Students say a move away from human rights is regressive

The Conservative’s proposal to limit the application of human rights to ‘serious’ cases in an effort to dispense with those that are deemed ‘trivial’ has left students bewildered about just what it all meant; no one could define which cases might fall into the category of ‘trivial’ or understood who would decide on a threshold of rights abuses which met the definition.

Undergraduate Mohammed Albaharena, 20, from Bahrain, cautioned against a solitary approach to human rights, citing Britain’s reputation for equality and fairness as one
of the main attractions for studying here.

“A Bill of rights might be clearer about what those rights are but there is strength in unity and it is a bad step for the UK to try to go it alone,” he said.

Some students highlighted the government’s anger at the delay in deporting the radical cleric Abu Qatada as a primary reason for the attack on human rights. They believe that a small number of high-profile cases
are behind the proposals for repealing the law: few had heard of challenges when applicants are vulnerable or disabled, as in the case of
Price v UK.

Many identified the fears about terrorism and cited
article 3 rights, which are not qualified as being most at risk. They felt that, as the UK had signed up to a treaty that upholds the rights of people across Europe, any attempt to limit those rights in the current climate is very risky.

The European Court of Human Rights and Human Rights Act already recognise competing rights, and many
of the freedoms enshrined by the convention are qualified
in order to protect national security and prevent crime.
A straw poll among our student population thought the current safeguards were sufficient and believed it regressive to return to a point where bringing a
case to Strasbourg was the
only way to curb the excesses
of the government.

Student Macken Fernandes, 22, explained: “It will be dangerous to pull out of our human rights obligations at a time when society needs very clear guidance about what is acceptable and what is not. There are many young people going abroad to fight to defend ideas they do not understand. We need to demonstrate our values.”

While Liberty’s Isabella Sankey believes the absence of an effective domestic remedy means that the engagement
of the UK’s courts in the development of human rights’ jurisprudence makes external supervision of the UK more likely and ultimately decreases British sovereignty. Some of the students quizzed on whether or not British sovereignty would be enhanced by a new Bill
of Rights thought it was an important safeguard for people who were vulnerable or poor
so that they could rely on the British courts to be able to judge on these matters.

Ultimately, responsibilities along with rights suggests
that the concept of rights
being inalienable are somewhat mitigated by a more subjective view of who exactly is deserving of having their rights upheld. Using a very small number of cases on which to base a revised set of rights that are contingent on the fulfilment of responsibilities creates uncertainty about what categories of human are unable to rely on a charter of rights. SJ