Amongst the announcements in the Queen’s Speech was that “proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights”.
The scrapping of the Human Rights Act and its replacement
with a British Bill of Rights poses a serious risk to the basic human rights
which we enjoy. The move is a political one, which prioritises appeasing David
Cameron’s more Eurosceptic backbenchers given the upcoming EU referendum over
protecting our fundameltal rights.
The Human Rights Act (1998) incorporates the rights set out
in the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, requires all
public bodies to respect and protect human rights, and means that Parliament
will nearly always seek to ensure that new laws are compatible with the rights
set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Just last month Theresa May, the Home Secretary, advocated
abandoning the European Convention entirely, regardless of the outcome of the
EU referendum. The scrapping of the Human Rights Act would erode the protection
that we receive from the European Convention. And given comments made by
members of this Conservative UK Government, including Theresa May, it would be
a significant step towards the removal of the UK from the European Convention
on Human Rights.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects our basic
rights, including the right to life, the freedom from inhumane treatment, the
right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, respect for private
and family life, freedom of thought, belief, and religion, freedom of
expression, and protection from discrimination, amongst others.
Supporters of scrapping the Human Rights Act in favour of
a British Bill of Rights argue that the new legislation would continue to
protect our rights. Yet if one wants to see how a domestic Bill of Rights can
fail on a mass scale to protect human rights, you only need to look to America.
Despite the Americans’ fierce protection of their Bill of Rights, millions of
Americans are subjected to inhumane legislation and discrimination.
In America today cities can pass laws making it illegal to
be homeless. States can carry out capital punishment, and often keep prisoners
on death row for decades. The individuals sentenced to death are
disproportionately African-Americans from poor backgrounds, reflective of what
many perceive to be a vastly unequal justice system. Police in the US have been
in the spotlight for their use of excessive force and disproportionate use of
lethal force against minority ethnic groups, and what many feel is a lack of
accountability in this regard.
Many commentators have argued that since the beginning of
the “War on Terror” there has been creeping infringement on human rights by the
US Government which the Bill of Rights is intended to protect. The Patriot Act,
passed in October 2001, places substantial restrictions on the right to privacy
and freedom of speech. Additionally, there have been reports of numerous abuses
of human rights by the US Government, military, and CIA, including the invasion
of privacy, torture and illegal detention, through spying by the NSA, the use
of CIA Black Sites, the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and others.
Those who advocate for the repeal of the Human Rights Act
and a withdrawal from the European Convention argue that the European
Convention on Human Rights, and in turn the Human Rights Act, binds the hands
of Parliament from making certain decisions. But given the disposition towards
the erosion of human rights by this Tory UK Government, for example, its
introduction of the Investigatory Powers Bill, there is a strong case to be
made that any Government must be held accountable by an internationally
accepted code.
The fact that Prime Minister is willing to play politics
with the basic human rights we in Scotland enjoy demonstrates exactly why
membership of the EU is so vital- so that neither this majority Tory UK
Government, nor any future UK Government without mandate from the people of
Scotland, does not have unfettered power.