Home Secretary Theresa May is a politician. It is understandable that her wish to see the Human Rights Act scrapped serves a large audience within her political party as well a significant constituency outside, among the general public.
Although brazen as it may appear in its language and intent, May's argument must be examined carefully on its merit and evidence. There is nothing more damaging to the cause of human rights than knee-jerk reactions by organisations and activists inadvertently positioning human rights as a radical idea rather than a universal human value.
Human rights are a living faculty of law and philosophy. Like the established fundamental laws of physics, mathematics and other sciences, the philosophy of human rights is based on certain core values such as the right to life and liberty, which are indisputable. The entire construct of human rights has evolved around these basic values and continues to develop further as civil societies globally aspire for a more equal and fairer world.
The European Convention on Human Rights and its enshrinement into the UK law by the Human Rights Act are examples of how nations have contracted themselves into a legally-binding agreement to enforce the laws that uphold human rights of individuals and collectives. However, we must not forget that Acts and legislations are instruments for application of law and a challenge to the Act or the way a law is applied does not necessarily tantamount to abandoning the principle itself.
States have the ultimate obligation to protect human rights of all its citizens. States as supreme actors have the definitive responsibility to find and facilitate ways they can best discharge this mandate. If a State and a considerable section of its population have come to believe that a certain system is not adequately addressing its purpose or lacking a vital balance then that argument must be met with examination, investigation and above all evidence instead of broad dismissal.
In the case of the Human Rights Act, there is some evidence of popular perception that it appears to disproportionately favour those who are on the wrong side of the law or have led assault on basic rights, liberties and freedoms of others. These beliefs are further fuelled by events like extradition trials of terrorism convicts and news coverage of court rulings often quoting human rights covenants as grounds for what some call extremely 'lean' sentences.
All legislations and laws need periodic review, not to undermine their force but to improve their application and overall benefit. So, while the demand for scrapping the Human Rights Act is manifestly wrong and a political gambit, a sincere attempt to review its ability to address emerging complex scenarios still holds merit and must be contested through due process.
Human rights have long been established as trumps. They are sacred and must be protected despite unpopular outcomes. However, to dismiss the criticism of human rights legislations as anti-democratic, racist or regressive would be fatal to the cause itself. Human rights cannot be fully realised in letter alone. They also need to be achieved in spirit, in the minds and beliefs of the people.
All constituents of a society must be made aware of the great benefits and values of human rights that string together all humanity as one and equal. This is a much harder task as it is difficult to acknowledge and appreciate the liberties we enjoy as a matter of course in our daily lives. But this is a challenge that must be met. Human rights are not at odds with the State or peace-loving and law-abiding societies.
Unfortunately the rights debate is being gradually pushed into this position and this is a dangerous trend. It is leading to a point where human rights themselves are being perceived as a radical ideology by a section of the society. Talk to a stranger on the streets in Britain, or for that matter in any liberal democracy, and a good number of people will reflect this view. It may not be a qualified or fully informed view, but it is a matter of great concern if it exists and is growing.
If Theresa May feels the current Human Rights Act is inadequate or not fulfilling its purpose, then allow her to make a case for it. I, for one, have full confidence that the values behind the legislation have enough force to hold their ground.
Human rights cannot be questioned, but the legislation articulating them into laws should remain open to scrutiny through due process. An educated, informed and open debate will only dispel misconceptions that are sadly undermining the greatest progress the human race has made in recognising that every single human is born equal and free.