Can Europe Make It?

UK backtracking on human rights isn’t just hypocritical – it’s bad politics too

The Tories' reasons for the UK leaving the European Charter of Human Rights are based on political calucation rather than principle. This self-defeating act could have a long-term negative impact on the UK's international and domestic policies.

Marta Foresti
8 October 2014

Earlier this week David Cameron said (quoting Ban Ki-moon) that ‘while missiles may kill terrorists, it is only good governance that can kill terrorism.’ Although the metaphor was a little stretched, the message in many ways was nothing new from the UK Prime Minister’s ‘Golden Thread’ vision of development: to achieve prosperity, economic growth must go in hand with democracy, transparency and… human rights.

Yet only a few days later the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling suggested that a future Conservative-led government might dispose altogether with the European Charter on Human Rights (ECHR), effectively disregarding the principles of international human rights law.

This just does not add up. The whole point about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it is based on universal principles which apply to all human beings, everywhere. The binding treaties deriving from it, including the ECHR, are legal instruments designed to implement and enforce these principles, everywhere.

The binding, universal nature of these treaties and underlying commitments is precisely what gives Cameron the basis to condemn countries like Uganda for not respecting LGBT rights or Ethiopia or Rwanda for trampling on their citizens’ rights to information or freedom of expression. They are violating international law and not complying with the treaties they have themselves signed up to and committed to implement.  

Yet this is precisely what Cameron is proposing to do at home: to do without international law and apply his own version of ‘UK approved’ human rights. Your right as a human being will from now on stop in Calais. Imagine the smile on Putin’s face.

The reasons behind these proposed changes are clearly domestic and based on good old political calculations. As Nick Cohen has argued, Grayling’s proposal is clearly meant to appease right-wingers within the Conservative party and to send signals to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) about how seriously Cameron is taking the ‘European challenge.’

In many ways these proposals remind us that human rights in practice are fundamentally a political agenda, one that needs to be constantly negotiated, gradually enforced and never taken for granted. They confirm that the notion of a universal and cross-border approach to enforcing human rights is easier said than done. Ultimately, the way human rights are enforced reflects the values and belief system that a society wishes to uphold.

Yet, as with many political calculations taken by leaders all over the world in the interest of short-term gains rather than long-term vision, this can have far-reaching and damaging consequences. Many have commented on the deep ties between the Charter and Britain, tracing it back all the way to Churchill. The ECHR is a fundamentally Conservative project, which by and large protects values, rights and jurisprudence historically shared by the Conservatives. It is not in any way a comprehensive human rights treaty and, partly because of the British role in drafting it, steers clear of any reference to economic and social rights. As Conor Gearty put it, by repealing the Human Rights Act, the Tories are likely to make things worse for themselves in the future, including on delicate matters of devolution and the Good Friday Agreement.

Promoting human rights abroad while ignoring them at home isn’t just hypocritical, it can damage dialogues, partnership and negotiations at a crucial time for international coordination as we approach huge milestones in global development and climate action. The UK government risks sacrificing its long-term vision on development – and short-term politics is a poor excuse.

Can there be a green populist project on the Left?

Many on the Left want to return to a politics based on class, not populism. They point to Left populist parties not reaching their goals. But Chantal Mouffe argues that as the COVID-19 pandemic has put the need for protection from harm at the top of the agenda, a Left populist strategy is now more relevant than ever.

Is this an opportunity for a realignment around a green democratic transformation?

Join us for a free live discussion on Thursday 22 October, 5pm UK time/12pm EDT.

Hear from:

Paolo Gerbaudo Sociologist and political theorist, director of the Centre for Digital Culture at King’s College London and author of ‘The Mask and the Flag: Populism and Global Protest’ and ‘The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online Democracy’, and of the forthcoming ‘The Great Recoil: Politics After Populism and Pandemic’.

Chantal Mouffe Emeritus Professor of Political Theory at the University of Westminster in London. Her most recent books are ‘Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically’, ‘Podemos. In the Name of the People’ and ‘For a Left Populism’.

Spyros A. Sofos Researcher and research coordinator at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Lund University and author of ‘Nation and Identity in Contemporary Europe’, ‘Tormented by History’ and ‘Islam in Europe: Public Spaces and Civic Networks'.

Chair: Walid el Houri Researcher, journalist and filmmaker based between Berlin and Beirut. He is partnerships editor at openDemocracy and lead editor of its North Africa, West Asia project.

Get weekly updates on Europe A thoughtful weekly email of economic, political, social and cultural developments from the storm-tossed continent. Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData