I wish to make plain from the start: this book is not about saving the Human Rights Act, even though I support the Act and believe in its values. Rather, this book is about building a ‘safety net’ of basic entitlements which can never be taken away from us by any political party. I shall call this safety net The Judges’ Charter of Basic Rights and Freedoms. Or the Judges’ Charter, for short. In order to decide what our most basic entitlements are, I will need to discuss the Human Rights Act and human rights in general. I suppose, in discussing human rights, I will be defending the Act indirectly. This is unavoidable as many of our most basic entitlements already exist today in the form of human rights. Hence, if my discussion helps to convince some readers that, actually, human rights are a good thing.... so be it. The most basic entitlements that people are born with can indeed be described as human rights and freedoms. Freedom from slavery is one example. Freedom of thought is another. At a very minimum, we are all entitled to these most basic of liberties. No decent politician would presume to say otherwise. Would you vote for any politician who did? Unfortunately, though, different politicians hold different views about which of our rights are ‘human’ (so must be upheld) and which rights are more like privileges (so can be revoked). No political party wishes to bring back slavery, nor to control our thoughts, but there is considerable disagreement on matters such as privacy and the right to a family life. These legal rights are enjoyed today by everyone in Britain. They are also taken for granted. But, should we give these rights up so that some criminals might be captured quicker, and some illegal immigrants deported easier? I am certain that, when the dreaded referendum comes, I will be ticking ‘no’ in the box next to this question. In the meantime, the purpose of my book is to convince readers, including the most senior judges in Britain, that some of our rights, yours and mine, are much too important to lie at the mercy of tabloid reporters. Some of our rights must be protected from politicians who would dare to tinker with them. Thus, I wish to propose a new way of guarding the most basic rights and freedoms that are enjoyed by Britons today.... but not for much longer if this present Government prevails.
What exactly is the Judges’ Charter?
It is a document which spells out, in simple and plain words, all your most basic entitlements as a person -- which no one can ever deprive you of. The judges could use this document in court as a ‘yardstick’ to check that politicians and other officials are not going too far in their work and trampling on our freedom. Thus, if any Act of Parliament were to offend the basic principles laid down by the Judges’ Charter (say, by dispensing with the need to have trials), then the Act would not be recognised as a proper law in Britain. The same goes for any decision of a government minister, or public official, which turns out to be unfair to lots of people. Surely, this charter could not be used to inflict harm; it could only be an instrument for good. It would stop Britain from ever becoming a police state -- or at least, a harsh place where people are forced to obey the Government, even when it is acting unfairly. Let me assure you: the need for this simple checklist is real. Even if you are sick to death of reading about ‘human rights for criminals’ and such, it is still vital that at least some of the rights contained in the Human Rights Act are protected for you, me and everybody.... always. Otherwise, without having some basic entitlements to count on in court, we will be handing politicians in Parliament the absolute power to decide what is good for us. Whilst some people may be comfortable with this idea, I am not, for as Lord Acton wisely put it: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In terms of corruption, we saw how politicians of all the main parties were recently embarrassed by an expenses scandal, proving that they are in politics mainly for themselves, not us. That aside, there are many examples of local councils, and other public bodies, taking decisions which the courts have not been shy to condemn -- using strong terms such as “blatant abuse of power.” The exact words may differ from judgment to judgment, but the need for people to sue an authority for over-stepping its bounds is now a common thing indeed. In the past, the courts have even denounced certain police officers as “liars” -- proving that nobody is beyond suspicion of corruption. Clearly, therefore, no one can be trusted to always know what is good for us. Any person or body wielding public power must be willing to be checked from time to time -- and by an independent judge, not a fellow politician or similar, reliable official. This seems like a reasonable safeguard which no public servant should object to. Yet, in Britain, our system is designed so that the higher an official climbs, the less stringent his checks become. Ultimately one reaches Parliament, the apex of British power, where the only real scrutiny that occurs is handled by the politicians themselves. This is not reassuring, especially since politicians were caught skimming from the public purse. And, if that were not bad enough, it emerged how, on the eve of this scandal breaking, they colluded together to try and pass a last-minute law which would have made MPs’ expenses a state secret forever. In sum, we can no longer assume that politicians act with the purest intentions. The time has come, my friends, for us to wake up and see what is happening. According to daily tabloid The Sun, David Cameron intends to ‘rip up’ the Human Rights Act, thus revoking the individual, legal rights enjoyed by us all today. I suggest, Cameron’s motives for wishing to do so must be questioned, for he too has been tarred by corruption of late and has all but admitted ill-judgment. In the meantime, before the Human Rights Act is shredded, if the judges of Britain choose to adopt the Judges’ Charter, this will create a simple-but-vital kind of ‘higher’ law which nobody can tinker with, not even the Prime Minister. Our most basic rights would be safe forever.
Who am I to propose this charter?
Well, I can assure you that I am not a lawyer, although I have nothing against lawyers. Nor do I work in politics, although I try to take an interest. Really, I am just a concerned citizen who happens to have studied law. I have also spent some time doing ‘hands-on’ human rights work. In America I assisted a lawyer with death penalty appeals, and in West Africa I helped to campaign for women’s rights and freedom of information. And, in both these places, my eyes were opened by the sheer injustice that I saw. That is why on returning home, I felt compelled to write this book, as though it were my civic duty -- like stepping out to vote, or sitting on a jury. Right now, this modest-sized work is the best contribution I can make to Britain: our vibrant, democratic island which I am proud to belong to. History shows that many of the greatest, most influential books to have graced our libraries were written, not by learned scholars, but men and women of humble means who confronted injustice with the word, not the sword. My aim here is to follow in that same, bold tradition. I speak for Britons who, like myself, want only to live with the minimum possible fuss and the maximum possible power to pursue our idea of happiness. That, my friends, is the true essence of freedom, and it should not be looked upon as a prize. Freedom is the birthright of us all, not just a lucky few. I speak for people I know who must work two or three jobs, yet cannot say for sure if the rent will be there next month. Where is the justice in that? I speak for children in our state school system whose potential may be high, but whose chances are low due to a failure to protect the vulnerable from vicious, daily bullying at the hands and tongues of less dedicated pupils. Where is the justice in that? I speak for Britain’s senior citizens who end their days in our care homes, yet, far from receiving the tender care that is promised, they find themselves subject to degrading treatment by callous staff who couldn’t care less. Where is the justice in that? I speak for people I know who ended up being convicted of a crime, not because they are evil, but because they failed to show deference to an egotistical police officer who came wading into a delicate, emotionally-charged situation, boots first. Where is the justice in that? I speak for British Muslims who do not wish to be associated with terror-preaching radicals, any more than catholics wish to be associated with child-molesting priests. I speak for committed gay couples who want their union to be called a marriage, not a ‘civil partnership’ -- which implies there is something unholy about their decision to grow old together. And I speak for Britain’s disabled people, whose strong, alert minds resent the presumption of incapability which has yet to be eradicated from our society. Something is most definitely wrong when all this injustice (and more) surrounds us, yet our Prime Minister is talking about reducing legal rights for the individual, not increasing them. Still, whilst I claim to speak for many, not everyone will agree with me. As a person with a disability from a poor, working-class background, I would not have a law degree today, nor would I be writing this book, were it not for progressive, left-wing policies which enabled me to get up and get educated when I felt the desire to learn. Thus, my world view has been shaped by experience. I can make no apology for that. As far as politics go, I would tend to vote for the Labour Party, although I accept that no major party can lay claim to a perfect track record on defending our rights and freedoms. Labour may have introduced the Human Rights Act, but not all of its decisions accorded with human rights in the years which followed. Likewise, the Conservatives may be working to abolish the Act today, but there would be no Act at all if Winston Churchill, a Conservative politician, had not first championed the European Convention on Human Rights. Ultimately, therefore, I think that Britain has both parties to thank for the freedom she enjoys.... even though that freedom is at grave risk today.
About this book ...
In getting my idea across, I wanted to avoid the ‘stuffiness’ of other legal and political writings. I want my words to be read and understood by as many people as possible, not just lawyers and law students. Therefore, I have kept legal terms to a minimum and tried to explain things thoroughly. I have also avoided using footnotes; instead, there is a reference section at the end of the book where you can find further information relating to each part. The book begins with an introduction in which I discuss my idea for the Judges’ Charter and some legal concepts which underlie it. These concepts were necessary to include as knowing them will help you to better understand my discussion. Rest assured, the information is not too technical, and I have kept it as light and topical as possible. The rest of the introduction then deals with bad myths about human rights which, it seems, have doomed the Human Rights Act to failure. The myths I tackle range from ‘anarchy in schools’ to ‘terrorists among us’ -- all caused by human rights, apparently. By addressing the myths, I aim to expose the power that the tabloid press has to pervert public opinion. Even if you choose to skip the more technical stuff, at least read about the myths, for the day is surely coming when you will be asked to vote ‘yes’ in a referendum to abolish the Human Rights Act; hence, you should know all the facts before you tick that fatal box. Those who enjoy the topical style of my introduction may wish to read the book’s afterword, in which I discuss why I am against the Conservative proposal for a ‘British’ Bill of Rights -- which they plan to replace our Human Rights Act with. The afterword is followed by a timeline of key events which map the development of rights in Britain. I include this partly for David Cameron and his party, whose knowledge of British history seems to fade around the Second World War. Hopefully, this timeline will show the Conservatives that human rights are indeed British rights. And you might be interested, too. The main part of this book is my petition to The Justices of The Supreme Court. Here I speak directly to Their Lordships of the need to take constitutional action on all our behalves. The petition concludes with my draft outline of the Judges’ Charter, which I hope Their Lordships will take and apply to court cases in future; that way, whatever happens to the Human Rights Act, we will always have this ‘safety net’ of basic entitlements to fall back on. With the courts upholding the Judges’ Charter, politicians of all parties could aim to provide more, but they will never be able to give us less.... nor should they want to.
History has shown how injustice triumphs when good people do nothing. Perhaps it is too late to prevent the Human Rights Act being revoked, but it is not too late for concerned citizens to take a stand on which hard-won rights they refuse to let go of as our nation slumbers. This is my stand against the oppression I see coming. What will be yours?