Britain’s a long way from having a Bill of Rights

Britain’s a long way from having a Bill of Rights

The Tories' hopes of untying the knot with Strasbourg are slender at best

The Human Rights Commission was set up by David Cameron to assess whether the European Convention on Human Rights should be replaced by a “British Bill of Rights”. The Tories hoped that the commission would find a way to diminish the extent that the UK is bound by the decisions coming from judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – thus avoiding situations such as the one we have with prisoners and the vote.

Comment:

The problem with starting an article by a false assumption and then attempting to support this position with the rest of the article is that the whole thing collapses when the assumption is knocked down.

"The Human Rights Commission was set up by David Cameron to assess whether the European Convention on Human Rights should be replaced by a “British Bill of Rights”".

The Commission was set up by the Coalition of which David Cameron is but a part. It is not the remit of the Commission to assess whether the ECHR should be replaced. The UK is but 1/47th of the Council of Europe and any change to the ECHR requires the agreement of all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe. In other words, the UK does not have the power which Alasdair Plamer assumes it possesses. All the UK can do is withdraw from the ECHR.

I am puzzled why the Telegraph has paid the author to write about what he knows nothing about. A little research would have told the author that the Commission is to assess whether the HRA 1998 should be replaced with a British Bill of Rights. The Tory party manifesto pledged to scrap the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. In 1997 the Labour party pledged to introduce a British Bill of Rights. This pledge was honoured and the bill became the HRA.

The Tories do not want a British Bill of Rights at all, rather they want a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. The idea being that rights can be removed if it is deemed that responsibilities are not being met. As the First Minister David Cameron is responsible for abiding by the ECHR and complying with European Court of Human Rights decisions. This includes Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case. It is hypocritical for David Cameron to state that people should act responsibly or forfeit their human rights, when he is acting irresponsibly in denying convicted prisoners their human rights to vote. According to Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, David Cameron has breached the Ministerial Code by not honouring the UK's international law obligations. According to the Code David Cameron should resign.

How can David Cameron be called the Right Honourable when he is in truth dishonourable? Alasdair Plamer and the Daily Telegraph are dishonest.