The #QueenSpeech failed to mention the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act is a moral code. And recently, it’s been hotly debated.

While I have the ultimate respect for Amnesty’s objectives. I think they're one of those organisations, like the UN, which makes the government look like they are trying to operate legitimately and fairly. I direct you to watch season 1 of House of Cards where Russo meets a conspiracy theorist - he oddly talks a lot of sense.

However, in this badly written and over-wrought article Amnesty demonstrate their skill at talking without saying much. This time, it’s not unique to Amnesty - no one seems to know much about what the abolition on the Human Rights Act and the British Bill of Rights actually means. But we're angry about it anyway.

From my limited understanding, the UK wants to restore the sovereignty of the UK courts. This doesn't sound that bad. But I don't know what it means if you're found guilty in the UK and innocent in Strasbourg.

This article however, reads more like an Amnesty wishlist as opposed to actual information about what the impact of scrapping the Act and what the new Bill means. It sounds like the law is pretty broken as it is - so plenty of scope to reform and introduce progressive legislation that protects people while addressing national security and welfare issues. The reality is that the UK works on a system of mistrust, so will assume that all immigrants want to cheat the system and we're all terrorists. Guilty until proven innocent.

Human rights and politics will always be at odds with each other. Whatever happens, this issue is bigger than British legislation - it’s something that needs to be properly researched, discussed and think tanked (yes, I turned it into a verb). Not something that’s left to the whim of a bunch of narrow-minded right-wing public school boys.

First published 30/05/2015