Watering down British laws 'would send a dangerous signal to undemocratic states', says Thomas Hammarberg
The UK's increasing estrangement from Europe will be demonstrated this week when the European commissioner for human rights warns that any attempt by the government to overhaul British human rights laws would have a damaging effect on global democracy.
The prime minister has expressed his desire to replace the Human Rights Act, which integrates the European convention on human rights (ECHR) into domestic law, with a new Bill of Rights.
A series of high-profile cases has stirred Tory animosity towards the act and, in particular, the role of the European court of human rights. Conservative MPs have been angered by the court's rulings on issues including giving prisoners the vote and granting sex offenders the right to challenge their place on the sex offenders' register.
In a speech on Tuesday, Thomas Hammarberg, the European commissioner for human rights, will launch a thinly veiled attack on Tory plans to check the power of the Strasbourg-based court. "Any weakening of the human rights protections in the act would be noted outside the UK, and welcomed by less democratic states as tacit encouragement to weaken their own human rights protections," Hammarberg will say. "What the UK does today will send a powerful signal to other states about what they can do tomorrow."
The convention was drawn up after the atrocities of the second world war and ratified by the UK in 1950. Hammarberg describes it as possibly the "most successful international instrument for protecting human rights in the world".
Cameron has promised "to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense".
In his speech to the UK's equality and diversity forum (EDF), Hammarberg will say that countries should not be able to invoke a "democratic override" that allows them to choose the judgments with which they will comply.
"What seems to be forgotten by some of the critics also here in the UK is that the convention is built on the notion of a collective guarantee. The fact that one state has a treaty right to question the behaviour of other states, provided that it accepts the quid pro quo, has been of enormous importance in the efforts to ensure respect for human rights globally."
Hammarberg's comments were welcomed by Amanda Ariss, chief executive of the EDF. "The Human Rights Act protects elderly people, disabled people and women fleeing domestic violence – among others," Ariss said. "Dilute it and you are leaving some of our most vulnerable communities exposed.
"Equally worrying, you risk setting a dangerous precedent that sends a signal to nations with poor human rights records, like Russia and Turkey, that they can do even less to protect the rights of their most vulnerable communities."
Hammarberg will express frustration with some politicians for failing to make the case for Strasbourg. "I must say that I find some of the criticism here in the UK against the Strasbourg system surprisingly ill-informed, and I have hoped that the politicians who know better would stand up stronger against this populist and xenophobic discourse," he will say.
Last year more than 60,000 applications were filed before the court, bringing the total number of pending cases to 154,000. But Hammarberg will claim the backlog is due to states failing to implement the convention fully: "It is vital therefore that all member states, including the UK, ensure that their domestic law and practices fully incorporate and operationalise convention rights."
One of the European court's rulings – that prisoners have the right to vote – has been ignored by the government, opening the Ministry of Justice up to legal action from inmates.
"I have been disappointed by statements made by parliamentarians and others on this issue," Hammarberg will say. "Universal suffrage is a fundamental principle in a democracy. My position is that a blanket, automatic ban does indeed violate basic principles. If deprivation of the right to vote is to be a punishment, then this should be expressly spelled out in each individual case by a judicial authority."
A number of European countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland, allow prisoners to vote. "This is a non-issue in these countries. Why is the UK so different?"
No comments:
Post a Comment