As laid out by the Queen at the State Opening of Parliament, “proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights.” Scottish PEN reaffirms its resolute opposition to replacing the Human Rights Act (HRA) with the British Bill of Rights. Our fundamental human rights should be beyond party politics and the political climate of the day; this is the only way we can ensure all ideas, beliefs and voices are equally protected, irrespective of what ideologies are deemed to be outside of the mainstream political discourse at any given moment. Even at this early stage, this government has failed this test, offering the British Bill of Rights, not as a way to strengthen our protections, but as a way to satisfy members of their own party looking to ‘champion’ national sovereignty as demonstrated in the increasingly polarised EU debate.
But human rights should be more than a bargaining chip to appease politicians, they are what enshrine our rights to speak, to express ourselves, to live beyond prejudice & hate, to protect privacy and live a life of our own choosing. Earlier this year when giving evidence in the House of Lords, the Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove stated that “I think it is broadly accepted that in Britain we have slightly more of an emphasis on freedom of expression and slightly less of an emphasis on privacy rights than in continental jurisdictions…we may emphasise the importance of one right over another.” While any move to strengthen freedom of expression protections is to be welcomed, it should not come at the expense of other rights including the right to privacy. Our fundamental freedoms are deeply interwoven and moves to weaken some may in many cases weaken all. How can we protect free expression if we undermine the comfort of individuals to explore challenging issues free from duress, surveillance and antagonism?
This is a wildly incoherent and problematic proposal, which again is highlighted by Michael Gove: “At the moment, we envisage that all the rights contained within the Convention [European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)] will be affirmed in any British Bill of Rights”. This gets us back to the central concern about the British Bill of Rights; why do we need it? As seen with the ruling on the Hillsborough disaster and the conversations around tackling terrorism, immigration, PREVENT and the Investigatory Powers Bill, the powers contained with the HRA operate to protect the citizenry and hold the government and its policies to account. This vital role cannot be manipulated by party politics.
As outlined in the letter sent to the Sunday Herald in 2015 by Scottish PEN members, the “European Convention of Human Rights [the backbone of the HRA] forms a fundamental part of the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” Any movement to shore up the sovereignty of the UK cannot undermine the sovereignty of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (further questions remain as to the compatibility of the repeal of the HRA with the Good Friday Agreement). This would represent a distinct contempt for the powers in place to ensure everyone’s rights across the union are represented and protected.
At this stage the government is only calling for proposals to be brought forward as opposed to a bill. Scottish PEN joins its supporters, key human rights defenders, members of the Scottish Government, opposition parties and civil society more broadly in calling on the government to stay true to their statement that they “will consult fully on the proposals when they are published” to ensure that key human rights protections are not undermined in the name of short-termist politics.
The post Statement on the Queen’s Speech appeared first on Scottish PEN.