Tories will reform, replace or scrap the Human Rights Act

The Sun has welcomed David Cameron's commitment to "tear up [the] crazy human rights laws".  Mr Cameron's intervention came after public fury at the news that nine Afghan airline hijackers would not be deported.  The news produced the classic Sun frontpage that tops this post.  Today's Sun declared:

"The whole concept of “human rights” in Britain has become a travesty under which the interests of killers, rapists and paedophiles are placed above those of their victims.  Law abiding citizens must walk in fear while “human rights” give their assailants the freedom of the streets.  Convicted thugs and murderers are set free too soon after derisory sentences.  Yet what is prison for, but to keep those who wish us harm locked away?  It is absurd for judges to shelter Afghan terrorists who hijack an aircraft at gunpoint.  It is scandalous that a dangerous rapist is freed from prison to kill because his human rights had been infringed."

Mr Cameron told The Sun:

“In too many cases it has become close to impossible to deport foreign nationals that may pose a threat to the UK.  Being able to balance the danger they pose to the UK if they stay, with the danger to them if they are returned to their country of origin, is no longer possible.  It is wrong to undermine public safety by allowing the human rights of dangerous criminals to fly in the face of common sense.  The Government’s attitude has been complacent. It refuses to recognise that the problem is compounded by the interpretation of the European Convention and the passage of the Government’s own Human Rights Act.”

Without new "memorandums of understanding" that allow a different interpretation Mr Cameron vowed that Tories will "reform, replace or scrap the Human Rights Act.”

Editor's note: "ConservativeHome has been very encouraged by this week's policy announcements from the Tory leader.  His pledges on euthanasia (a free vote issue), the arms trade and his remarks on the sexualisation of children will have hugely encouraged the Tory Party's social and religious conservatives.  Today's announcement on the Human Rights Act - followed by earlier pledges on imprisonment and the appointment of a cabinet minister for homeland security - will reassure those who want to see the 'go green' messages set alongside tough lines on law and order.  The Conservative Party is a coalition and Mr Cameron is increasingly showing that he intends to keep it together."

Comments

[Sean Fear]

This is indeed good news.

[wasp]

Yeah it shows that his image has been set out well enough for Cameron to start talking about more traditional tory measures.

[Mark]

Excellent and essential move.

Throw in an English Parliament and a referendum on EU membership and they will walk the next General Election.

[johnC]

Does this foreshadow a change of political allegiance by the Sun ? It's the Sun wot'll win it.

[William]

He can see the danger from the far right at last. He must put them out of business, or lose millions of votes.

Those who keep calling these issues dull in the threads should take note.

He's got/we've got a long way to go, but this is a start.

[James Burdett]

Indeed good news, Cameron showing that he intends to broaden the appeal of the party not just shift it onto different issues. I think he is also beginning to answer the charge of lightweightedness. He appears to be aiming to generate the virtuous circle whereby good election results generate good polls which in turn generate better election results.

[CDM]

If any more evidence was required that Cameron is a true conservative, this is it.

[buxtehude]

Guys, I hope you're right, but don't get too excited. There was a piece in the Evening Standard business section last night outlining DC's record as PR man for Carlton and saying that he always promised a lot but delivered the opposite. Remember someone else who did that? Mr Blair? And how did that end up?

The other thing the article pointed out was that the berating of Bhs on the sexualisation of children was based on something Bhs had withdrawn 3 years earlier. Mr Cameron's positions look drawn from the ill-informed random whimsy of Mr Hilton.

(Or not so random: Mr Hilton's comemrcial clients tend to get puffed, while it's non-clients who get attacked).

[Sean Fear]

I'm someone who has been critical of much that David Cameron has done since becoming leader, Buxtehude, so it's only right to give credit where it's due.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

As long as he kills the ID cards Bill I'm not bothered. None of this is new. Cameron is just reminding people why they liked the Tory party in the first place. The votes we need aren't BNP or UKIP supporters. We need Labour and Lib Dem votes in their millions and to take them we need to remind people of the areas this government has fluffed and bumbled its way through for nine years.

[John Hustings]

Would we not still be subject to the European equivalent?

[Sean Fear]

Indeed we would John. It would still be a considerable step forward if the HRA were repealed, nevertheless.

[TC]

Unfortunately we would indeed remain subject to the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court. Often the 'crazy decisions' of British judges are simply applications of European jurisprudence. If we really want to scrap the Human Rights Act, we will also have to withdraw from the ECHR. Can't see that going down to well on the continent. Of course that doesn't mean it's a bad idea...

[Account Deleted]

Excellent news. Although we would still be subject to the ECJ's rulings. Still, it's a start.

It's also a welcome sign Cameron does recognise that the Tory Party is a coalition. Or is more Conservative than liberal. (Thank God).

[johnC]

'the berating of Bhs on the sexualisation of children was based on something Bhs had withdrawn 3 years earlier.'

Cameron made exactly this point in his speech ( it was 2 years not 3 actually ). He was not ill-informed at all. The BHS Chairman tried to use this point to obscure the fact that his company had commissioned, authorised and marketed this product range until public concern forced its withdrawal. It doesn't alter the validity of Cameron's remarks at all.

[buxtehude]

Fair enough, Sean. I'm happy with these particular words too. I'm just saying let's not get too excited, like CDM saying "If any more evidence was required that Cameron is a true conservative, this is it." It is certainly not evidence that Cameron is a true conservative, if anything the evidence taken together is still largely against it.

[Chad]

I know people are going to call me cynical but I emailed Amnesty the other day after Cameron's warm words on arms sales that Britain has nothing to do as 'its house is in order', but that is certainly not the initial opinion that Amnesty reported to me. They indicated that they may come back with further details.

DC has mastered the Blair strategy of saying the right thing when a news story blows up in the government's face, without actually committing himself. Like Blair, you need to really read his words and ask yourself if those words provide an escape clause should he not deliver.

In this case, the words "Without new "memorandums of understanding" that allow a different interpretation " seem to be that escape clause.

It sounds good. Let's wait for the firm policy committment that can actually prevent such a crazy situation repeating itself either by British judges or European ones.

[JP]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Matthew Oxley]

Interesting news but I am worried this is a populist strategy which will endanger human rights and freedom (should Labour be scared into following suit, that is). Human rights law may be out of control but we must acknowledge that it essential.

Law may not be in tune with Public opinion or even what populist newspapers may brand 'common sense' , but that is not it's point - Law should protect those most marginalised by society.

I'm pleased to see some commitment to address the imbalance (in favour of terrorists) but I hope this doesn't upset our friends in the Liberal Democrat party.

[Deputy Editor]

Cameron made exactly this point in his speech ( it was 2 years not 3 actually ). He was not ill-informed at all. The BHS Chairman tried to use this point to obscure the fact that his company had commissioned, authorised and marketed this product range until public concern forced its withdrawal. It doesn't alter the validity of Cameron's remarks at all.

Yeah, it was a misleading attack from BHS - and one the BBC article on the issue centred on!

[Matthew]

At long last. I, like many, have seen this writing on the wall. What is the betting, though, that Tony Brown (as someone said on QT accidentally but aptly last night) will pre-empt and opt out of some more articles or even pull out of the ECHR or at least seek to 're-negotiate' near to the next election as a delaying tactic. I noticed in Blair's recent reshuffle Ed Miliband was a new Minister for the Third Sector or something; the whole point of New Labour is that is cloaks Labour policies on Tory clothing. It will be hard for whoever is the Labout leader to pull away from HRA but they will have to do something because I can see this being a vote-winner and perhaps more importantly a way of shoring up the 'core vote' in times of change.

[buxtehude]

JohnC, Cameron said "When I see businesses behaving irresponsibly I'm going to speak out." Yes, he did recognize that it was some years ago, so why not pick on a present example, if indeed it's relevant? It strikes me as silly. So far, his attacks on business have been foolish, though entirely in line with Steve Hilton's business focus.

Of course there are bad businesses, and they should be exposed. But he isn't actually doing that, is he? Attacking Boots for selling chocolate was fatuous. Attacking polluters, or people who cheat the public, is perfectly reasonable.

In the present climate of constant attacks on global capitalism, I think he should use a little more intelligence and discrimination.

[Serf]

Nice Comments from Cameron. As an optimist, I believe he is playing a longer game than some of his critics (of which I am sometimes one) give him credit for.

These comments will go down much better than had they been made by previous Conservative Leaders, where the press would have simply said: Tories, more of the same.

[Patsy Sergeant]

At last 'Uman Rights for the VICTIMS!!!!!!

And if getting rid of the Human Rights Act is just so much PR speak, well then we will have to go on about it so much on this website - if that appears to be the case at a later stage - that the press will take it up and DC will be persuaded that it is a VERY popular move to make!

[Yet Another Anon]

How about in a new Human Rights Act starting off with a principle that anyone hijacking planes is put to death.

[Paul Kennedy]

This is much more like it, well done Mr Cameron, the only people who seem to have done well out of the HR Act are criminals and lawyers.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

"Tories, more of the same." Well, not really. Cameron sounds like the Tories always used to, especially when talking about Law and Order when Howard was HS. Calm, measured, rational and in tune with what ordinary people think is happening. What we need to avoid is sounding opportunistic and reactionary.

[ken ross]

at last we are hearing something many of us have been waiting for.three cheers for david.

[Richard]

"Would we not still be subject to the European equivalent?"

Yes but I suspect people would be less keen to go all the way to Strasbourg.

"Human rights law may be out of control but we must acknowledge that it essential."

Why? This country has a tradition of liberty going back to before the days of "human rights" law. The American Bill of Rights was born out of the famous "Rights and Liberties of Englishmen". The Anglo-American assumption has always been that our rights are not given to us by the government but that we are born with them. This explains why the American Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things the government can't do rather than a list of things the government entitles us to do.

Of course marginalised groups deserve protection but things have gone too far in the opposite direction. Beating up criminals in jail is excessive. Depriving them of the right to vote isn't. Yet human rights activists hold that their human rights are infringed by the latter!

Finally I find it ironic that we are subject to a European Convention when it is Continental Europe that has traditionally had a taste for police states and repressive regimes.

[Mike Christie]

"Human rights law may be out of control but we must acknowledge that it essential."

Must we? We seemed to do fairly well without the HRA.

[Will James]

Nice to see these comments from Cameron. I'm not one who's completely signed up to the 'Project' by any means, but if Cameron continues to come out with sensible comments like these, then I'll certainly go along with him, as will a vast majority of Middle Britain.

As for the BHS clothing range argument, no matter what critics say, I completely agree with him, never mind the argument from the BHS chairman about it being 2 or 3 yrs ago. If Piers Morgan gives it a positive reaction on Question Time, you can be sure a lot of the other Red Top tabloids will be equally receptive.

Keep up the good work Dave! Just cut tax and we'll all be happy.

[William Norton]

This is an important flank attack on Labour.

Brown is never going to win the 'nice man' vote, and DC has now closed down the 'nasty party' attack. Where they could still pull it back is 'dangerous times require serious experienced leaders'. Whenever Blair has got into difficulties he's always reached for a new policing initiative - remember ID cards suddenly becoming essential just before the General Election?

Everything could change if (when?) Al Queda start a major campaign in the UK. Even if it doesn't happen the Home Office fiasco suggests that policing/security is likely to become the next battleground:

* Reid will want to establish himself prior to taking on Brown for the leadership, and needs to regain initiative in this area aftre the Charles Clarke disaster.

* At the same time Brown (who is the man who actually coined 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime') will be looking to continue his series of speeches fleshing out his claims to beat Cameron. A good line might be: I may be a dull heartless Scot but just watch what I'll do to yobs and thugs.

* Clegg will want to set out his stall for when Ming is sent to visit the doctor (and demonstrate he can score better against Cameron than Huhne)

* DC and DD will want to drive home our wins in this field and capture it as a Tory issue.

So: summer campaigns on policing and law & order. There's a good Tory line to take here: if the Govmt were really serious about law & order they'd leave the Human Rights Act, fire the diversity consultants and wouldn't waste £xxx billions on ID cards: you'd achieve far more with CCTV cameras which have actually got film in them and people watching the pictures. (Given the choice, voters won't worry about civil liberties if it means cracking down on crime or terror: we need to make the case that ineffective restrictions on civil liberty are worse than nothing, but some restrictions might be worth the cost.)

[Ted]

Agree with William's post - our policy could be summed up as do the simple things well; competent policing, well resourced; clear laws well enforced; etc.

No need for flashy new laws, eye catching initiatives but do the job properly.

Labour changed our constitution by importing the convention into law without any judgement on what its effects would be. I'd suggest that we can amend the British implementation by sensible changes to clarify the intent.

[Jock Coats]

I liked Heseltine's "poser" on this subject last night - if they were from the Soviet Union and it was 1970, would we send them "home"?

"Then they came for me
And there was noone left
To speak out for me"

[wicks]

Not sure I'm keen on Cameron jumping aboard an ill informed tabloid bandwagon.

Why have these people not been sent back? Because there is a good chance they might end being tortured or worse? I think its reasonable that these people are not sent back.

On a more general point, what would scrapping the Human Rights Act mean? People would still have these rights, but they would have to wait longer to use them and the whole process is just made more wasteful.

[Yet Another Anon]

"Would we not still be subject to the European equivalent?"

If the UK leaves the Council of Europe then it would no longer be compelled to observe the Human Rights Treaties of Europe.

[wicks]

Is Cameron suggesting we leave the Council of Europe ?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.

I think some are in danger of missing the point Cameron was making. He did not say that we should give up our civil liberties in order to guarantee greater security. He meant that criminals should not be able to use the rights of the law abiding citizen to beat the system. When you stop being an innocent person you give up the right to be treated as one. Unfortunately we have a criminal justice system which does not recognise that important distinction.

[William Norton]

Wicks:Not sure I'm keen on Cameron jumping aboard an ill informed tabloid bandwagon.
Oiks have votes. Frightfully bad news,and all that, but there you go. As it happens, this band wagon is rather better informed than most metropolitan liberals.

Wicks:Why have these people not been sent back? Because there is a good chance they might end being tortured or worse? I think its reasonable that these people are not sent back.
I disagree. I think it highly unreasonable that the British taxpayer ends up supporting these people. On the more general point of bad things happening to people we deport: if we're deporting them, then they've done something to mean we don't want them here, and as far as I'm concerned what happens to them back in the old country is their look-out. The UK Govmt is elected to protect the UK, and that comes first.

Wicks: On a more general point, what would scrapping the Human Rights Act mean?
It would mean scrapping...the...Human...Rights...Act.

Wicks:People would still have these rights, but they would have to wait longer to use them and the whole process is just made more wasteful.
We've stopped believing in the 1945 model for running the economy. The 1945 system of international diplomacy ended in about 1991. Yes, if we repeal the UK municipal legislation then UK is still a signatory to the European Convention, but the European Convention is just another piece of legislation - the fact that it is an item of international law does not change the fact that potentially it can be repealed like any other. The unalterable 1945 law of the sea was altered in the 1970s to give every coastal state 200 mile territorial waters: the unalterable European Convention can be altered too.

I'd effect the change through a very simple piece of UK statute: simply recite the rights of the current Convention as principles of interpretation - UK domestic law to be applied so as to uphold the rights except where Parliament makes it quite clear they do not, and in a conflict between the rights of home nationals and foreign nationals, home nationals prevail subject to conditions, e.g. HMG cannot perpetrate genocide, and cannot aid and abet foreign genocide, but it can deport foreign terrorists if their presence here is a danger/threat to people here. It's a while since I've read the Convention - there's a good chance such a UK statute would actually still be compliant with the Convention anyway; it's quite widely drawn.

[Richard]

"Not sure I'm keen on Cameron jumping aboard an ill informed tabloid bandwagon"

Ill informed? There are numerous cases of the Human Rights Act making a joke out of our legal system. Michael Howard documented just a few here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/08/10/do1002.xml

Then there's the recent case of Anthony Rice, allowed to walk free because of concerns over his human rights. Murderers should consider themselves jolly lucky to be set free at all. Opposition to the suggestion that killers should be set free on human rights ground isn't ill-informed or populist, it is a matter of justice. Even if it is popular, why does that make it wrong? The common law was based upon public "common sense" and did us well for centuries. Now we have these absurd judgements based on human rights that the majority of people find perverse.

"Then they came for me
And there was noone left
To speak out for me"

Deporting hijackers does not mean this country is going to become like Nazi Germany. We're not discriminating against them because they're a racial minority but because they inflicted fear and threat to life on innocent people What about the human rights of those on the plane? Re Russian hijackers - I'd have sent them back. Nothing justifies holding up a plane full of innocent people. They'd have been prosecuted in the UK - better the Russians spend the money keeping them in prison than we do. Harsh? Yes, but so is highjacking a plane.

[Richard]

Anyway, aren't the Taliban now out of power?

What sort of message does this send to other asylum seekers? Hijack a plane and you'll be ok!

[Richard]

"He did not say that we should give up our civil liberties in order to guarantee greater security. He meant that criminals should not be able to use the rights of the law abiding citizen to beat the system."

Very well said. I am proud of this country's traditional civil liberties. I am opposed to ID cards, oppose plans to limit jury trials, don't approve of the way Michael Howard removed the Right to Silence and even opposed the 90 day detention plans despite finding myself on the same side as the Guardian. The only civil liberty issue I still haven't fully made my mind up on is double jeopardy.

If people insist on having some sort of Human Rights Act then I suggest this should be the blueprint:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

[Sean Fear]

Wicks and Jock, I'm afraid those arguments are absurd.

If there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a foreign national has committed an offence which would be a serious offence under our law, then we should be entitled to deport them from this country. If that means they run the risk of torture and execution in the country they have come from - well that's too bad. The safety of British nationals, not foreign nationals, ought to be the paramount consideration of the British government.

So if someone had hijacked a plane in Russia in 1970, threatened the lives of innocent people, and flown it to Stansted, I would have had very few qualms in seeing them returned home.

[wicks]

"Yes, if we repeal the UK municipal legislation then UK is still a signatory to the European Convention, but the European Convention is just another piece of legislation - the fact that it is an item of international law does not change the fact that potentially it can be repealed like any other. "

is Cameron proposing this though? Simply saying he would change the Human Rights Act doesn't amount to very much.

[wicks]

"If there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a foreign national has committed an offence which would be a serious offence under our law, then we should be entitled to deport them from this country. If that means they run the risk of torture and execution in the country they have come from - well that's too bad. The safety of British nationals, not foreign nationals, ought to be the paramount consideration of the British government."

I think its simplistic to say the safety of British nationals, and the morality of sending someone to certain torture or death, are mutally exclusive.

[Mike Christie]

"I think its simplistic to say the safety of British nationals, and the morality of sending someone to certain torture or death, are mutally exclusive"

I disagree, we should send a message out around the world loud and clear. Britain will be a refuge from tyranny and oppression, and that includes within our own borders. Break our laws, seek to attack us and we will send you back from whence you came. If that means you'll be tortured then just think about that before you abuse our hospitality.

Why should we extend our hard-won freedoms to those who wish to kill us and subject us to tyranny?

As for the hijackers, Coalition troops have given their lives to make Afghanistan a democracy, I see no reason why they can't be returned.

I don't see why we bend over backwards to respect the human rights of people who have no respect for the human rights of others. That is not so say that I condone torture, but if people have come here from countries where they risk being tortured they should understand that being returned there is a risk they face if they break the law. Maybe it would help them focus their priorities.

[William Norton]

Wicks:I think its simplistic to say the safety of British nationals, and the morality of sending someone to certain torture or death, are mutally exclusive.

I don't think any one is saying they are mutually exclusive. What is being said is that where they conflict, the security of UK citizens prevails over the safety of non-UK criminals. I'm not saying 'deport all foreignors', I'm saying 'deport foreign criminals'.

Suppose Mr X is a Chinese gentleman who comes here, participates in a criminal gang and, say, murders a policeman whilst robbing a bank. On his conviction, I'd deport him to China. There's a chance the Chinese government will hang him. Mr X should have thought about that before he shot the policeman, shouldn't he?

If you object to capital punishment, then you can express this view in the UK through democratic means and (as is the case at the moment) you can get your way as regards UK law, but only UK law. They do it differently in China. The UK citizen should not be placed at a potential disadvantage because you don't like the way they do things in China.

[Jock Coats]

Deporting hijackers does not mean this country is going to become like Nazi Germany.

What an absurd reduction of my quoting Pastor Niemoller.

Would it have been easier if I had said, instead, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created...with certain inalienable Rights".

I don't think it is Human Rights legislation that is the problem here but an overly benign interpretation of that by the judiciary perhaps together with an almost self-fulfilling prophesy type of media attention to apparently egregious "miscarriages". The HRA applies to all of us. I'm happy with the protections it offers me. So whose bits of it shouldn't apply to me? And if not me, then from whom would you strip "inalienable Rights" and on what grounds?

[wicks]

Well sorry but I find that attitude totally abhorrent, there are certain standards that we must uphold, statistically the likeihood of any of us being affected by a foreign criminal is so low that I think being overly concerned about it is a waste of our time.

Remember, with the recent prisoner fiasco, the danger to the public has come about because the system in place was not used properly because of incompetence, not because of the system itself.

[Ted]

Wicks

I have sympathy with you regarding deporting people back to dangerous regimes - and the case of the Afghani hijackers is a bad one to choose as providing the basis to change law. Many who escaped Nazi, East German or other tyranny broke laws to get away and howecver uncomfortable Straw, Blunkett or Clarke found it they should have taken the Taliban Govt into account.

The problem with hijacking is that it imperils innocent people and rewarding thhe perpetrators with asylum is likely to increase hijacking - though since 9/11 hijacking is rare because the likelihood is now the destruction of the aircraft but the law should have been such that the Afghans concerned were imprisoned for a long period and, as we have now brought a form of democracy and overthrown the Taliban, we could deport them when circumstances permitted.

The key issue isn't the Convention at all - that was produced with a lot of UK influence and its text reflects the British view of rights. The issue is that the Court has become a judicial legislature which is actively using the Convention to impose through liberal interpretations unacceptable changes to domestic laws. The people who wrote the Convention did not intend it to deal with, for example, gay members of the armed services, with transexual rights, with the rights of criminals to vote. I have agreed with some of its decisions but would have preferred these remained decisions of elected representatives rather than judges.

A Bill of Rights is a great bulwark against legislative dictatorship, it protects the weak against the strong, it provides a framework for law but it is imperilled by judges who use it actively as an instument of social change.

[Richard]

Would it have been easier if I had said, instead, "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created...with certain inalienable Rights".

Yes. But people sometimes forfeit those rights. Such as when they hijack planes.

"And if not me, then from whom would you strip "inalienable Rights" and on what grounds?"

Criminals should be stripped of the right to vote on the grounds that they don't deserve them for a start.

Then there's Michael Howard's examples:

The right to freedom of information and expression does not include the right to read hardcore porn in jail.

Travellers do not have the right to trespass on other peoples' land because this is an infringement of private property rights.

Arsonists expelled from school do not have a right to have their expulsion reversed on the basis of "right to education". In fact I do not consider a right to education to be a human right at all. Sounds more like a socialistic demand like the right to work. That isn't to say that education isn't socially beneficial. I just don't consider it to be an unassailable right.

Burglars do not have the right to sue householders due to any injuries they suffer because they should never have broken in in the first place.

I'm sure you get the gist. People who break the law deserve to have certain rights suspended. Those rights are mostly trivial or are a distortion of rights that shouldn't be suspended. This is why I prefer the American Bill of Rights - it sticks to predominantly legalistic issues and isn't too vague (although I accept there are certain areas of significant controversy).

[wicks]

Do you have any more information on any of the cases Howard quoted? Would be interested to know more about them.

[Richard]

Afraid not. The link to his article is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/08/10/do1002.xml

[SimonNewman]

It's good to see this, although actual implementation will be very difficult. As I recall the pernicious effect of the ECHR (Convention) started under the Conservatives, Labour's direct implementation of it with the HRA merely compounded the damage. The ECHR
(as with many EU Directives) simply was not designed to function in a common law jurisdiction, and the clash of legal cultures gives rise to the ridiculous results we now see weekly, rapidly undermining public trust in the rule of law itself. The misapplication of the ECHR here has greatly harmed Britain. I would strongly support withdrawal from the ECHR but I doubt Cameron has that much courage - I doubt any likely future Prime Minister does.

[Esbonio]

Desirable as it is, even if we could do the necessary to disapply parts of the ECHR and abolish the HRA (just imagine the squeals of outrage from academics, lawyers and certain parts of the media) it would not be enough and probably too late.

So much damage has been done, not only over recent years, but over decades, to our political, social and legal structures that tinkering with a few laws is likely to make little difference to the mindset of those who make the increasingly barking decisions in our society.

[SimonNewman]

Ted:
"The key issue isn't the Convention at all - that was produced with a lot of UK influence and its text reflects the British view of rights."

That may be so, but before the HRA, the European Court of Human Rights was handing down judgements "actively using the Convention to impose through liberal interpretations unacceptable changes to domestic laws" - I well remember arguing about one of them on the nascent Internet ca 1995!

[SimonNewman]

"Desirable as it is, even if we could do the necessary to disapply parts of the ECHR and abolish the HRA (just imagine the squeals of outrage from academics, lawyers..."

Not from this academic lawyer. :)
In my case, teaching law has helped me see just how horribly incompatible Civil-law (European) legal norms are with our common law system, how laws that make sense in Brussels become a travesty when applied here. The damage to our system of laws is great and increasing, but I don't believe its hopeless yet. I do believe we would need to leave the EU though.

[SimonNewman]

"Whereas the rationalist tends to rebuild everything ab imis and to start with a tabula rasa, the empiricist prefers mending what he finds at hand to re-making it anew. What matters for him are not so much principles as precedents.

Stare decisis, is the formula that expresses his legal approach; and to stand by what has already been done, and in this sense stick close to the facts, is his criterion of historical planning.

And this is the secret of Anglo-American democracy. "
- Giovanni Sartori, 'Democratic Theory'.

[Sean Fear]

"Well sorry but I find that attitude totally abhorrent, there are certain standards that we must uphold, statistically the likeihood of any of us being affected by a foreign criminal is so low that I think being overly concerned about it is a waste of our time."

I'm sure that it is hugely comforting to people who are the victims of foreign criminals (and their families) to know that the statistical likelihood of their being victimised is remte.

Most people are unlikely to fall victim to serious crimes. That doesn't mean that the government should fail to protect them.

[SimonNewman]

I agree with Sean. In any case the chance that a victim was victimised by a foreign born criminal as opposed to a UK-born criminal is far from remote in some areas. It may make no difference to the victim who they were victimised by, but that doesn't mean it's not desirable to reduce the amount of crime committed in the UK by foreign born criminals through eg deportation at end of sentence, because this reduces the total amount of crime committed in the UK.

[Esbonio]

Simon

As well as practising I have also taught law and remain sceptical about our ability to undo the damage of an unspoken cultural revolution which has been going for probably much longer than eithe of us would care to acknowledge. We need a modern day Maggie Thatcher to reverse these our cultural assuptions/weltschaung/ and whatever else you may care to think. Cameron is I fear not the man.

[SimonNewman]

Esbonio - well, it would be foolish to be over optimistic, but Thatcher destroyed economic Marxism as the orthodoxy for this country and helped destroy it in most of the world, few in 1975 could have believed that possible. Conversely Blair smashed the supposedly unbreakable British Constitution in a way I think few people could have imagined in 1995 (or fully appreciate even now); it's not impossible there could be a similar revolution in the future. As far as Cameron goes, I think it's far too early to say. I think he will be better than Blair anyway...

[Esbonio]

Simon

Your optimism has cheered me up. I will sleep better tonight.

[William]

Cameron's playing a different part of the political marketplace here. He's done the iceberg/bicycle luvvie sector for months. Now he's played the ball up the hard end of the pitch.

He'll need to fill his tent from both ends if he's going to enter Number 10. If he leaves this part of the market uncovered, others will cover it for us.

He'll get the luvvies easily enough by playing the charm card. The harder end of the game will need convincing policy and solid promises. This is only a start, but it is a start.

[wicks]

William - It's all very well trying to be patronising about non right wingers, but considering they have completely frozen out the tories for three successive elections now, Cameron is going to have to show them some repsect and genuine policy commitments to win their vote. Your attitute would just ensure another hammering.

[William]

I'm sorry. It's my English sense of humour. Most inappropriate in a serious discussion. You are quite right.

I don't agree with your assessment that Labour won the last election. I will go and get the reference to the article on rightlinks that you need if interested.

[William]

click on that for another possible view of who really won the 2005 general election.

http://rightlinks.co.uk/linked/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Postal+Voting

[AlexW]

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created...with certain inalienable Rights"

Well, given that academics have debated the existence of human rights for centuries (and, currently, many of the leading ones such as Professor Geuss don't believe they exist) I don't hold them to be "self evident". Rights only exist as part of civil society. If they were truly "inalienable", we would never be justified in putting anyone in prison. Yet we do, and it is clearly in the best interests of society. Even when people have done nothing wrong, we sometimes abrogate human rights when the policy arguments against them are compelling (read Dennis v Ministry of Defence on Article 8).

The problem with the Human Rights Act is that it is essentially a residual piece of legislation. Pretty much all of the rights which should be upheld - to take an example, the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race or gender (Article 14) - have already been enacted by previous statutes such as the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act, or (shock horror!) exist in the English common law tradition (habeas corpus, or what remains of it, etc.) Therefore, claims under the Human Rights Act are likely to be essentially "last ditch" ones since the applicant can't succeed using substantive law or conventional judicial review. That's the problem, and that's why the Act needs to be repealed or reformed.

[Annabel Herriott]

One way of reforming the human rights act, is to rewrite it as the human rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES act. To all live together in harmony, one cannot have one without the other. OK, the human rights lawyers will have to take a pay cut, but so what???

[geraldine]

Those of you who are purporting to see a hard common sense edge to Dave's comments on the HRA or for that matter last month's airing on crime and prison are - lets face it even though I regret having to say it - clutching at imaginary straws.

What he has said doesn't amount to half of a a half boiled egg. All he says is when we are elected we will have a think and a study about whether - or not - to reform or repeal the HRA. Oh puhlease ! With that kind of brief to a junior minister fresh out of spinning round naked in an over-sized jamjar the civil servants' memos to leave 'well' alone will carry all before them.

There is no magic amount of information or wisdom regarding the HRA and its malign effects which is going to fall into ministers' laps on - but not before - being elected / appointed. Anyone with a brain can make that analysis NOW and - like Cherie Blair, Dominic Grieve, et al conclude that by and large HRA is a good thing - OR they could wake up and smell the rotting flesh of real innocent human beings who have had their lives destroyed by evil beneficiaries of the HRA and its left-liberal consensus interpretation by Britain's Euro-supine and philo-criminal judiciary.

If this person with a brain then - reasonably in my view - concluded that no, by and large, the HRA was allowing greater than before quantities of evil to inflict its damage on the innocent and powerless which it is the State's main and solemn duty to protect - then that person with a brain would conclude that the HRA needed repealing forthwith. In fact that person would conclude that the issue was so serious that Parliament would be convened within hours of the election result being declared in order to effect that necessary reform (plus a few others like 'three strikes' type legislation to clear the streets of career criminals).

I loathe Gordon Brown as a person and a politician - what a playground mardy-bum! If he was really serious about preparing himself for being PM he would have begged TB to allow him a stint in the Foreign Office and as Home Secretary - but is he really such a non-hinterland politician that not only does he have no interests outside politics and economics, but - hey, in his case he doesn't even have any interests within politics outside economics !! What does he of economics know who only economics knows?????????????? But I digress - having established my credentials as not being a GB-sucker-up-to - to say that at least regarding his Big Idea of allowing the Bank rather than the Chancellor to determine interest rates he had it all worked out - including the legislative mechanisms - well before he got the keys to No 11 and he implemented the policy within hours of kissing hands.

Unless Cameron and the Party can set out very specific policies - on law and order, the HRA [v. v connected]; with draft Bills available for all to read - which they are determined to enact, no amount of 'We'll think about it once we've got the salaries and the glory and the chauffeurs and the Dorneywood ' will tempt anyone WITH A BRAIN from Ukip / the Labour Party / the Liberal Party.

Get real ConservativeHome readers and writers. Cameron prefers the adulation of the Guardian readers to having a hard think about what policies the country really needs.

[Can he think in fact? People cite his 1st class degree as evidence but come on - Oxford had devalued its degrees by the 1980s - a First then and since is equivalent to a decent IInd in the 70's and prior; plus anyway PPE has always been known in Oxford as 'Girls' Greats' ; and Cameron was part of the ERM consensus in the early 1990s. Maybe he can think but as yet there is no evidence of it. Naked jamjar boys - dear God in heaven.]

[SimonNewman]

Like I said, I wouldn't want to be over-optimistic... But remember, at this stage in her career Margaret Thatcher was a Europhile! People change, sometimes as a result of overwhelming empirical evidence. Furthermore, there's a difference between campaigning on something in opposition and doing something in government. Some policies are best carried out without making a big song & dance about - the 2005 Conservative campaign focussed on an anti-immigration method was a turn off for me, not because I welcome unlimited immigration but because those big "It's Not Racist..." posters made it seem it was just that. Repealing the HRA and derogating from the ECHR is just the kind of hard thing that needs to be done firmly and quietly, not made a big song & dance campaign issue.

[SimonNewman]

"Message" not "method", oops.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>But remember, at this stage in her career Margaret Thatcher was a Europhile!<<<<
And Tony Benn too, he was someone who's views regarding the Council of Europe changed in the 1970's; Neil Kinnock's views went the other way and took Labour ever since to backing the EEC\EU after they had in 1983 stood on a platform of withdrawing from the EEC - at the time Margaret Thatcher described that as being a disastrous policy whereas now I suspect that she would feel uneasy about saying that the UK should remain a member, of course being a member of the Council Of Europe didn't entail being signed up to nearly as much.

Now any country in the Council of Europe (even EFTA) carrying out executions or torturing convicts would be expelled from all Council of Europe bodies, 20 years ago certainly Capital Punishment had not been so banned - Italy in fact still had Capital Punishment as part of it's law until 1994, France's most recent execution was in 1978 - hopefully they and the UK and everyone else in the EU will return to executing scum one day.

[Con-watch]

Cameron is telling porkies and is simply playing to the gallery.
Go here to find out why:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/05/gesture-politics.html

[Rhiannon]

This was one of their better ideas, all they gotta do is scrap the uni fee rise and I'll support 'em again. Everyones pissed with how criminals seem to have more rights then us so it's about time something was done about it.