Thursday, 27 January 2011

Wills shills for labour's human rights legacy: effective, if your memory is defective

Lord Wills, a Labour peer, claims: "the Human Rights Act is profoundly important in protecting the rights of every British citizen and their liberties." It's possible he means it. As a Labour ex-minister, he's unlikely to know what the word 'liberties' signifies.

Playing the standard party card of the hour, he attacks the Tories and exhorts the Lib Dems to stick up for this putrid piece of cack-handed legislation. He threatens (ooh, feel the fear!) that if we dump the HRA, we might have to leave the EU. Really? Tell me more.
"The European Convention, largely drafted by British lawyers, came about because of the terrible history of 20th century Europe when states abused their power to murder, torture, and deprived individuals of the dignity and rights and liberties to which every human being should expect.

The Human Rights Act brought those principles home to Britain so they could be enforced in British courts."

I'm confused. If the Convention was largely drafted by British lawyers, where, pray tell, did they get such ideas from? Obviously not our law, because if so, there would surely be no need to bring 'those principles home'. He continues:

"... in all my years as the human rights minister, by the fact that never once did any lawyer, no matter what their party political allegiances, ever criticise the Human Rights Act from a legal perspective as flawed legislation."

Why would they? They only need to take one look at it and they start drooling at all the work it was bound to create. But let a layman try to read it, and it's virtually impenetrable.

We never needed the Human Rights Act, nor no doubt 99% of the rest of Labour's legislative avalanche, but Lord so-and-so can rest assured, I'm sure the Tories won't dare touch it.

BTW - I notice he takes no notice that England and Scotland have different legal systems. Such blythe ignorance.

3 comments:

Will said...

Why does this guy refer to us as citizens? Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know our legal status is subjects. Now I'm far from happy with the current state of affairs but I certainly don't want to be a citizen. Citizenship comes from legal systems based on Roman law doesn't it? I don't know but then again, unlike this idiot, its not my job to know.

Excellent post btw from a new subscriber

James Higham said...

If the Convention was largely drafted by British lawyers, where, pray tell, did they get such ideas from? Obviously not our law, because if so, there would surely be no need to bring 'those principles home'.

That's too difficult for them.

Trooper Thompson said...

Will, welcome, I hope your subscription brings you pleasure!

I believe there was a change in legislation to make us citizens some time ago, for what it's worth. I don't recall any benefit being bestowed by the change, and it may be tied up with our nation being incorporated into the EU (if not directly ordered by the Brussocrats). Personally I see myself as a freeborn Englishman and no more than that.

James,

Indeed. What was, and is, necessary is not the imposition of another ream of legislation, but rather the stripping away of all the impediments to our liberties caused by prior legislation. Fat chance of that of course, the political class have waged a centuries-long war against the Common Law.