Human rights are not a luxury.They are there for the protection of honest men. Expect slimy dishonest politicians to resent, decry or seek to inhibit them.
Or “opt out of them” as Boris Johnson calls it. Somehow it is typical of this execrable politician to think it is perfectly all right to opt out of OUR human rights because they inconvenience him.
This man is bad news.
Our human rights were already in a fragile place before coronavirus. Now it’s a whole lot worse
A silent war is being fought every day to uphold these rights in our own country, but I worry that the enemy is advancing, using sly tactics and underhand measures. For example, a September headline read how Boris Johnson planned on “opting out” of human rights laws amid a Brexit row. Was the government floating the idea of cherry-picking the human rights laws it likes and simply ‘opting out’ of the rest? Would the public even be alarmed if this did happen?
The story of human rights protections has a long history, beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215. Jump a few centuries and, following the atrocities of World War ll, the UN created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is still seen as the foundation of modern human rights law across the world. In 1951, the UK adopted the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but it wasn’t transcribed to UK law until 1998 via the Human Rights Act. The Equality Act of 2010 follows and introduced protections for nine characteristics, including age, disability and race.
In my line of work, I often engage in dialogue with naysayers who broadly believe human rights violations occur in far-off places and that we operate as a free and open democracy. This is far from the truth, with the Cato Institute’s 2019 International Human Freedom Index ranking us at number 14 in the world – down five places from the previous survey.
But sometimes in this field, it can take one step back in order to make two steps forward. For example, in health and social care, recent breaches led to a strengthening of rights, including making decisions in a patient’s best interests, a parent’s right to object to medical treatment of their children and prevention of the mistreatment of vulnerable and elderly patients.
However elsewhere, there is plenty to be worried about. Random stop-and-search by the police continues, despite serious concerns about racial profiling; hate crime is on the rise with 105,090 cases this past year – a fivefold increase since 2012, and Human Rights Watch found that the UK’s reliance on emergency food assistance grew exponentially with 819 independent centres distributing food aid to millions this year. The Migration Observatory at Oxford University reports that we continue to detain asylum seekers and migrant children, with 73 people held in 2019.
The emergency powers of the Coronavirus Act 2020 have also threatened certain mental health and care rights protections. It enables the detainment of people the police believe to be infectious, the deportation of undocumented immigrants seeking healthcare, the surveillance of the government on its citizens, and hinders the accessibility of adequate care for the elderly and those living with disabilities. Support for the homeless is also scaled back and the act introduces infringements on our right to protest.
At my own charity over the last six months, we have been exceptionally busy providing advocacy advice, support and intervening where needed in order to address the shocking human rights breaches related to blanket “do not resuscitate” orders issued at the height of the pandemic. We have also been providing emergency food parcels and medications, working to prevent housing issues and discrimination in immigration and prisons, supporting inquests and coroner service cases, and raising rights issues in detentions, institutional settings and child protection cases – to name just a few examples.
We know that it takes a long time to put wrongs right. Nearly three years since the Grenfell fire broke out and 12 months since the Grenfell Inquiry published recommendations, no justice has been served nor arrests made following an event that killed 71 people. And, despite the publicity around the Windrush scandal and the introduction of the compensation scheme to victims, it has taken over 46 years to understand what happened and for the government to act on it – long after many have lost their lives.
And it isn’t just knowledge of rights which is a problem; British attitudes towards human rights vary greatly. A recent survey from the EHRC surveyed British attitudes towards human rights and found that despite 74 per cent of people agreeing that there should be equality for all groups, 42 per cent of Britons have experienced some form of prejudice in the last 12 months alone.
The British court cases that are documented in the public eye have often been related to celebrities seeking to exercise privacy rights from journalists or individuals who have committed crimes testing their rights – distorting our view further.
Over the last few years, government rhetoric has also drip-fed us to believe that supporting human rights equates to supporting criminals, that it isn’t relevant to ordinary citizens and that it threatens our legal autonomy from Europe. Human rights are a national security issue, they argue, and is just not a priority.
Theresa May famously displayed a disdain for human rights in 2017 when she committed to scrap the Human Rights Act of 1998, citing it as an enabler for terrorists to thrive in the UK. She said, “If our human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change the laws so we can do it.”
The political irony is that Britain was the first signatory to the ECHR in the world, Winston Churchill was one of its champions, and one of its key writers was the British Conservative MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
I do not want to live in a society where my government cherry-picks which of my human rights are convenient for them to uphold. To stop this from happening, we can’t be afraid to open up conversations about the topic and must stay alert for warning signs of their potential erosion.
What can you do? You can educate yourself and others – seek out advice helplines and read self-help articles. You can complain – informally, formally and escalate if you are not happy with the outcome. You can find an advocate to support you locally with your issue, submit your views to parliamentary consultations, write to your MP, campaign in your local community and online, share your story so others can understand, and be an ally to someone who needs your strength to help them fight. Because the fight is far from over.
Helen Moulinos is chief executive of POhWER
Read More Independent Articles
What the UK’s ‘stronger’ ties to the Middle East mean for human rights
The ‘chilling’ case of Michael Hickson
Grenfell manager ‘binned’ notes on refurbishment after fire
Tory MP quits government over plan to break international law
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply