Theresa May would like to drop human rights because one of them causes her problems
See article from telegraph.co.uk
Home Secretary Theresa May has used an interview with The Sunday Telegraph to warn that the Human Rights Act is hampering the Home Office's struggle to deport dangerous foreign criminals and terrorist suspects. She said:
I'd personally like to see the Human Rights Act go because I think we have had some problems with it,
I see it, here in the Home Office, particularly, the sort of problems we have in being unable to deport
people who perhaps are terrorist suspects. Obviously we've seen it with some foreign criminals who are in the UK." The Coalition has set up a commission of human rights experts to report on the possibility of bringing in a British Bill of Rights to
replace the Act by the end of next year.
The Home Secretary's words will be cheered by many Conservatives. However, they are likely to be greeted with dismay by leading Liberal Democrats, some of whom have signalled the future of the
Coalition would be under threat if any serious action was taken against the Act, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
At last month's Liberal Democrat conference, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, was loudly
cheered by his party's activists as he declared: Let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I'll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay.
Jack Straw outlines his ominous changes to human rights law
See Changing the face of human rights from justice.gov.uk
Jack Straw seems to be introducing the idea that it is our responsibility do do what the government tells us before we qualify for any rights:
He explains his approach in a speech that he has just given at the annual conference of the British
Institute of Human Rights:
I wanted the process by which we develop the Bill of Rights and Responsibilities to be a genuine dialectic. So I make no apology for the delay in publishing the Green Paper which
outlines the government's thinking in this area. We are dealing here with the fundamental building blocks of our constitution, and it goes without saying it is something we need to get right.
But if this entire process
is to work, it needs to have legitimacy in the eyes of the public. And that means making the case for why we need a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and giving them a stake in the process. Just as fundamental human rights are not in the gift of
governments or lawyers, the public must have sense of ownership over a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities if it is to become a defining constitutional document of our times.
I do not dismiss ideas about the many different forms this process
might take; but I do believe that if one is to build up a political consensus, and develop democratic legitimacy, the process necessarily has to be initiated by government and Parliament. But it will not succeed unless individuals and organisations
across the country, not least those here today, are able to help to secure the necessary broad public consent across UK society that can ensure that any Bill of Rights and Responsibilities endures.
A dangerous quid pro quo
See article from guardian.co.uk
Freedom is taking a battering under kneejerk New Labour
See article from guardian.co.uk
Government adviser quits over Labour's dismal human rights record
article from guardian.co.uk
One of the eminent outsiders brought into Gordon Brown's government of all the talents has revealed that he quit in disgust at what he describes as Labour's dismal lack of political leadership on human rights.
Lord Lester, a Liberal
Democrat and distinguished human rights lawyer, quit as the prime minister's adviser on constitutional reform a month ago. In a scathing attack yesterday, he revealed for the first time how he felt tethered by the government, describing its record on
human rights as dismal and deeply disappointing.
He was speaking on the 60th anniversary of the UN's declaration of human rights, and singled out the justice secretary, Jack Straw, for failing to produce a radical constitutional renewal
bill or to defend the Human Rights Act.
Straw angered human rights campaigners by giving an interview in the Daily Mail this week in which he said many people felt the act, passed by the government in 1990 while he was home secretary, was
perceived as a villains' charter.
Lester angrily described the interview as a sly attempt to undermine public support for the act. Under the headline Straw gets tough, the Mail described his pledge to reform villains'
Lester went on to criticise the government's failures to fight for human rights across a range of issues.
He said the government's failures to pursue constitutional reform were why I decided, with regret, to cease to be a
government-tethered 'goat' - that is, one of those flatteringly and misleadingly described as part of a government of all the talents. Lester is understood to be dismayed that Straw has allowed the constitutional reform bill not to find a firm slot
in the Queen's speech, and fears the justice secretary is using his plans for a bill of rights and responsibilities to weaken rather than strengthen British commitment to human rights.
Straw considering the responsibility to be loyal to Bollox Britain
So Jack Straw is looking at social responsibilities such as staying healthy. So is he telegraphing new criminal offences such as drinking, smoking, overeating, sunbathing and
Based on article from
See also Taking liberties with the law
from guardian.co.uk by Shami Chakrabarti
Jack Straw plans to overhaul the Human Rights Act amidst claims that it has become a charter for criminals.
The Injustice Secretary wants to reflect complaints that the act protects rights but says nothing about responsibilities.
interview with the Daily Mail, he says he is frustrated by the way the legislation he introduced ten years ago has sometimes been interpreted by the courts. He blames nervous judges for refusing to deport extremists and terrorist suspects
despite assurances by ministers that their removal is in the national interest.
In a move which will alarm the civil liberties lobby, Straw reveals that he is studying whether the act can be tightened and has taken legal advice.
course I could envisage that there could be additions made to to work in the issues of responsibilities, he says.
He tells the Mail that he wants to rebalance the rights set out in the Human Rights Act by adding explicit responsibilities
, specifically to obey the law and to be loyal to the country.
He is also looking at ways of promoting social rights such as access to health care, as well as social responsibilities such staying healthy or the education of children.