The title of this evening’s lecture is “Human Rights Under Attack” and 2005 is a particularly appropriate vantage point from which to view this topic.

[…]

But, of course, 2005 also marks 5 years since the Human Rights Act came into force. One of the most important pieces of constitutional legislation that any Government has introduced, It remains one of the government’s proudest achievements.

Yet if we are so proud of our record on human rights why, some of you will ask, why have we sought to distance ourselves from the Human Rights Act? Why have we not done more to push forward the new rights and the settlement it envisages?

And if we are so proud of our record on human rights why do we not do more to defend it from its critics, from reactionary voices like the Daily Mail which wrote last weekend of:

” Lottery money given to prostitutes but not the Samaritans… Gypsies allowed to breach planning laws… Human rights madness is destroying common sense, decency and democracy itself”

And why, some of you may ask, if we are so proud of our record on human rights, do we seem through our response to the threat of terrorism so intent on undermining the very human rights culture we were instrumental in bringing about?

I have not come here to dodge these accusations, as serious and uncomfortable as they are. We need to tackle them head on – and I will before this night is out.

We’ve heard all this so many times, I know, but it is easy to forget just how important this legislation was. Recall what the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said at the Bill ‘s second reading. He said:

” This is the first major Bill on human rights for more than 300 years. It will strengthen representative and democratic government. It does so by enabling citizens to challenge more easily actions of the state if they fail to match the standards set by the European convention. The Bill will thus create a new and better relationship between the Government and the people.”

[…]

Critically, these rights are for everybody. Nobody is more entitled to them than anybody else. They do not depend on popularity, or on background, or social class, or place of birth. You have only to be in this country to qualify for human rights protection under the Act. To add other qualifications is to claim that one person is more human than another – something akin to the evils we fought in the Second World War and fight against today.

[…]

David Lammey in 2005.

Of course you know why I post this, and they can only get away with this talk because the Human Rights Act is a bureaucratic concoction which tells the people what rights the State is prepared to uphold on their behalf. How quaint. A true Bill of Rights (as suggested by my Right Honourable Fellow) would be an attestation of rights by the people telling the State what its remit and duties to the people are. No Statesman worthy of the name would dare try to undo that sort of Bill.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 15th, 2006 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Politricks, The Law.