Aaron Banks Brexit Current Affairs Democracy & Citizenship European Convention on Human Rights Human Rights Human Rights Act Law & Justice News Politics & Public Policy The EU Theresa May

After Brexit, the Tories want to scrap our Human Rights Act

After Brexit, the Tories want to scrap our Human Rights Act

The Tories are planning a bonfire of our rights after Brexit, with the highest precedence being to scrap our Human Rights Act and exchange it with a watered down ‘Invoice of Rights’.

That’s been the long-term objective of the Tories, however they will’t do it while we’re within the European Union.

That’s as a result of, though our Human Rights Act, and the European Conference on Human Rights, usually are not a part of the EU, a dedication to human rights is a strict EU membership requirement.

However it’s not solely our human rights laws that Tories brazenly hope to jettison or water down after Brexit.

That turned clear when, again in November 2017, the Tories voted down a Labour modification to the EU (Withdrawal) Invoice that might have protected our EU rights and protections after Brexit.

The Labour entrance bench sought to amend that Invoice to make sure that after Brexit, EU derived employment rights, environmental safety, well being and security requirements and shopper requirements can solely be amended by main laws.

Ken Clarke was the one Tory to vote for the modification. The previous Chancellor and pro-European requested why, if the Authorities didn’t intend to water down these rights after Brexit, ministers weren’t ready to enshrine this within the Invoice by backing the modification?

The defeat of the modification signifies that after Brexit, authorities ministers can be free to maintain, amend or scrap EU rights and protections at their will with out the standard scrutiny of Parliament – i.e. by means of ‘secondary laws.’

Regardless of voting with the Authorities, the previous Conservative lawyer basic Dominic Grieve – a robust Stay supporter – warned that legal guidelines defending such rights will probably be delivered to the “lowest attainable standing” in Parliament after Brexit.

The true sentiments of main Tories towards our many rights at present enshrined in EU and human rights legal guidelines are usually not a secret.

Former Overseas Secretary, and wannabe Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has asserted that we’d like “to root out the nonsense of the social chapter -the working time directive and the atypical work directive and different job-destroying laws.”

In the course of the EU referendum, the then Minister for Employment, Priti Patel, referred to as for the UK to “halve the burdens of EU social and employment laws”.

Lord Callanan, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, brazenly referred to as for the scrapping of the working time directive, the short-term company work directive, the pregnant staff directive and “all the opposite limitations to truly using individuals.”

However the primary aim for the Tories after Brexit is to scrap our Human Rights Act (HRA) and to withdraw from the European Conference on Human Rights, upon which the HRA is predicated.

It was Winston Churchill who, in 1948, advocated a European ‘Constitution of Human Rights’ in direct response to the abject horrors of the Nazi regime and the Second World Warfare. British legal professionals drafted what was later to grow to be the European Conference, which got here into pressure in 1953.

The UK was the primary nation to enroll to the Conference, and leaving it will finish virtually 70 years of being legally sure by this primary worldwide treaty on human rights.

Together with Britain, there are 47 nations which have agreed to the Conference, which offers civil and political rights for all residents.

Beneath the Conference, people, or teams of individuals, or a number of nations, can attraction to the worldwide ‘European Courtroom of Human Rights’ in Strasbourg, France, to provide judgments or advisory opinions on alleged breaches of civic and political rights by nation states.

From 2000, the Labour authorities introduced into regulation the Human Rights Act. This enables alleged breaches of the Conference to be heard extra speedily in UK courts, however nonetheless retaining the fitting to attraction to the upper worldwide courtroom in Strasbourg.

Though the European Conference on Human Rights is totally separate to the European Union, signing as much as the Conference and the jurisdiction of the European Courtroom of Human Rights is among the EU membership necessities.

Of their 2010 and 2015 manifestos, the Conservative Celebration pledged to switch the Human Rights Act with a ‘British Invoice of Rights’.

This may, “break the formal hyperlink between British courts and the European Courtroom of Human Rights and make our personal Supreme Courtroom the last word arbiter of human rights issues within the UK.”

The Conservatives argue their reforms will make sure the European Courtroom of Human Rights will not have the ability to overrule judgments made in British courts and can make “the Supreme Courtroom supreme”.

Former Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti stated the proposal “is the gravest menace to freedom in Britain because the Second World Struggle”.

In the course of the coalition years, nevertheless, the LibDems refused to permit the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.

The Conservatives 2017 manifesto pledged to retain the Human Rights Act “whereas the method of Brexit is underway”.

However now that Brexit is on the horizon, the Tories have reaffirmed their plan to scrap the Human Rights Act.

Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald confirmed after the referendum:

“We’re dedicated to reforming our home human rights framework and we’ll return to our proposals as soon as we all know the preparations for our exit from the European Union.”

In a letter to a parliamentary inquiry in January, Edward Argar, a junior justice minister, wrote:

“It’s proper that we wait till the method of leaving the EU concludes earlier than contemplating the matter additional within the full information of the brand new constitutional panorama.”

Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat house affairs spokesman, responded:

“This new Conservative menace to repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Conference on Human Rights is a scandal.”

Throughout her tenure as House Secretary, Theresa Might took each alternative to demean the worth of human rights and switch the general public towards them – a sentiment and objective echoed by main right-wing, pro-Brexit newspapers.

Again in 2011, Mrs Might wrongly – and ridiculously – claimed that an ‘unlawful immigrant’ had gained the suitable beneath the Human Rights Act to remain within the UK as a result of he had a pet cat.

On the time, fellow Tory, Ken Clarke, then UK Justice Secretary, felt the necessity to converse out towards the declare, which he referred to as “laughable and childlike”. An official from the Royal Courts of Justice confirmed that a cat had nothing to do with the case.

Regardless that the story wasn’t true, it appeared to go well with Ms Might’s agenda to belittle human rights laws.

The case most cited by Theresa Might as a cause to scrap our Human Rights Act and depart the European Conference on Human Rights is that of the novel Islamic cleric, Abu Qatada.

I ought to say on the outset that I’m no fan of Qatada, who unfold hate together with his preaching. Nevertheless, what occurred in his case just isn’t a purpose to scrap or water down our human rights protections.

The story of Abu Qatada might be one of the poorly reported in a few of our media and by a few of our legislators. So, it’s necessary to know the information.

Qatada had been given asylum within the UK after being tortured in his native Jordan. While within the UK, he was sentenced in Jordan to life in jail for alleged involvement in terrorist actions.

Theresa Might tried to have him deported again to Jordan, however the Courtroom of Human Rights blocked this, as a result of the proof towards Qatada had been obtained by torture, and there was additionally a critical danger of him being tortured himself if he returned.

The overwhelming majority of appeals by overseas criminals to keep away from deportation from the UK beneath human rights laws fail.

Nevertheless, Qatada stored interesting towards deportation beneath the Human Rights Act, and he stored profitable, costing the UK authorities virtually £2 million in authorized charges and large frustration.

The fury shared with the nation concerning the authorities’s incapability to ‘eliminate him’ put the difficulty of ‘Human Rights’ into a nasty mild.

It wasn’t the federal government’s fault that they couldn’t dispatch Qatada from the nation, argued Theresa Might, no; it was all of the fault of ‘Human Rights’.

If solely we didn’t have these dreadful ‘Human Rights’, we might have despatched Qatada – and a great deal of different disliked individuals – packing from the nation right away.

However beneath the Human Rights Act, each one, each human, has the best to a good trial, with out using discriminating proof that has been obtained by means of torture.

Article three of the Human Rights Act accommodates an absolute prohibition of torture. Article 6 of the Human Rights Act ensures the suitable to a good trial.

Aren’t these primary rights that each one of us ought to have? If these rights could be taken away from one human, why wouldn’t you are worried that they may be taken away from you?

The one method for all of us to really feel absolutely protected underneath human rights legal guidelines is to know that they equally apply to all people, with none exceptions.

Ultimately, a treaty was signed between the UK and Jordan to ensure that proof obtained from torture wouldn’t be used towards Qatada.

As quickly because the treaty was agreed, Qatada volunteered to fly again to Jordan, with out the necessity to deport him. After which, his subsequent trial was dismissed for lack of proof.

However on the Tory Get together annual convention of 2013 (see video), Mrs Might cited the case of Abu Qatada as a major cause to eliminate our Human Rights Act and to go away the European Conference on Human Rights.

In her speech, she stated that she was “loopy with the European Courtroom of Human Rights” and she or he promised that the Tories would “scrap the Human Rights Act”.

And she or he added:

“The Conservative place is obvious – if leaving the European Conference (on Human Rights) is what it takes to repair our human rights legal guidelines, that’s what we should always do”.

Many wrongly consider that human rights are just for foreigners – and anybody might be forgiven for considering that after listening to Theresa Might and studying the right-wing newspapers that help her.

However in the primary, our Human Rights Act has protected British individuals from the excesses of the state. For instance:

  • Because of the Human Rights Act, UK regulation was modified to stop rape victims from being cross-examined by their attacker.
  • It’s due to the Human Rights Act that the suitable was established within the UK for an unbiased investigation to happen following a dying in jail.
  • Human rights legal guidelines have additionally helped sufferers to realize entry to life-saving medicine and held hospitals to account when failures in mental-health care has instantly led to suicide.
  • Within the Mid Staffordshire hospital scandal, 100 claims have been made invoking the Human Rights Act claiming that gross or degrading remedy of sufferers, principally aged, had induced or hastened their deaths.
  • Human Rights legal guidelines have additionally helped to determine that failing to correctly equip British troopers when on lively obligation overseas was a breach of their human rights.

So, now we all know what Brexit actually means. It means fewer rights.

After Brexit, the Tories will have the ability to water down our human rights protections, and a number of different valuable rights that symbolize the cornerstone safeguards of EU membership.

Is that what you actually need? If not, it’s time to talk up louder and stronger than ever.

‘Brexit day’ is in simply two weeks, until one thing occurs to acquire an interim deal, delay it, or cease it altogether.



  • Be a part of and share the dialogue about this text on Fb:

This entry was posted in Present Affairs, Democracy & Citizenship, Regulation & Justice, Politics & Public Coverage, The EU and tagged Abu Qatada, brexit, European Conference on Human Rights, human rights, Human Rights Act, Theresa Might. Bookmark the permalink.

Feedback are closed.

(perform(d,s,id)var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(d.getElementById(id))returnjs=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=”http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs)(document,”script”,”facebook-jssdk”));