Abolishing the Human Rights Act comes at a high human cost

We should all be very afraid. The Home Secretary’s assault on the Human Rights Act is a frightening example of short-term thinking, and a politically motivated Tory crowd-pleaser. As Theresa May sets her speechwriters to pillage the Daily Mail archives for scare stories framed in inaccuracies, the self-styled ‘common sense’ brigade marches on through our civil liberties.

In her party conference speech, May suggested that the Human Rights Act was getting in the way of her work to cut immigration. The thing is, that is exactly what Human Rights laws exist to do: get in the way. The laws were intended to get in the way of tyranny, unfairness, oppression and mistreatment. Human rights exist to protect the weakest precisely by getting in the way of the strongest.

What Ken Clarke terms “laughable, child-like” stories of manipulation of the Human Rights Act are dangerous. They obscure the daily good that these laws do. If we are bombarded by inaccurate and poorly explained stories of the pet cat variety, we will soon forget just what the Act stands for.

Conservatives believe they have a monopoly on what they call ‘common sense’. By painting other parties as namby-pamby, cautious and dithering, they hope to appear straight-talking and efficient. The problem is the argument for ‘common sense’ to replace Human Rights presupposes a lot of things that should never be left to supposition.

We are lucky. We live in a democratic, law-abiding, accountable society that has long valued fairness and freedom. However, no just society can afford to be complacent that things will always be so. The Human Rights Act isn’t in place to deal with the David Camerons and Theresa Mays of this world, but with the Saddam Husseins, the Hu Jintaos and the Kim Jong-ils.

Yes, the Act may sometimes be applied inappropriately, but isn’t that better than always erring on the side of the powerful? The Human Rights Act enshrines the freedoms of each one of us, from king to cleaner. Simply because we are human.

Real common sense would suggest some aspects of the Act need clarification in practice. But May is wrong to demand its abolition. It has been said that life must be lived forwards, but can only be understood backwards. History shows us that future generations may rue the day we decided that freedom needed no protection.


  1. “The Human Rights Act isn’t in place to deal with the David Camerons and Theresa Mays of this world, but with the Saddam Husseins, the Hu Jintaos and the Kim Jong-ils. ”

    Bit odd then, since the Human Rights Act only extends to the UK and not to China, Iraq and North Korea.

    Reply Report

  2. The Human Rights Act was brought in after World War II to prevent any repeat of the dreadful acts carried out by Nazi Germany during that period. The world has moved on though in the past 50 or so years: some threats have disappeared or diminished, some new ones have arisen, and some have not changed.

    Remember though, that abolition of the “Human Rights Act” is not the same as the abolition of anyones human rights.

    It is all too easy to present the argument in such emotive terms that we lose sight of the fact that we want to make the Human Rights Act or any replacement more suitable to modern times, not chuck away anyone’s human rights.

    Reply Report

  3. 31 Oct ’11 at 9:32 pm

    Anon. Bystander

    completely incorrect “J”.

    The Human Rights Act was “brought in” in 1998. The European Convention on Human Rights is the piece of legislation you are referring to, and it is completely different. The Human Rights Act merely obliges us to act in a way that is closer with the values of that Convention.

    Get your facts straight.

    Reply Report

  4. 3 Nov ’11 at 10:30 am

    Outraged Student

    The irony of a Nouse writer criticising someone over ‘searching for scare stories framed in innacuracies’ is not lost on me, or I hope anyone.

    Stop taking yourselves so seriously and go count the ducks or something.

    A seriously pissed off second year.

    Reply Report

  5. @Anon. Bystander

    Yes, I was not 100% accurate, I apologise. The European Convention on Human Rights is what I should’ve said in my first paragraph.

    I would argue I was partly, not “completely”, incorrect :P

    Reply Report

Leave a comment

Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.