Home Secretary Theresa May and PM David Cameron. Photo credit: conservativeparty
A contentious subject for well over a decade, not many would argue that the Act is without fault, and fewer still would claim to fully comprehend the range and depth of its extensive applications. We may not agree with every decision, in fact, some seem utterly ludicrous if read as reported in the media, while many are reversed on appeal. However, the fact remains that the Human Rights Act has provided defence and weaponry for disadvantaged individuals and groups to fight back against perceived injustices. Even the strangest of cases and most baffling of rulings has prompted widespread public debate, and subsequently this has led to the standardisation of future policy towards similar occurrences. Thus, we can be increasingly confident that as individuals we are receiving the same acceptable quality of treatment and rights as others across Britain and Europe.
The real issues in all of this are how we define an individual’s ‘human rights’, to what degree these are an entitlement, and whether there are circumstances under which we forfeit them. To my mind, there are some basic human rights which are indisputable, including clean water, food, air and shelter. Deprivation of these core elements constitutes little more than cruelty or torture, and the enforcement of them is a prime example of where the Human Rights Act has been a valuable tool for vast numbers of people, and continues to be a fundamental driving force behind such anti-oppressive revolutions as the Arab Spring.
To my mind, there are some basic human rights which are indisputable, including clean water, food, air and shelter.
However, there are other well documented ‘rights’ claimed under the Act, which are more difficult to categorise as entitlements, such as the recent case of the convicted rapist ‘AA’ who, having already been maintained at the British taxpayers’ expense for four years, has now won the right to remain in Britain as a return to his native Nigeria would ‘breach his right to a family life.’ Regardless of exemplary behavior and rehabilitation since, on what basis does this man have a ‘right’ to live in Britain, alongside people for whom he has shown such callous disregard? Perhaps his victim, aged 13 at the time, would have something to say on the matter.
I suspect she would say that no, ‘AA’ does not have a right to residency here. I would tend to agree with her. He has no birthright to residency. He has not earned the right to residency. In fact, a lifetime of extraordinarily altruistic gestures would be required before this man could even be considered ‘owed’ anything by Britain. The difficulty arises because he wants to live here, wants to be close to his mother (herself granted asylum while her son served his sentence), and does not want to disrupt his successful, post-rehabilitation life. In modern society there has been an evident blurring of the distinction between the things we want and the things we are entitled to, currently a matter of some discussion following a summer of rioting and a recession due in no part to vast amounts of personal and national debt.
In modern society there has been an evident blurring of the distinction between the things we want and the things we are entitled to.
It is definitely time to review the HRA, and possibly even for Britain to opt out if the rest of Europe does not concur, but the overall value of its existence indisputably outweighs calls for its demise. The necessary course of action must involve a tighter and clearer definition and separation of our needs as beings from our desires as humans. As a result millions of pounds (or Euros?) would be saved as these drawn out cases and their often comically gross outcomes are avoided, and public faith in Europe may just start to materialise.
Incidentally, there has been loud talk of the introduction of a British Bill of Rights, either in support or in place of the HRA. I’m sure we used to have one of those, the Magna Carta, which clearly laid out our rights and responsibilities as well as those of the people who govern us. Then again, it also contained a section making any amendment or removal of those rights as treason, but successive generations of politicians and accomplices have abolished the entire agreement piece by piece. So would it really help?
