Skip to main content

What don't you like about human rights?

Viscount Rothermere (then owner of Daily Mail and
Daily Mirror) meets Adolf Hitler

The past few weeks have been mildly interesting if you like reading about human rights and why we shouldn’t have them.  The idea of people arguing that they shouldn’t be entitled to human rights always reminds me of a friend of mine who hates the idea of consumer rights, not because he runs a business but on principle; not that he lets it stop him exercising his consumer rights when it suits him.

My friend also hates human rights.  He doesn’t dislike them or disagree with them, he hates them.  Like many people who despise the notion of human rights he is also passionately anti-Europe (although unlike most people he understands that the European Union has nothing to do with the European Convention on Human Rights).  Also like most people who hate human rights, my friend can’t say which of the individual rights he would like done away with (and he does know them all being a law graduate from King’s College London and the University of Law).

The rights and freedoms protected by the ECHR are:
1.       Right to life;
2.       Prohibition of torture;
3.       Prohibition of slavery and forced labour;
4.       Right to liberty and security;
5.       Right to a fair trial;
6.       No punishment without law;
7.       Right to respect for private and family life;
8.       Freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
9.       Freedom of expression;
10.   Freedom of assembly and association;
11.   Right to marry;
12.   Right to an effective remedy (for breach of ECHR); and
13.   Prohibition of discrimination (so far as enjoyment of rights are concerned).

When considering whether we agree or disagree with anything in law it’s always worth putting yourself or a loved one in the position of the parties involved.  So, imagine which rights you’d happily be denied to you or your children?  Would you deny your son the right to life?  Would you deny your daughter the freedom from torture?  Maybe you’ll happily see her sold into slavery, provided she’s neither tortured nor killed?  Does the local bobby think your son is a bit of a chav?  Maybe you’d be happy to do away with the rights to liberty and a fair trial so the police could lock him up indefinitely without trial?  No punishment without law means an act has to have been a crime at the time you did it for you to be convicted of a crime.  Let’s imagine you invest in a pension fund that in turn invests in nuclear power stations.  The Greens come to power (okay I know this is unlikely) and pass a law imprisoning anybody who has, directly or indirectly, invested in nuclear power, does that sound fair?  I could go on for quite a while in this way.

The most common response to “what right would you do without?” is “I don’t mind the rights just the way they are implemented by judges.”  For the most part this is because the person hasn’t understood the law, the facts or both – or to put it another way, because a newspaper or politician with an agenda has deliberately misreported the case.  As examples, I give you Mrs May and the case where she claimed a judge had allowed somebody to remain in the UK because he owned a cat when in fact the judge had noted the man owned a cat and said that it had nothing to do with his decision.  What about Chris Grayling our Justice Secretary who last year teamed up with the Daily Mail to decry the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights – a document that does not apply to the UK in any event – which he claimed created 54 “new” rights.  In fact it’s a restatement of the ECHR for the most part and a small handful of “new” rights that are, in any case almost all already the law in the UK.  The "new" laws require doctors to obtain consent before conducting medical procedures and ban child labour.

Here’s a good example of some mis-leading coverage from the Daily Mail.  Here’s a couple of highlights.  They claim that the UK has lost 202 cases before the European Court of Human Rights, which is true, although they neglect to point out that the ECtHR has considered 13,515 cases against the UK.  In the original story, the Mail claimed that £4.4M had been paid out in compensation to criminals where in fact they later admitted that the total compensation ordered by the ECtHR is only £1.7M and that this money went to a range of claimants, not just criminals.  Also, the Mail has lumped this story together with two apparently unrelated ones about gas prices and the former Director of Public Prosecution’s incorrect assessment of the law on abortion.  I’d suggest the only reason this was done is to provide a misleading impression to readers and generate further hatred of the human rights that were created after the second world war to protect us all… incidentally, you might recall that the Daily Mail was the newspaper that supported Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party as he committed the very crimes that led to the creation of modern human rights!

In the past couple of weeks I’ve read some interesting new reasons why we should do away with human rights, the gist of which seems to be that a) Hitler would probably have ignored them anyway so there's no point in trying to have laws that might have stopped him; and b) nations outside of the west do not agree with our western concept of human rights and so they are doomed.  Interestingly, I’ve yet to see any of these people suggest an alternative that they would approve of and that is acceptable to both the west and the east (and I suppose the north and the south).

Human rights may well be the modern morality for a world rapidly removed from the morality of religion.  I am happy to consider some alternative to human rights but I’ve yet to see one that is more acceptable to everybody than what we have now.  Having said that, I do have one alternative: I would be happy to become your leader and I will promise to ensure that everyone is nice to each other and not to kill too many of you when you displease me.  I could be given the title Lord Protector in Perpetuity.  I think I’d make a good leader of the world and moral compass for you all.


  1. As far as I can see, the Daily ("Hurrah for the Blackshirts") Mail readers of this world think they don't need rights because the police would never give them any trouble. They cannot picture themselves being accused of anything.

    This reminds me of a fundamental hypocrisy of modern politics. Let's say the Dotted Party is in power and the Striped Party is in opposition. The Dotted Party proposes yet another new law that gives it huge amounts of unaccountable power. The Dotted party knows perfectly well that it won't win every election forever more. It claims the Striped Party is made up of frothing loons who want to destroy society. If that were true, it wouldn't be willing to give itself the extra power, knowing that the Striped Party will also have it sooner or later.

  2. The tabloids hate article 7 (the right to privacy) no more paparazzi pics of "celebs" sunbathing in their garden. But love article 9, trying to use it as justification for hacking phones

    1. I don't dispute what you say, but human rights can only be enforced against Governments not against individuals or businesses. So, not sure the right to privacy has any impact upon the press at all.

    2. Ed (not Bystander)29 May 2014 at 22:28

      TDB, this is incorrect except in the strictest sense. HR are strictly vertical (against governments only), but if the government fails to protect my HR against my fellow citizen (a horizontal relationship), I absolutely can sue the govt for that failure.

  3. What we need is more mature, accurate reporting and commentary in some of our media. See my deconstruction of how the Daily Mail covered the non-story of Romanians and Bulgarians coming to the UK from 1 January. 'Daily Mail: Trick or Truth? You Decide'


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…