I spent this evening at an event organised by the Human Rights Lawyers Association at which Michael Wills, Minister of State at Minijust responsible among many things for human rights policy, spoke about the Brown government’s approach to human rights. The event ended with free wine and cheesy twists and was all round pretty jolly (Francesca Klug chaired it in fact – not Lord Lester as originally advertised) so I mustn’t be too sour about it. But…
Well, practically the minister’s last remark was to say that “fuzzy logic” was the most useful way to approach striking the balance he saw as inherent in the European Convention on Human Rights, between the interests of individuals against the state, and the interests of the community. And there was indeed a great deal of fuzzy logic throughout his short speech and extended question-and-answer session. I left extremely confused http://www.nflauthenticjersey.com/ about what the government wants, and what it’s up to.
Michael Wills explained that following the publication of the green paper the Governance of Britain the government will consult on a possible British bill of rights and responsibilities – something which may be linked to a review of British citizenship and the rights and responsibilities that go with it, to be conducted (in his spare time from chairing litigation for Debevoise & Plimpton) by Lord Goldsmith. It will also consult a citizens’ jury of about a thousand people to come up with an “inclusive” statement of British values.
The most fun was had discussing the new bill of rights and responsibilities. The minister was anxious to make clear the government was not committed to the idea: it was merely floating it for discussion. But what was far from obvious was what this bill might be meant to achieve. In front of an audience of mainly committed human rights lawyers (John Wadham, Anne Owers and Stephen Grosz were all there), the minister was anxious to stress the government’s unwavering commitment to the Convention and to the Human Rights Act. He more or less pledged there’d be no change to its principles, while at the same time saying he didn’t understand what Trevor Phillips meant when saying the Act shouldn’t be “mucked around with”. But if that’s right – if the new bill changed nothing – what’d be the point of it? Unless to actually legislate for new rights, as many in the audience were arguing for? The minister seemed to suggest there’s a need to relaunch or repackage the Human Rights Act in some new maglie calcio poco prezzo form, with an easy-to-understand preamble, in order somehow to confound the Daily Mail and make London taxi drivers learn to love human rights. Change? Mucking about? Spin?
As the minister went on, a couple of clear alternatives emerged. Either the government is planning to amend the Act, but wants human rights lawyers to think it won’t; or it isn’t going to amend, but wants the Daily Mail to think it will. But I’ve no idea which way round it is, and it may even be both at the same time.
As for the statement of British values – well, it’s obvious to anyone that that’s pure eyewash, isn’t it?
Leave a comment