Nick Clegg writes this evening at Comment is Free on the need for the British government to uphold human rights at home as well as abroad. He describes the strengths of British human rights laws, and reminds that the Liberal Democrats will continue to support them in the face of the Tories’ rhetoric or moves to renegotiate them.
Britain has a proud history of international leadership on human rights. It was our political leadership and legal expertise that led to the creation of the European convention on human rights in 1950, a convention modelled on centuries of English law. That leadership matters now more than ever.
Yet something strange has happened in recent years: while governments have continued the call for greater rights abroad, they have belittled the relevance of rights at home. The Labour government that passed the Human Rights Act then spent years trashing it, allowing a myth to take root that human rights are a foreign invention, unwanted here, a charter for greedy lawyers and meddlesome bureaucrats.
This myth panders to a view that no rights, not even the most basic, come without responsibilities; that criminals ought to forfeit their very humanity the moment they step out of line; and that the punishment of lawbreakers ought not to be restrained by due process.
The reality is that those who need to make use of human rights laws to challenge the decisions of the authorities are nearly always people who are in the care of the state: children’s homes, mental hospitals, immigration detention, residential care. They are often vulnerable, powerless, or outsiders, and are sometimes people for whom the public feels little sympathy. But they are human beings, and our common humanity dictates that we treat them as such.
Nick goes on to warn against manipulation of the Human Rights Act by media and “overcautious lawyers and officials.”
The friends of human rights have the most to gain if we get a grip on this. We must give public officials back the confidence that reasonable decisions taken in the public interest will be defended by the courts – as they usually are when they actually reach the courts.
He concludes by saying that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law under our own Human Rights Act was a “hugely positive step”:
So as we continue to promote human rights abroad, we must ensure we work to uphold them here at home. We have a proud record that we should never abandon.
Read the full piece at the Guardian.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reviewing the general election
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
A quiet conference
From Creeting St Peter to the (Liberal Democrat) world...
The Joy of Six 1268
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon, part 2: The Week in Polls
On the 20th anniversary of the Orange Book
Mick Dyer
Steve Trevethan
Tim Oliver
Simon R
Roland
16 Comments
I’m rarely positive about Clegg these days but want to be the first to aplaud this. He was right to highlight the hypocrisy of those in Labour attacking the very rights they (rightly) put on the statute book. He should though have been equally specifically scathing of the Tories and their wish to scrap the act. There is clear water here and he needs to take every chance to highlight it.
Hurray, I was a bit suspicious that our gradual climb up the polls was correlating rather tightly to a relative lack of media exposure for Clegg, but if he is going to publicly celebrate our differences with the Tories that is great.
“Too many people have succumbed to a culture of legal paranoia where common sense decisions are questioned – not by the courts, but by overcautious lawyers and officials.”
If you can convince me, Mr Clegg, that the ECHR as it stands won’t continue to extend its inflated sense of jurisdiction into purely domestic affairs, be that of a domestic cowardice or otherwise, then I will be happy to see less drastic reforms happen.
However, what is happening right now is poisonous, for the law is no longer considered to be accountable to, nor representative of, a growing body of the people and in that direction lies chaos.
Sort that out.
Excellent Stuff. But we also need to the judges to change some of their bizarre interpretions of the Act particularly around the right to family life. We need to be able to deport foreign murderers and rapists even if they have a family here.
Can we stop with the rubbish about deporting foreign criminals? Children have a right to family life. Deporting their parents to satisfy a desire for revenge (and so punishing the whole family more than a British person would have been punished for the same crime) stinks to high heaven.
No civilised country would deport a parent of a child holding that country’s nationality. It’s why, for example, despite endless foot stamping, the British couldn’t get Ronnie Biggs deported from Brazil.
@Chris – i disagree. the criminals should have thought of this before committing their crime. you could equally well argue that people with children should not be imprisoned in the first place.
@Chris – also its not just about children. the courts have also held that the act applies to people in relationships where no children are involved.
Excellent stuff from Clegg.
@ Simon
Why should nationality play a role in how severely a criminal is punished? Why should domestic criminals be treated more leniently than those that come from abroad?
“Can we stop with the rubbish about deporting foreign criminals? Children have a right to family life”
Thoroughly disagreed old chap, we have a duty to govern and assist our own people, but there is no reason why we should be forced to accomodate the bad apples of other nations.
“Why should nationality play a role in how severely a criminal is punished? Why should domestic criminals be treated more leniently than those that come from abroad?”
You rather miss the point Andrew, the ability to move into the UK, take employment, and partake of British life is a privilege extended to others because we are a nice bunch of people.
If that privilege is abused then it gets revoked, and we wave goodbye and think good-riddance as smile sweetly at their departing backs.
@Jedibeeftrix
Human rights are universal, that is why foreign prisoners are treated no differently from UK prisoners under the HRA.
We could always start treating foreigners as second class members of society though, if that’s what you want?
Nationality indeed should have nothing to do with it, and for those who value the human rights of others, as well as themselves, should their own protected above all things. But what needs to be reformed, is the idea that those who undermine the human rights of others, should be able to shelter behind their own when the criminal justice system falls on them. This is simply wrong. Human rights should be protected, not used as a shield.
how is this not getting through to you!
the first duty of government is to look after the welfare and wellbeing of its people, and do so by be represntative of and accountable to the needs and desires of said people.
an immigrant who is sentenced for a serious criminal offence has no place in this countrry once the sentence is served, because their actions have reduced the welfare and wellbeing of citizens.
in that instance their freedom of movement, freedom to work, and freedom to have a family life is a privelage that has been abused, in the process of commiting that serious criminal offence.
the people need and desire security and safety, and need to see their government responding to this need, and accounting for their record on this subject.
you have to decide what the lib-dems are for, is it a:
a) a political party whose intent is to be elected into power, in order that you may govern as to your principles insomuch as they are compatible with the will of the electorate.
b) an ultra-fetishist pressure group whose intent is to push broader society into conformance with your extreme interpretations of how human rights legislation is implemented in law.
in a society that demands a majoritarian and adversarial electoral system you don’t have many other real choices.
apologies for spelling, written from mobile phone in a polish farmhouse, and will shortly be helping the inlaws with the potato crop.
regards
a ranting racist
Very Liberal Nick, explain again why your part of a Government that’s just given in to right wing fundamentalist anti personal freedom Nadine Dorries without any parliamentary debate? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/28/anti-abortion-lobby-reforms
speaking as an indifferent agnostic who has no objections in principle to abortion; amy, i’m really not sure what you’re making all the fuss about…………?