The justice secretary\u2019s plans are cover for a coup by an executive that wishes to restrict the power of the judiciary<\/p>
Although the United Kingdom was the first signatory of the European convention on human rights<\/a> in 1950, it was five decades before the rights set out in the convention became accessible in domestic law. The Human Rights Act was a recognition that the authorities don\u2019t always get things right and that statute was needed to enable in-country challenges to the state, protecting the public. Before the HRA was brought in, there was a steady flow of people to the European court of human rights seeking justice. Rulings in Strasbourg led the British government to strengthen oversight<\/a> of deportations on the grounds of national security and helped equalise the age of consent for gay sex<\/a>.<\/p> By bringing the convention home, Britons could vindicate their rights in courtrooms in their own country. Human rights are legal claims on the state; so the legality of state conduct became the business of this country\u2019s courts. When Met detectives failed to carry out an effective investigation into the serial sex attacker John Worboys<\/a>, the force found itself liable for mistakes. Parents used the law to stop benefit cuts<\/a> for hospitalised children. Human rights law meant women<\/a> were not routinely cross-examined in court by those they accused of rape. For the families of the 97 people killed in the Hillsborough disaster<\/a>, the HRA was instrumental in helping reveal the truth about the circumstances leading to their loved ones\u2019 deaths.<\/p> Continue reading...<\/a>\n