Premium
This is an archive article published on May 15, 2006

Are rights wrong?

First it was the US, the country that venerates the rights of individuals. Faced with the threat of terrorist attacks, President George Bush’s administration went on a spying spree, eavesdropping on phone calls and keeping track of emails.

.

First it was the US, the country that venerates the rights of individuals. Faced with the threat of terrorist attacks, President George Bush’s administration went on a spying spree, eavesdropping on phone calls and keeping track of emails. If Prime Minister Tony Blair has his way, it could be the turn of the British now to give up their rights in the face of global terrorism.

Blair is considering new legislation to overrule recent human rights judgements by the courts which have left dangerous criminals at large in the community, his office said on Sunday. Home Secretary John Reid has been ordered to ensure that public safety takes primacy over human rights. In a letter to Reid, Blair asked him to ensure that law- abiding Britons could live without fear.

“We will need to look again at whether primary legislation is needed to address the issue of court rulings which overrule the government in a way that is inconsistent with other European Union countries’ interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights,” Blair wrote.

Story continues below this ad

Blair had earlier criticised a judge who ruled that nine Afghan refugees who hijacked a plane to Britain could not be deported—on human rights grounds. Reid had called the decision “inexplicable or bizarre.”

Lord Falconer, who as Lord Chancellor is Britain’s senior legal figure, said Britain’s Human Rights Act itself was not at fault, but its interpretation. He added Britain would not withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights since subscribing to it is a condition of EU membership.

“We’ve been a signatory to the convention for decades, they represent basic rights that everybody would subscribe to,” he said in a TV interview. “This is not about an attack on the judges, this is about making clear in particular areas—for example, the release of prisoners who might be a danger to society—that public safety comes first.”

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement