Our liberties need more than a bill of rights

Our liberties need more than a bill of rights

By Marcel Berlins

One theme lurked throughout all the dozens of sessions of Saturday's spirited Convention on Modern Liberty: does Britain need some new constitution or bill of rights to curb government excesses?

The easy part of the convention produced, not surprisingly, a unanimous, angry consensus that our civil liberties were being devoured and eroded by the government. But what can be done about it? On this there was little agreement. To be fair, it was not the purpose of the convention to lay down policy for the struggle to come. Nevertheless, it was what everyone should have been thinking about.

Broadly, there are two schools of thought. One puts its faith in creating a new document that sets out our rights and freedoms and makes it impossible for the government to trample over them. Some talk about a solemn written constitution, others of a custom-made British bill of rights. Jack Straw is trying to flog a strange hybrid animal called a British bill of rights and responsibilities. Some - David Cameron for one - want our current Human Rights Act to be abolished. Others are happy to keep it, while juggling with some new instrument to attach. The other side argues that there is no need for any of those things; other ways can be found.

New written constitutions usually arise on the birth of a new country or as the aftermath of a brutal event, a war or revolution, or, as in the case of South Africa, the dismantling of a mode of government. Canada got a new constitution and a charter of rights and freedoms in 1982, following its constitutional divorce from Britain. None of these special watershed circumstances apply here.

The main practical objections to creating a written constitution or tailor-made bill of rights is twofold. Agreement will not be quickly reached (if reached at all). It would take years for the new constitution or whatever to become effective. What is to be done in the meantime? The feeling I got from the weekend convention was that the government had to be stopped from continuing its anti-libertarian excesses soon, not in a few years.

I do not believe that Britain needs a new formal instrument. The US constitution, so admired, rubber-stamped unlimited detention without trial, and torture. There is no such thing as watertight bill of rights. A government intent on breaching civil liberties, with sufficient sheep voting in parliament, and a hesitant judiciary, will get its way, in any country. We have enough legislative tools: the European convention on human rights and various international treaties and conventions. More words on a piece of paper won't make much difference. The aftermath to the weekend's excellent convention should concentrate on getting rid of the supine politicians and the power-mad ministers.