Human Rights legislation is
often attacked by right wing politicians and the popular press.
In this article Shirley Gibb looks at why we need to
support and defend the Human Rights Act.
On December 10th
1948, in the aftermath of the horrific events of the Second World
War, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and
proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
recognises the equal and inalienable rights of all members
of the human family as the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world.
The Assembly
called upon all Member countries to publicise the text of the
Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed,
read and expounded principally in schools and other educational
institutions, without distinction based on the political status
of countries or territories."
In 1949 The
Council of Europe was founded by the Treaty of London. Ten states
signed the treaty: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United
Kingdom. Today almost all states in Europe are members of the
Council
One of the
Council's greatest achievements was to take the UN idea of Human
Rights to a new level. In 1950 it drew up The European Convention
on Human Rights, which was ratified by the United Kingdom in
1951. The Convention created the European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg.
It wasn't until
2000, however, that the UK Human Rights Act came into force,
making most of the rights in the European Convention part of UK
law.
Meanwhile
Scotland was ahead of the game, having had Human Rights
introduced into Scots law as part of the devolution settlement,
The Scotland Act, in May 1999.
The Convention
rights which apply under the Scotland Act and the Human Rights
Act can be summarised as follows:
|
![]() |
Before the UK
legislation came into effect, British people were able to bring
claims under the Convention, but only in The European Court of
Human Rights. The right to apply to the Strasbourg Court still
applies, but now it is possible to use courts here in the first
instance.
For individual
people to have the means to protect their human rights against
those who would deny them is one of the reasons for the Acts.
But of course for human rights to be safeguarded, governments
have to comply with them, and the Acts have had some good results
in changing national law.
For example The
UK Human Rights Act completely repealed the death penalty. This
had been abolished for murder in 1969 and for treason in 1998,
but was still in effect for certain military offences.
The European
Convention has also affected the behavior of countries. Turkey
wants to join the EU, and in 2002 it passed sweeping reforms to
meet the EU's Human Rights criteria. In 2004 it banned the death
penalty in all circumstances. Whatever the arguments are for
Turkey ever becoming a member, Human Rights legislation has at
least caused improvement in some of its legislation.
To have basic
human rights enshrined in law that can be accessed by everyone
seems desirable. However there are criticisms of the UK Act from
both Conservative and Labour.
David Cameron has
said he would scrap the Human Rights Act if he is elected, and
replace it with a Bill of Rights for Britain.
Senior Labour
politicians have criticised Human Rights legislation as being
incompatible with the fight against terrorism.
Other criticisms
are that The Acts protect criminals and prevent us deporting
foreigners who pose a threat to us. But of course the Acts
balance Human Rights against public safety. The rights, for
example to freedom, protest and privacy can be restricted to
protect public safety or national security.
![]() |
There have been many successful court
cases undertaken since the Acts came into force. Perhaps
the most publicised cases in Scotland have been those
concerned with slopping out. In 2004,
Robert Napier, a prisoner at Barlinnie won a case
claiming that slopping out breached his human
rights. Since
then more than 3,500 cases have been dealt with, and many
more are going through the system. The Scottish
Government is facing payouts of millions of pounds, and
wants the law changed. |
Another famous
example is the one involving author J.K. Rowling. She and her
husband won a case against a company called Big Pictures (UK),
whose photographer had taken long lens photographs of their son,
David, as he was being pushed along an Edinburgh street in his
buggy. Under Human Rights legislation David has a right to
privacy and family life.
In 2005 a
schoolgirl, Shabina Begum, was excluded from school in
Bedfordshire for wearing a traditional Muslim gown. She won a
case against the school under the Human Rights Act - specifically
the right to manifest her religion.
As Barrack Obama
mentioned recently in his Cairo speech, all major religions share
a central idea, which can be roughly described as treat
others as you would be treated. And religions and societies
have always had rules to live by, which are expressed as commands
or laws: do not kill, do not steal etc.
Human Rights not
only tell you how to treat others, but also how you are entitled
to be treated. There is a school of thought that thinks
this makes people in the age of Human Rights legislation more
self centered. But there is surely nothing self centered about
the huge and laudable idea that everyone is entitled to be
treated with fairness, respect and dignity.
The organisation
Liberty is running a campaign this year called Common Values,
which aims to raise awareness of Human Rights. I will finish with
their words:
We believe
in fundamental rights and freedoms - shared values that protect
every member of the human family and the society we seek to build
together.