Ken Clarke’s withering dismissal of David Cameron’s policy on the Human Rights Act as “largely gesture politics” on The Westminster Hour on Sunday has gone largely without comment so far. So here’s a comment: crikey.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
Why Britain should be wary of Andy Burnham’s Devolution Revolution (Iain Donaldson)
-
“Build, baby, build” but don’t lower our ambitions on affordability (Victor Chamberlain)
-
Twenty-six years of evidence on drugs. Twenty-six years of cowardice. (Tanya Park)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
Observations of an Expat: Gaza (Tom Arms)
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
Are we doing enough to insure against climate change?
Recent Comments
Paul Holmes
When I was an MP I remember being shown a block of Council flats in London. We stood on a first floor walkway and my guide pointed to one door that after RtBuy ...- Paul Holmes
AlexB - Housing Associations already have the power to borrow money against their assets, which are of course not subject to the wholesale Right to Buy (at huge... 
David McHardy
There is no way out of the housing crisis without mass private building. Private building has stalled because it is unprofitable, as this article explains. This...
George Thomas
"Of course, devolution cannot simply mean moving responsibilities without resources. Local leaders need meaningful fiscal powers, long-term funding settlements ...- George Thomas
Greater devolution without greater funding is a poisoned chalice and that is what's being offered in Wales. That and sly digs at the Senedd. Then it leads t...
2 Comments
But isn’t the Human Rights Act basically the same text as the European Convention on Human Rights? In the same way the Lisbon Treaty and EU constitution are basically the same text. Yet Dave doesn’t like the HRA, but is ok with the ECHR.
The ECHR was drafted by English lawyers in the late 1940s in order to police the behaviour of European governments, who were not at the time noted for their respect for human rights. It was not envisaged that the ECHR would ever be enforceable in the United Kingdom – the common law was assumed to be a sufficient guarantor of basic standards of good government.
Tories don’t like anything perceived to emanate from Europe, and they don’t like people they consider undeserving having enforceable rights. But that doesn’t stop Tories using the language of rights (and indeed the HRA) when it is rich people whose rights are threatened (such as people who hunt with hounds, and landowners who collect ground rents without providing a service).
For Cameron, opposition to the HRA is all about appeasing social authoritarians in his own Party, and throwing a bit of “red meat” to the Eurosceptics.
Cameron, himself, has said he is in favour of enforceable human rights, as long as they don’t come from Europe.
The ECHR has done a good job. It stopped the flogging of school children, it enabled gays to serve in the military, it removed the ability of politicians to interfere in sentencing. Conversely, it blew resounding rasberries at the Countryside Alliance and the Duke of Westminster – a jolly good thing by any standard.