The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

My first thoughts on this matter;

 These are fairly random jottings put down in haste.
But here go my thoughts on the Human Rights Act.

A declaration of human rights is to be welcomed - especially a declaration
that cannot be overridden by ordinary legislation.  It is hard to place the
exact moment of death, but the English liberal tradition is now dead. This
rested on the notion that people had certain rights to life, liberty and
property, and that laws should not be made, except in limited circumstances,
to infringe these rights.  However, we live now in a country where the law can be
changed so easily, that there are no laws at all in the old sense. See, for
example, the reaction of the Government whenever a taxpayer wins a case in
the courts. There is no acceptance by the Administration of such judgments. Instead, the
politicians set to work to “close the loophole”.  

Or, regarding political rather than fiscal matters, I only ask you to see the first reaction
to the acquittal of Nick Griffin last year. The promise then was to rewrite
the laws so that he could be more efficiently prosecuted next time.

In such a legal environment, laws become a sword for the state rather than a
shield for the innocent. All that blunts them as an instrument of total
despotism is the irreducible effort needed to make changes.

So *a* >Human Rights Act< is to be welcomed, in principle, in a particular sense. To some extent, this means
welcoming *the* “Human Rights Act” – that is to say, the “European” one. The European Convention, from which the
HRA is derived, is a reasonable statement of liberal ideals - that is, it
emphasises the real rights of freedom to be left alone as opposed to the
socialist “rights” to live at the expense of others. Thus, the HRA declares
rights to freedom of speech and association and fair trial etc, and says
nothing about the “rights” to state education or healthcare or whatever.

The main fault of the HRA is that it imports into England the European
notion of abuse of rights. Therefore, the section dealing with freedom of
speech does not simply affirm a right to say what we like, but adds
something about how this right must be balanced by duties. This is a formula
for censorship, as almost any speech not approved by the authorities can be
called an abuse of rights. That this has not been done very often owes much
to the influence of English judges in the jurisprudence which is surrounding the
Convention as it stands.

There are complaints about the workings of the HRA - that is makes the
prosecution of crime very expensive. This may be due to various
misunderstandings of how rights should be upheld. It may be due to a more or
less conscious desire to sabotage a law that may do much to limit the power
of the State. But, ultimately, people do have certain rights to due process,
and matters of cost should not come into the question.

To elaborate on this matter of cost, justice is a very small part of the
overall State budget. If there is a shortage of money to prosecute crimes
while respecting suspects’ rights, then cuts should be made in less
essential functions of the State - fewer officials, for example, to check
through our bins or whatever. Otherwise, we should accept that there are too
many crimes, and that most of these do not protect life and property.
Therefore, all laws against the possession and sale of drugs and pornography
should be repealed. So should all other laws that do not seek to secure
individuals from attack on their lives and property.

To sum up, the Libertarian Alliance believes that the Human Rights Act is on
balance a good thing. If asked, we could suggest many improvements. But we
are glad that we at last in this country have some protection of our rights
and the the politicians are, to whatever extent, restrained from oppressing
us exactly as takes their fancy.