It is inconsistent both with the more reasoned parts of his speech and the new brand of social responsibility he is trying to project for his party.
It’s one thing to have a vague aspiration of what your ideal Bill of Rights might look like, but it’s downright irresponsible to mislead the public about the protection they already have.”
Contact: Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. Liberty, a cross-party and non-party human rights group, participated in all three of the party conferences. Unusually, Liberty’s director was a guest speaker in the crime debate at the Conservative Party Conference, at which Liberty also held a successful joint fringe meeting with the Conservative Liberty Forum.
2. In June 2006, Liberty expressed concern that Mr. Cameron’s proposal for a new “Bill of Rights” contained several misunderstandings of constitutional and legal issues as well as many perennial tensions bubbling under the surface including:
• The prohibition on deporting foreign prisoners who may face torture or ill-treatment in their home countries will not be affected if the Human Rights Act is scrapped. With respect, Mr. Cameron has misunderstood the “margin of appreciation” in terms of its application within the European Convention of Human Rights. This practice does not give special treatment to countries with written constitutions, but rather allows all countries (including Britain) space for reasonable differences in policy e.g. the age of consent can vary within different countries in Europe. However, this would not apply to the practice of deporting foreign nationals who may face torture or ill-treatment at home.
• If the government scraps the Human Rights Act but chooses to remain party to the European Convention of Human Rights, British courts will lose their power to interpret the ECHR while human rights cases will continue to be determined in Strasbourg, a retrogressive and time-consuming option.
• While Mr. Cameron frequently mentions “citizen’s rights”, the post-war human rights consensus after the Holocaust determined that human rights apply to everyone regardless of race, religion or nationality.
• The Conservative Party is critical of the Government’s criminal justice laws, yet fails to recognise that the Human Rights Act in many instances offers the only true redress for victims. Further, the Act give judges the ability to temper the “authoritarian legislation” which often concerns the Conservative Party.
• The Judiciary cannot quash primary legislation using the Human Rights Act.
3. Many human rights’ cases have involved victims challenging Governments for gross failures to protect them. For example, until one brave woman sued the British Government at the European Court of Human Rights, rape victims in England were subject to lengthy cross-examination in person by men who were alleged to have violated them. As a result of a judgment protecting her right not to be subject to “inhuman and degrading treatment”, the law in this country was changed. Please contact
jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk for Liberty’s compilation of human rights cases and examples.
4. Liberty’s “Human Rights Act Questions and Answers” is available on
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk 
