Will either major party protect human rights after the Election?

6 May 2015 by

98845b6d-ba86-4e3b-9138-9bff8340a613-620x372“Our aim is a straightforward one”,  New Labour Party told us in October 1997 “[it is] to bring those rights home”. In 2000, the Human Rights Act came into force. For the first time, people in the UK had human rights which could be enforced in UK courts. The right to life, the right not to be tortured, to free speech. What was not to love?

If only it was that simple. 1997 seems a very long time ago. Now, in the final few hours before the 2015 Election, we see the major parties fundamentally divided on human rights.I haven’t written about the Election and human rights yet, mainly because I have been setting up a wonderful new human rights website, rightsinfo.org (more on that later).

Another reason is that although human rights reform is a real issued between the parties, it has featured little in the campaign. Maybe people are more bothered about the economy, immigration and housing. This has been a relief, as whenever the human rights debate show rolls into town it is inevitably accompanied by ill-informed criticism and the stoking of overblown fears, largely based on myths.

It is no secret that the major parties are poles apart on human rights. Labour basically wants to maintain the status quo. They will keep the Human Rights Act and seek reform of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Tories want to tear down the existing framework and start afresh with a British Bill of Rights, and also do something about the European Court of Human Rights. The policy is vague. They promised a draft bill of rights earlier in the year but it never materialised, so we have been left guessing as to what it all means for human rights.

For example, the manifesto promises to “break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights”. What does that mean? We lawyers have been trying to decode this, as it isn’t clear whether the manifesto is a step away from the Tories’ October 2014 policy document which promised to make European Court of Human Rights judgments “advisory” rather than binding on the UK. Cambridge University’s Dr Mark Elliott has followed the issue closely and talks a lot of sense here.

So if you think protecting people’s human rights in law a good thing, who should you vote for? There is a certain attraction in the Conservative plans. A British Bill of Rights. Redrawing the European Convention rights in our own image. A chance to enshrine the right to trial by jury, or freedom of the press. Practically every other European state does it. Why not us?

When you put it like that… but no. Let me explain why. In a different political reality, a bill of rights for the UK might be a great idea. It could bring the public into a project which has since 1997, rightly or wrongly, been seen as an elitist one, drawn up by lawyers and politicos, not the people who are meant to be benefiting from those rights.

But that isn’t that reality. The Conservative plan for a bill of rights, as vague as it is, is not about building the large tent you would need to construct a modern, inclusive bill of rights. It is about protecting the narrow interests of party supporters.

You only need to read the press release, since buried, which came with the original proposal. It talks about taking rights away from travellers, victims of abuse by the British military, illegal immigrants. Human rights are universal, they apply to everyone. The whole point is that minorities and unpopular groups are shielded from the random attacks of populism. The focus of the Conservative policy, or at least the small group behind it, is reducing rights, not reforming them. Others have written beautifully about the fundamental danger in this approach – see, from the left, Nick Cohen, or, from the right, Lord Finkelstein.

And many Tories are obsessed with shrinking away from Europe. You probably knew that. But it applies to human rights policy too. Helena Kennedy and Philippe Sands raised the alarm in 2013 after they had sat on the now forgotten Bill of Rights Commission. In a superb London Review of Books article, they raised the alarm that the true motive of their Tory colleagues for reforming human rights was leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and fundamentally reducing the reach of rights protections against the state.

Where does this leave us, as we enter the ballot booths? I am voting Labour. I think it is an obvious choice for anyone who wants to ensue that existing human rights protections are not taken away, particularly from unpopular groups. I also don’t want to see human rights become a political football, altered every five or 10 years to fit the narrow ideology of the politicians in charge.

But Labour’s approach has its dangers too. There seems to be a bubbling dissatisfaction over human rights in the UK. For whatever reason, the public remains unenthusiastic. Lawyers and activists scratch their heads. How could people not want their basic rights protected against the state? Perhaps it is because the rights were imposed from above rather than growing from below. Who knows.

This brings me back to RightsInfo, a new website I just launched. I think it is time for the human rights debate to be rebooted. We need to start from the beginning, to convince people that human rights matter, that they are fundamentally British, that they have done amazing things for people who aren’t criminals or terrorists, that much of what we are told by the press is based on myths, not facts. I hope it works. Because time is running out if we want to truly bring human rights home.


  1. markpummell says:

    a great and timely piece Adam; thank you as always… am sure if Cameron had his way he would overturn Bushel/l’s case!!!

  2. The HRA is terminally flawed anyway, by its omission of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) which omission consigns British citizens (subjects?) to the untrammelled vagaries of local justice. I am unable to equate this with the effect of the Treaty of Lisbon 2009 which elevated such subjects to citizenship of the EU and the rights conferred thereby.

  3. Anne says:

    “Will either major party protect human rights after the Election?” If they cannot protect our Country from being GOVERNED by foreigners they are not worth voting for.

    We have our own Bill of Rights and we have the GREAT Magna Carta, and you seem to forget that so many, so very many gave their lives in that last World War -young and old, in the saving of them all, so that this present and future Generations could have the benefit of using them.

  4. Ted Jusant says:

    “The Republic of Kenya is a republic that worships God. We have no room for gays and those others,” Ruto told a Nairobi church congregation in the national Swahili language, according to an online video posted by Kenyan broadcaster KTN.
    Is this an Human Rights issue?

  5. John says:

    If you want to know what people really think about human rights and their protection you need to cite actual opinion poll statistics on the matter.
    I suspect the reason human rights have not featured heavily in the current election campaign is because they do not have a high priority in the minds of the vast majority of the electorate.
    I appreciate you consider human rights to be hugely important – it is what you do and it can probably be said it is what you live for – but not everyone is the same, and it is an absolute certainty that the vast majority of people here in the UK do not feel the same way as you do.
    The negative perceptions surrounding human rights are definitely linked to the right wing of the political class and their like-minded media supporters.
    Between them, they spew out often misguided and misleading anti-rights propaganda, and this explains why public perception on this matter is so skewed.
    A similar situation occurs with regard to the right-wing media trying to cultivate Christian “victimhood” in this country, almost always involving losses at the ECHR and similar bodies.
    Look at what has just happened in France with regard to state surveillance – at a time when the US is showing concerns over the excessive powers of surveillance of the NSA.
    I think these considerations take time to play out but ultimately the people will defend their rights if they have something to get behind which is so obviously wrong that they must.
    Just think about how far we have come since the 1950s…….

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: