Comment: European human rights row is just showboating
This is a manufactured dispute, created by eurosceptic MPs baying for fresh meat.
By Roger Smith
It looked like human rights reform had been kicked into the long grass. And, then, up pops a parliamentary debate on a six-year-old decision of the European court of human rights (‘the court’). A debate follows on a year-old decision of the supreme court. The result: David Cameron suddenly takes his chance to revive the idea of attacking the European Convention and the Human Rights Act.
The argument against picking a fight on these issues is twofold – procedural and substantive. The European Convention on Human Rights is clear. Article 46(1) binds High Contracting Parties “to abide by the final judgement of the court”. Article 46(2) states that “the final judgment of the court shall be transmitted to the committee of ministers, which shall supervise its execution”. Ultimately, any member of the Council of Europe can be invited to withdraw from membership or be expelled for a breach of the principles of the rule of law, serious breach of human rights or failure “to collaborate sincerely and effectively” with the aims of the Council under Articles 3 and 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.
Thus, the provisions of the European Convention require the UK government to implement final decisions of the court. Some argue that the practical consequence of failure to do so would not be expulsion from the Council of Europe because insufficient numbers of countries would dare to gang up on the UK. There might be some truth in that but such a position would be very unattractive. It is doubtful whether such open defiance would prove acceptable to the UK’s natural allies in the Council such as France, Germany and the Netherlands.
So, procedurally, it would be better to take the line mapped out by Ken Clarke: avoid a bruising battle and go for quiet and consensual reform of the court. The difficulty is that a bunch of assorted parliamentary eurosceptics are baying for fresh meat and are desperately upset about being tied to the same stake as a bunch of Europhiliac Liberal Democrats – even if there is some confusion as to which Europe (Council or Union) is the offending party.
Much of the rhetoric about voting rights and sex offender register reviews is completely overblown. A degree of flexibility over registration must be sensible when current laws require the lifetime physical appearance at a police station of offenders who will, predictably, get elderly and infirm. The Scots quietly introduced the required discretion: it caused little concern. As to voting, surely it should be seen as a duty rather than a right. The notion of its loss by criminals goes back to the Ancient Greeks and flourished in the Middle Ages as the notion of ‘civil’ or ‘civic death’. The effect was then described as sundering “every bond between society and the man who has incurred it; he has ceased to be a citizen.he is without a country; he does not exist save as a human being, and this, by a sort of commiseration which has no source in the law”. We have rightly outgrown elsewhere the concept of declaring someone an ‘outlaw’.
Imagine for a moment that you were a prison governor confronted with inmates who actually wanted to vote. Would you scold their presumption or would you see them as a group on the way to rehabilitation? This is a manufactured row. Much of it is sheer showboating.
Roger Smith is a solicitor and director of JUSTICE, the all-party law reform organisation.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Speakers Corner are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.
