TOP 100 NEWSPAPER SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Cost of Rice Expected to Rise The cost of rice is expected to climb over the coming months, as an improving global economy raises demand, and drought cuts production in countries such as India. www1.voanews.com |
Christmas gloom, prayers for peace in Holy Land BETHLEHEM, West Bank (AP) -- The top Roman Catholic cleric in the Holy Land delivered Christmas wishes Thursday for peace in the Middle East - and prayed for the day when Palestinians would no longer be confined by Israeli barriers.... hosted.ap.org |
Snow brings disruption in Europe Severe winter weather brings hazardous conditions and transport disruption to parts of northern Europe. news.bbc.co.uk |
Liberty and mendacity | Charles Falconer The Tory position on human rights just doesn't add up. It puts Britain's reputation at riskHuman rights are at risk in the forthcoming election. Labour will not retreat from or reduce the rights made part of Âdomestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The Conservative website, Âhowever, carries a pledge to "replace the Human Rights Act, which has undermined the government's ability to deal with crime and terrorism, with a British bill of rights".David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, said last May: "Since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws. The EU and the judges have taken too much power over issues that are Âcontested aspects of public policy … We will introduce a British bill of rights to strengthen our liberties, spell out the extent and limit of rights more clearly, and ensure proper democratic accountability over the creation of any new rights." And Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary, pledged last October that a Conservative Âgovernment would repeal the Human Rights Act to rebalance laws in favour of public protection.The belief that human rights restrict the fight against crime and terrorism comes in part from misconceptions about the act – for example the view that it stops the police publishing pictures of murderers on the run from prison (it doesn't). If all the Tories were going to do was to publish a press release or two setting out what human rights did not do, our liberties would not be at risk.But the European convention on human rights (ECHR), now incorporated into our law, does rightly restrict the state in its ability to fight crime and terrorism. It prevents imprisonment without charge – save in exceptional circumstances – and the deportation of criminals or suspected terrorists from this country to a place where there is a realistic prospect they might face death, torture, or inhumane or degrading treatment. Many suspects have benefited from this aspect of the ECHR, as did the Afghan hijackers – who, it was ruled, could not be sent back to Afghanistan because there was a real risk they would be murdered by the Taliban.The convention prevents Âunjustified restrictions on liberty that are contrary to human rights, such as the imprisonment of the Belmarsh detainees after 9/11 without charge, or the imposition on individuals of some control orders.Incorporation of the convention into British law has provided legal protection for people who might expect little popular support. Moreover, political support for human rights fades in the face of political difficulty.When the IRA bombed Birmingham in 1974, the government within days introduced draconian anti-terrorism Âlegislation. The courts had no role in challenging that legislation. Instead they followed the lead the legislature gave in allowing civil rights to be compromised. The courts' conduct in the course of the IRA trials that followed was deplorable, and gravely weakened the state in its fight against terrorism.However, after 9/11 the courts – because of the incorporation of the ECHR – had a role to ensure that legislation did not infringe individual liberties to an extent not justified by the threat. And, despite criticism, they bravely Âundertook that role.The comparison with the 70s demonstrates the constitution-changing nature of incorporation. The courts have unequivocally accepted their role in policing compliance with human rights. And, in practice, the government is no longer the final arbiter (through its Âability to procure the passage of primary legislation) of what is an acceptable reduction in civil liberties. Although the government can in theory refuse to repeal offending legislation, it has never done so in practice. The effect of Âincorporation has been to set legally enforceable, domestically unchangeable limits beyond which the state cannot go – the most significant protection of an individual's rights for many decades.Grieve has said that the ÂConservatives will not withdraw from the ECHR. So how do the Tories make good their promise to repeal the Human Rights Act in a way that reduces or removes the restriction on fighting crime and Âterrorism, and yet does not infringe the convention? It is pretty obvious they can't.So which is the lie: promising to repeal the act and enact a British bill of rights? Or staying in the convention? Do they think there is some halfway house: change the law for the UK and fight to change the position under the ECHR, but if that fails leave the ECHR? Such a stance would be the most monumental hypocrisy for a country that supports human rights throughout the world.The Tories are committing themselves to reducing human rights protections. They might just be serious.Human rightsCriminal justiceCharles Falconerguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
France report backs face veil ban Muslim women should not be allowed to wear face-covering veils in public facilities, a French parliament report says. news.bbc.co.uk |