” the Human Rights Act will in some way amount to “expanding” the right to freedom of expression. The Ministry of Justice cites journalists and their right to protect sources, suggesting that this will be a valuable new defense. In fact, just a few months ago, journalist and former MP Chris Mullen referred to the Human Rights Act for this very purpose in an important case for freedom of the press.
Believing that we are ready to gain rights through this legislation requires serious mental acrobatics. The bill is specifically aimed at “positive obligations”. These are the obligations that apply to public authorities and require them to take positive steps to protect human rights, not just to refrain from violating them. Positive rights are a vital tool that allows victims to hold the police accountable for serious failures in rape investigations, such as the horribly mistreated case of serial rapist John Warboys.
Repeated omissions in the way police and prosecutors investigate endemic violence against women have sparked a crisis of public confidence – but Raab is now reducing victims’ rights to hold the authorities accountable.
Positive commitments are also an integral part of the ability to ensure effective public investigations into deaths for which the state can be held responsible, such as the long-delayed Covid investigation. You may think that it is no coincidence that the politicians themselves, who are potentially taken into account by the Human Rights Act, may want to remove it and replace it with this ersatz version.
If the government thinks that taking away the rights of ordinary people in this country with the stroke of a pen will be popular, it is wrong. In a recent survey commissioned by Amnesty, almost three-quarters of respondents (73%) said they thought it was important to keep the Human Rights Act as a vital tool to keep the government accountable when things go wrong. And by mistake I mean terrible disasters that can be avoided, such as the Hillsborough tragedy or the sad coping of the Covid pandemic.
This is not just a domestic matter. Our poll shows that Ukraine’s horrors have highlighted the value of basic human rights for almost everyone in the country. Four out of five (79%) said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had made it particularly important for countries like the United Kingdom to respect human rights, and almost two-thirds (65%) said they believed the decline in human rights protections at home will be negatively affecting Britain’s ability to uphold human rights on the world stage.
It’s getting worse. As the government has repeatedly warned, any significant change in the Human Rights Act could violate the Good Friday Agreement, upsetting the delicate balance of peace.
Our government is increasingly resistant to legal control. After the refugee flight from Rwanda was stopped last week, we witnessed bitter jokes about the European Court of Human Rights, which could have come directly from Victor Orban or Vladimir Putin. Britain is now throwing its toys out of the cart. Yet the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is an invaluable last resort for millions. In fact, lawyers acting in favor of British prisoners of war who have been sentenced to death in Ukraine can sue this court.
Ignore the name of this new legislation. This is a bill to remove rights and it will make us even poorer.
Add Comment