A new strategy is needed to defend human rights

Has an ignorant electorate doomed us all to a repeal of the Human Rights Act (HRA)? That certainly seems to be the prevailing opinion since the Conservatives won a surprising majority at the general election last week.

The legal profession has, for some time, been understandably apprehensive of the Tories' plans to abolish the HRA and introduce its own British Bill of Rights, so as to 'restore common sense to the application of human rights in the UK'.

Those fears were reinforced over the weekend, first when Jeremy Hunt MP confirmed that the government would seek to repeal the HRA, which was then followed with the appointment of Michael Gove MP as the new justice secretary, who has allegedly been given the task of scrapping the Act within 100 days.

If that truly is the brief given to Gove by the prime minister, then human rights lawyers had best prepare themselves for the onslaught that is to come. Oh and don't forget that Gove's wife, Sarah Vine, is a Daily Mail columnist - a paper so outwardly hostile of Labour's 'hated' HRA as to be laughable.

Of course, what influence Vine may levy over her husband is debatable when you consider that her recent contribution to the issue of human rights was in asking whether her marriage to George Clooney, combined with her role as a human rights lawyer, was taking its toll on Doughty Street's Amal Clooney. Apparently she needs to eat a burger or something.

Nevertheless, there are many in the profession - if social media is any yardstick of these things - who have already resigned themselves to a future without the rights and protections of the HRA. And who can blame them. No sooner are the words 'human rights' uttered by an advocate than the right-wing press will publish 'stories' about how fat-cat lawyers helped a convicted serial killer to obtain hardcore pornography while in jail, or how a burglar was given Kentucky Fried Chicken over concerns police might infringe his rights, or how an illegal immigrant was allowed to stay in the UK because he owned a cat.

One expects the tabloids to sensationalise a story to sell papers, but for an elected politician, the home secretary no less, to so blatantly diverge from the truth in the last example in order to make a political point is outrageous.

That the above are just three instances of many distortions of fact are troublesome. One can expect many more to come as the MoJ ramps up its press campaign against the HRA. However, as Liberty highlights, the Act may annoy governments, but it was never meant to make them more comfortable - it was designed to protect the people from the excesses of power.

There needs to be a change in strategy from champions of human rights. Those who have defended the importance of the HRA have, for the most part, done so in a refrained, polite, and academic manner. Clearly this has not worked. As David Allen Green points out, 'supporters of human rights now need to make the case against repeal a lot better than they have done so far.'

In SJ (159/16) we announced the launch of rightsinfo.org, the brainchild of barrister Adam Wagner, who hoped it would help to dispel the myths and lies that fly from Fleet Street. At the time we pointed out that while it would undoubtedly be a useful tool for young lawyers and those interested in the subject, it was unlikely to be used as a fact-checking instrument by the press - after all, why let the truth get in the way of a good story. And as for the electorate, it is asking a lot for the public to look beyond the myths and misconceptions.

The election result does not ensure the death knell for the HRA. Perhaps it is time to fight fire with fire, but without becoming as belligerent and militant as the ignorant and the trolls that inhabit the Daily Mail's comments section - those that are clearly the people Gove will be appealing to.

Yet as Wagner recently tweeted: 'Every time someone spends time rebutting a silly Daily Mail human rights piece, another positive human rights argument fairy dies.'

The legal profession will still need to remain professional and not depart from the facts the way others have. In that respect, rightsinfo and keeptheact.uk may prove invaluable tools and used to spin positive tales of how the HRA has helped the public and even the media.

The legal profession is by and large still conservative in its nature and restrained in its mannerisms when it comes to interacting with the public and politicians. But while the idea of marching on parliament in protest remains an anathema to many lawyers, a strongly worded petition will simply be a waste of time. Only a concerted and organised campaign stands any hope of making a difference.

The Law Society, the Bar Council, and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) will need to join forces with the likes of Liberty, Amnesty International, and others to change public opinion and declare with one clear voice that scrapping the HRA is not the way forward.

But with such a disjointed profession, saddled with competing interests, the road ahead looks difficult to say the least.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal