Douglas Murray on the Chindamo case and human rights

Published 24 August 2007

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion argues why the Human Rights Act should be condemned yet again, and Shami Chakrabarti argues why David Cameron owes Mrs Lawrence an apology.

The judgment in the Chindamo case might not rely on the Human Rights Act, but it provides a good opportunity for that Act to be condemned once again.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has stated that separate EU law lies behind the ruling, and that the Human Rights Act was a mere "subsidiary" factor in this case, making little "difference at all" to the decision. It may therefore be interpreted as a piece not merely of opportunism, but of misinformed opportunism, for David Cameron to have called for the Act to be abolished in Britain.

But David Cameron is right, and the level of the Act's involvement in the Chindamo case is not the issue. If it is indeed other EU law that is the problem then that too should be looked at. But it is the visibility of the HRA that will be its downfall. It is perceived to be - and is - the ultimate defence for criminals and terrorists who already have so many extra defences provided for them by Europe. One of the aspirations of the Act - indeed, its hubristic pitfall - is its all-encompassing nature. It is hard to imagine any criminal or terrorist who could not legitimately invoke articles 2 and 8 of the Act (the "right to life" and "right to a private and family life") on some occasion. Many have done so. In the case of the sex attacker Anthony Rice it was invoked for him by a parole board, freeing him to kill a woman because the authorities thought that detention violated his rights.

The idea now widely exists that if you kill, or seek to kill, people in Britain, then the Human Rights Act will ultimately protect you, even keeping in Britain those who have no right to be here. Not deporting to a country that might torture, like Saudi or Egypt, say, can be persuasively argued. But what exactly is the pressing case for stopping someone being deported to Italy?

In the Chindamo case, the message has once again been given out that the rights of a foreign-born criminal to "have a life" completely over-rides the more basic rights of a British family. It is beyond being a matter for lawyers, but is certainly a matter for MPs, when the public observes rights being so disproportionately granted to an individual like Chindamo, who himself took a family's rights in the most despicable and casual manner.

A YouGov poll last month showed that 61% of the British public want to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. European-originating laws have persistently run contrary to the British public's most instinctive sense of justice. There is as much opprobrium in those cases where the HRA is invoked and fails (the recent El-Faisal deportment for instance) as where it is invoked and works. Laws which are deemed risible when they fail as well as where they succeed cannot be good laws.

Post this article to

3 comments from readers

shubster1
24 August 2007 at 20:10

Although the Human Right Act does have its faults when it comes to issuing justice and coming to a 'fair' decision, it is vital that in this modern world something like this is in place to protect the people, not just from each other, but also from the governments who we put our faith in, as without it governments could easily get carried away and do something against what we all deem 'fair' and we would we powerless to prevent, as we have seen both in Europe's history and more recently in other non-democratic countries without such a system in place. I do however feel that the way in which the Human Rights Act is enforced is often inappropriate and that more consideration needs to be taken into the specific details of the cases themselves to ensure a reasonable outcome. In this case however, before the Act is criticized the true reason for the decision should looked at and Mr Cameron should be less careless in his comments and show the people that he is capable of making good decisions or even ideas rather than simply saying something daft in order to either tell the public what they may want to hear or manipulate the media for some other sinister cause.

S3ctr3t_1d3nt1ty
25 August 2007 at 17:42

I suspect the problem with Cameron is that he's just a weak minded opportunist that has had the last of his integrity addled by his youthful mis-adventure with coke. And before you counter that coke doesn't make someone incapable of serving as a leader, please consider GW Bush.

stephan_ai
27 August 2007 at 20:02

The UK is in a permanent state of denial over the scope of its obligations under the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Community.

Europe, it would seem, is the Pandora´s box in British politics. Cameron would rather blame the HRA than risk another vivious bout of infighting over the subject of Europe. And I daresay, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown are likely to feel the same way.

When agreeing to join the European Community back in 1973, the UK agreed to be bound and subject to the law of the European Community.

From its inception, the project behind the European Community was political: The creation of a united Europe.

The Maastricht Treaty which was ratified by Parliament in the early 90s expressly introduced for the first time the political notion of a European Citizenship.

Directive 2004-38 is meant to elaborate, consolidate and strengthen the political dimension behind the embryonic notion of European Citizenship.

Accordingly, European Citizens are meant to be at home across the European Union. The basic premice is that they must be treated in the same way as a national. Thus they may only be exceptionally removed or deported under narrowly defined circumstances and subject to iron clad procedural and substantive guarantees.

Since the entry into force of the Directive, deportation of EU citizens who are permanent residents or who have resided in the Member State for over 10 years is made even more difficult.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Douglas Murray is a bestselling author and commentator, his most recent book is the critically acclaimed Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. Since April 2007 he has been Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion in London.