I agree with Martha Spurrier that this government is constructing for itself a legislative armoury that is intended to be a “rewriting of the rules so only the government can win” (Who will stop human rights abuses if the government puts itself above the law?, 14 December). There is, though, a flaw in the European convention on human rights. The right to liberty and security (article 5), the right to a fair trial (article 6), the right to respect for private and family life (article 8), freedom of thought, conscience and religion (article 9), freedom of expression (article 10), and freedom of assembly and association (article 11) are all conditional rights.
Variously, these are all – to a greater or lesser extent – subject to exceptions that are “necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The universalism invoked in the name of human rights is empty as manifested in the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998, insofar as those rights associated with free association, freedom of conscience etc are not absolute rights, but gifts of the state. The lesson to be drawn is that we only get what we fight for, and the struggle to defend and extend our rights has to be conducted on the streets, as well as in parliament and the courts.
The urgency of the situation and the agenda of this government are apparent from the consultation document, Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights, at paragraph 112: “we propose to leave in place those aspects of the Human Rights Act that have not proved problematic in practice”. Any aspect of human rights law that inconveniences this government is at risk.
Nick Moss
London
• Let’s not pussyfoot around this. Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International, is wrong to say that government ministers “risk aligning themselves” with authoritarian regimes if their overhaul of the Human Rights Act is successful (Raab’s human rights proposals condemned as ‘blatant power grab’, 14 December). If the government succeeds in its ambitions, it will become a de facto authoritarian regime.
Boris Johnson, an ardent admirer and student of that narcissistic, power-hungry, anti-democratic former president on the other side of the Atlantic, has form in this matter. He wants revenge on those wishy washy, democratic, law-supporting judges who dared to criticise and stand against him when he illegally tried to prorogue parliament. While he’s at it, he may as well sort out all the little people who have the effrontery to protest on the streets.
Let’s be quite clear about this, we aren’t discussing fine-tuning of the Human Rights Act, we are facing an existential attack on our democracy. Dominic Raab is right to say that the proposed changes would “sharpen” the separation of powers, but not in the way he suggests. The sharpening would sever the ability of the people and the courts to hold the government to account.
John Robinson
Lichfield, Staffordshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
