leaving your human rights behind

UPDATED

• Reply from DC
• My reply to him

Original letter:

Dear David Cameron

The following two comments have been brought to my attention, I wonder if you could clarify them for me.

On the Politics show recently you expressed your belief that 'The moment a burglar steps over your threshold and invades your property ... I think they leave their human rights outside.’ In terms of international law, you are of course wrong, as I am sure you are aware. Until you succeed in your aim of abolishing the Human Rights Act, you are also wrong in terms of national law. Were you therefore expressing a personal desire for international law (as well as national law) to be changed in this respect; and if so, could you clarify which rights you think the burglar should 'leave behind'?

In Cameron's Britain, for example, would it be legal (and acceptable) to kill or subject to torture a petty thief if he/she crosses the threshold of your home? If not killing and torture, where would you draw the line? Perhaps you are suggesting that such people should lose their right to a fair trial, their right to be presumed innocent before being found guilty?

You illustrated the 'strange decisions' that the Human Rights Act has given rise to by the following example: 'For instance, you get the decision to give the prisoner hard core pornography. If you had a British Bill of Rights that had more common sense written into it, you could probably avoid having some of these things happening.'

I am surprised that your researchers have not bothered to correct you on this score and indeed that you yourself might actually believe this to be a plausible example of the HRA's effects. Dennis Nilson did indeed try to bring a claim to use the HRA to demand access to pornographic magazines but as you should know, the High Court rejected his claim. It is precisely an example of the 'common sense' nature of the Human Rights Act that it does not entitle prisoners to access hard core pornography.

If you really think there needs to be a serious debate about human rights in the UK and elsewhere, a rethinking of centuries of legal, ethical and political thought, then let us at least have this debate without resorting to falsehoods and propaganda. If it is indeed your view that human rights should no longer be regarded as universal, indivisible and inalienable, in contradistinction to international agreement and international law; and if you would be happy to withdraw this country's previous consent to those principles, then we should let the world and the country know. But letting people know in the context of a false debate about what human rights in fact mean and where they come from is doing human beings in this country and elsewhere no service at all.

I would be grateful if you could respond specifically to my questions about your comments, rather than providing me with a blanket statement on Conservative Party policy.

Thank you for your attention.

antarchi

A reply from the person who writes his replies for him (to a letter I did not write):

Dear …

Thank you for writing to me about the right to defend property and the Human Rights Act.

It seems to me that the lack of clarity regarding the level of force permitted against intruders is just one underlying cause of a worrying lack of public confidence in our criminal justice system. People deserve to feel safe in their own homes. Unfortunately, too often criminals seem to be given the impression that they can get away with their crimes, while victims are left feeling unsupported and neglected.

Conservatives have repeatedly called for the law to be changed to allow people to defend their homes against burglars. My view is that if a criminal breaks into their home and attacks them, people should be able to use the necessary force to be able to defend themselves, their families and their property, without the threat of criminal prosecution. People should only be prosecuted in cases where their actions are judged to have been grossly disproportionate. The law should be on the side of the citizen, not the criminal.

A Conservative Government would replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights to better tailor and also strengthen the protection of our core rights. I have attached a speech I made last year on fixing our broken politics which deals with this issue for your interest and information.

Thank you for taking the time to write to me

Yours sincerely

DC

My response

Dear David Cameron

Thank you for your letter of 4th March. Unfortunately you fail to address either of the questions I have put to you. I shall try again:

Could you tell me which human rights (as opposed to civil rights) you think the burglar should leave behind - or do you (as your statement suggested) think s/he leaves them all behind? It would be interesting to know, depending on your answer to this question, whether you think that all burglars throughout the world should leave such (human) rights behind - and therefore whether you think that international treaties should be amended accordingly.

I suspect - and strongly hope - that your comment was simply a misleading attempt to play to popular opinion on the burglar issue. If so, I wish you would not confuse this issue with human rights, since these deal only with basic, minimal standards of behaviour.

2. What were you referring to when you spoke about 'the decision to give the prisoner hard core pornography'? I am aware of no such decision, but only a decision which refused a prisoner (Denis Nilson) hard core pornography on human rights grounds. If there was indeed no such decision, could you give me an assurance that you and your party spokespersons will refrain from using this example to illustrate the idiocy of the Human Rights Act.

Since you are inclined to make statements in public which demean human rights and the Human Rights Act, it would be helpful in this debate if you would address the human rights issues with which you are in disagreement, rather than more general areas of public discontent. There is a great deal of ignorance and misinformation about human rights, and I feel that your statements are not only not helping to clarify the issue, but frequently set out to mislead. There is, for example, plenty of room within the Human Rights Act for sensible decisions about pornography in prisons and even for people to defend themselves from burglars. But you would not know that from your statements and those of others in your Party.

You did not include the speech about fixing broken politics, but I hope it contained something about politicians engaging honestly with issues and not playing to the public gallery. For myself, this would go a small way towards restoring faith in the political process.

Thank you for your attention

[*]

',