David Cameron has twisted and misrepresented human rights in a way that has undermined his personal responsibility

David Cameron has twisted and misrepresented human rights in a way that has undermined his personal responsibility

When faced with a crisis, governments often look first to fix the blame before fixing the problem. That reflex has been in full view this week as the prime minister, David Cameron, responded to Britain's worst riots in decades by blaming human rights.

In a major speech on Monday, he said the causes of the riots included what he termed the "twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility". But he failed to provide a single example to back up such a sweeping indictment.

On Tuesday, the Ministry of Justice called on public bodies to review how they apply human rights law to avoid outcomes that Cameron said "fly in the face of common sense, offend our sense of right and wrong, and undermine responsibility".

David Cameron appears to be confusing riots with rights. The blame for riots rests with the rioters. The Human Rights Act 1998 is not to blame for the riots. The European Convention on Human Rights places responsibility for ensuring that citizens get their human rights upon Member States.

Ministry of Justice

What we do

Our responsibilities

Human rights

The Human Rights Act ensures that your human rights are respected by public authorities, and makes it unlawful for them to act against your rights.

If you believe that your rights have been interfered with unreasonably, it gives you a way of doing something about it.

We are responsible for developing human rights policy. We can explain what the Act should do and how public authorities should behave under the Act. However, we can't investigate alleged human rights violations and we can't give legal advice. Everyone in the UK is protected by the Act.

The Human Rights Act 1998 does not ensure that human rights are respected by public authorities. If it did then convicted prisoners would have had their human right to the vote over 5 years ago. Given that the MoJ accepts that it is unlawful for them to act against convicted prisoners rights, why is there no remedy? The Act may give convicted prisoners a way of doing something about it, however this does not provide an effective remedy. Hirst v UK (No2) used the HRA, and being denied an effective remedy in the domestic courts the case went to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It then fell to the Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the Court's judgment. The UK has a responsibility to fully comply with the Court's judgment. The UK is not conducting itself responsibily. Clearly, David Cameron has twisted and misrepresented human rights in a way that has undermined his personal responsibility. But, it is also the case with the majority of the government.

It is pointless the MoJ saying it is responsible for developing human rights policy when Kenneth Clarke is behaving so irresponsibly by failing to do his job. When the Act was first passed it did not come into force for 2 years to allow for publication of guides explaining what the Act should do, and training public authorities on its implications and how they should conduct themselves. What is missing are explanations as to why the Act does not do what it should do, and why the public authorities are failing in their duties. it is untruthful to claim "Everyone in the UK is protected by the Act". Where is the protection for convicted prisoners being denied their vote?