The Human Rights Act robs children of a normal family
By Laura Perrins, TCW:
An Act limiting the power of the State should be something all conservatives should support. Not so the Human Rights Act 1998, which is now routinely weaponised by lawyers to not only expand the power of the State but also to facilitate some very morally dubious activities.
The Human Rights Act was intended by the Blair administration to bring ‘home’ the rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. The ECHR was born out of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. It was, in its essence, a limit on state power. Therefore it is not surprising that it seeks to prevent the State from interfering with your family life, (Article 8) or limiting your free speech (Article 10), or indeed torturing you in any circumstances (Article 3).
However, over the decades this law has not only developed in a legally reasonable fashion but has morphed out of all recognition from its original intent. Instead, official bodies such can call on the power of the State to make someone act against their conscience – such as endorsing a political statement they oppose like supporting gay marriage. The Act has become part of the machinery of the State to enforce its totalitarian view on its citizens.
The HRA can be used to argue that killers should remain in the UK because they have a child and deportation would ‘interfere with their human rights.’ Many such perverse uses of the Act fill the law reports these days.
In addition to this, the HRA has seen the massive expansions of the lawyering and bureaucratic class. For instance, when the government proposes allocating resources to a particular group then often parameters need to be settled. Who is in the group, and who is out?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
