Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine presented a theory that major social changes can be pushed through by governments most easily when a population is in a state of shock.
With the May 7th result, the government has a small majority and it is essential that we are on our guard against rushed decisions in the immediate aftermath when we are most vulnerable.
In particular there appears to be a rush to withdraw from the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights in British law. Now is the time to mobilize!
The Government seems set on establishing a British Bill of Rights to replace the European Convention as currently incorporated. This would clearly be a major task, while some Tories even suggest that the Magna Carta is all that is required. But governments always appear to be ready to renege on agreements when they discover their actions are limited. It was Tony Blair’s bill that incorporated the act into British law, but he was then frustrated with judgements against the anti-terror laws introduced post 9/11.
This is the most obvious reason why Human Rights should be guarded away from political interference. An original objection to the incorporation in ’97 was that it would prevent the return of the death penalty should parliament decide it was needed. Can anyone have any confidence that a Bill of Rights would not be tweaked to serve the political imperatives of the day? Indeed this proposal is evidence of precisely that.
But ultimately the argument should not be about whether a Bill of Rights is worse than the European Convention; that is an extremely slippery slope and a very weak foundation for any campaign. To really understand where we are and what the real choices are, it is important to understand where we have come from. What were the original reasons for incorporation of the Convention into British Law?
The original 1997 proposal can be read in full here, and I would urge anyone interested to familiarize themselves with the rationale. But I will highlight a couple of significant snippets.
1.4 The constitutional arrangements in most continental European countries have meant that their acceptance of the Convention went hand in hand with its incorporation into their domestic law. In this country it was long believed that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention could be delivered under our common law. In the last two decades, however, there has been a growing awareness that it is not sufficient to rely on the common law and that incorporation is necessary.
1.16 …the Government recognises that interpretations of the rights guaranteed under the Convention have developed over the years, reflecting changes in society and attitudes. Sometimes United Kingdom laws have proved to be inherently at odds with the Convention rights. On other occasions, although the law has been satisfactory, something has been done which our courts have held to be lawful by United Kingdom standards but which breaches the Convention. In other cases again, there has simply been no framework within which the compatibility with the Convention rights of an executive act or decision can be tested in the British courts: these courts can of course review the exercise of executive discretion, but they can do so only on the basis of what is lawful or unlawful according to the law in the United Kingdom as it stands. It is plainly unsatisfactory that someone should be the victim of a breach of the Convention standards by the State yet cannot bring any case at all in the British courts, simply because British law does not recognise the right in the same terms as one contained in the Convention.
At the time, the phrase was used “Bring Our Rights Home”. This meant that by incorporating the convention into British law, people were able to appeal in British courts rather than rely on application to the European Court of Human RIghts; and importantly “Our Rights” means “rights as humans”, not “rights as UK citizens”.
Of course, there will always be specific judgements that people will disagree with, and several cases have angered the government and irritated various tabloids.
But the strength of the Convention is its general acceptance by other countries. UK withdrawal will provide a ready-made argument for other countries that would like to ignore judgements made. Therefore, this campaign is not just about safeguarding rights in the UK, but about ensuring respect for Human Rights throughout Europe and the world.
Please sign up to the Amnesty and 38 Degrees campaigns.
Further reading:
Liberty, exploding the myths
Amnesty, Eight Reasons
– Martyn Cutcher