Four Bad Arguments (and a Good One) for the Human Rights Act

Some real food for thought here (well worth reading; scope for much discussion – thanks to SpinningHugo. I hope he (?) does not mind me re-blogging this.)

spinninghugo

I am, on balance, in favour of the Human Rights Act, and think that the European Convention on Human Rights has made the world a better place. Whilst the European Court of Human Rights is capable of improvement, it is institutionally necessary if the open textured rights in the Convention are to be meaningful. Without such a central court, signatory states could each adopt their own idiosyncratic interpretations, and the entire purpose of the Convention defeated.

But, the case for the Convention is not as easy and obvious as its supporters sometimes believe. Two examples of such over confidence are

Shami Chakrabarti

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/government-plan-to-scrap-the-human-rights-act-is-just-a-confidence-trick-10248460.html

and

Philippe Sands

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/british-bill-rights-could-end-uk

in today’s Independent and Guardian.

Bad Argument One: Human Rights are Universal

The label ‘Human’ rights is deeply misleading. It lays claim to the idea that these rights are common to all human beings in all times and places. An examination of the…

View original post 2,055 more words

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s