Civitas

But are we any better protected? Few think so and awareness of the disadvantages is growing. First, it undermines individual freedom. Second, it has contributed to 'rights inflation', and undermined support for the fundamental moral precepts on which the original concept of a 'human right' was based. Third, it has encouraged people to emphasise their group identity within the nation, rather than their common status as citizens of a free and open society. Fourth, it is tending to have a corrupting effect on the legal profession and has led to the politicisation of the judiciary.

Our tradition of freedom rests on the belief that everyone should have a chance to make the most of their life and that, to do so, each of us needs to know what the law prohibits. By defining when compulsion will be used, we are left free to use our talents to discover better ways of meeting human needs and of living together in harmony. This freedom must be enjoyed by everyone, because we never know in advance who may make lasting contributions to improving the human condition. But, on fundamental matters like press freedom and safety from terrorism, the Human Rights Act can mean one thing today and the exact opposite a few months later.

Take the recent case of foreign terrorist suspects detained under emergency powers. In July 2002 it was held that the imprisonment was unlawful because it applied only to foreign nationals. Then, in October 2002, the Court of Appeal, decided that the detention was consistent with the Human Rights Act. Finally, in 2004 the House of Lords ruled against the Government. In March 2002 it was decided that the Mirror should not have published details of Naomi Campbell's drug treatment. Then, in October, the Court of Appeal decided that the publication of articles about the claimant's treatment for drug addiction did not breach her right to confidentiality and that the press should be given reasonable latitude under Article 10 to publish information in the public interest. Now that decision has been reversed. The Campbell ruling means that newspaper editors can't be sure whether they will be hailed as heroes for keeping the public informed, or denounced as law breakers.

The British have always been keen on their rights, but until recently a right meant an entitlement to be protected against the abuse of power by the government or powerful private organisations or individuals. Today a 'right' is less an entitlement to protection against the abuse of power (a protection we can all share with each other); rather it has become a claim against other people, an opportunity to gain financially or to secure preferential treatment at the expense of others. Rights as 'opportunities for private gain' instead of 'protections for all', has encouraged a 'compensation culture' based on the exaggeration of grievances.

It has also distorted the law-making process into a scramble for preferential treatment for groups who are sufficiently well organised to secure political designation of their victim status. There are already six official categories for preferential treatment (gender, race, disability, religion, age and sexual preference) under the Governments proposed Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

One outcome has been 'category creep': once it becomes an advantage to be in a group more people try to get in. For example, 'disability', formerly confined to people who were deaf, blind or wheelchair bound, has been redefined so widely that Government newspaper advertisements this week are declaring that there are 10 million disabled people. Gypsies did not used to be classified as a race, but once it became advantageous, they pressed for inclusion. Romany gypsies were recognised in 1988 and Irish travellers in 2000.
The legal profession has become less a vocation guided by a code of ethics and more a business which looks upon particular statutes as opportunities for financial gain. Lawyers have traditionally had an obligation to the court as well as to their client. They are not supposed to be the mere hired guns of one side in a dispute, prepared to pull every stroke in the book to win. They have a duty to seek the truth, which they should put above the narrow interests of their clients or their own interests in making money. The opportunities offered by the Human Rights Act have proved too much for some.

Human rights should be narrowly defined, to exclude only those things that should never be done. The Human Rights Act is so vague that it has opened up opportunities for every kind of malcontent or chancer who thinks there might be money or other advantage to be gained from legal confrontation.

If we want to preserve our heritage of equality before the law and the moral equality of every citizen implied by it, we should abolish the Human Rights Act.