LETTER: Human rights: Britain's obligations and aberrations

Mr John Wadham
Saturday 30 September 1995 00:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

From Mr John Wadham

Sir: Stephen Ward is right in arguing that one of the consequences of not having a written constitution or a domestic Bill of Rights is the relatively high number of cases against Britain in Strasbourg ("When Britain stands accused in the dock", 28 September). Britain is in the dock at the European Commission and Court of Human Rights more than most other European countries over a wide range of human rights issues.

However, unlike what many within the Conservative Party are rumoured to be suggesting, the answer lies not in disengaging ourselves from the right to take individual cases to the Court of Human Rights, but in starting a public debate about a British Bill of Rights. It is said that this country is the birthplace of human rights, and merely because the Government is routinely embarrassed at an international level does not give it the right to take away our fundamental human rights.

Rights are ineffective if not guaranteed by law. The European Court has proved one of the more effective means by which international human rights standards have been enforced. If we are embarrassed by "washing our dirty linen" in Europe, we must be willing to see that those rights are properly guaranteed in our own domestic courts.

The practical protection of human rights is often going to mean difficult decisions, defending people who are alienated from the mainstream, people who have little or no support in society, people who have no power or influence. That is the reality. That is why yesterday's judgment in the European Court of Human Rights is not about defending terrorists; it is about the Government's responsibility to uphold the most basic right of all - the right to life.

Yours faithfully,

John Wadham

Acting General Secretary

Liberty

(National Council for

Civil Liberties)

London, SE1

28 September

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in