the stinking daily torygraph

It was a little over three years ago that David Cameron first called for the Human Rights Act (HRA) to be abolished and replaced by a British Bill of Rights. His intervention was prompted by the revelation that Learco Chindamo, the convicted murderer of the head teacher Philip Lawrence, would escape deportation to his native Italy because this would breach his right to family life in this country. The then Leader of the Opposition did not mince his words: "It has to go. Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights… The fact that the murderer of Philip Lawrence cannot be deported flies in the face of common sense."

Learco Chindamo: Britain must make its own human rights laws, 'Telegraph View'

David Cameron is a fool. So is 'Telegraph View' for believing him, and not bothering to do any research at all. Although it might have been the case that human rights law would have prevented Chindamo's deportation, in fact the law that was used was EU immigration law, not the Human Rights Act (or the ECHR). We wouldn't have been able to deport Chindamo whether or not we were bound by the ECHR: under EU law, we could only do so if he was thought to be a 'risk to the public'. The tribunal that considered his case thought he didn't present that risk.

If that EU law had not kicked in, then yes, possibly, the HRA (or ECHR) might have done so and prevented deportation. Chindamo came to the UK when he was 6, and had no family in Italy (but a mother and brothers over here). He was 15 when he killed Philip Lawrence and 25 when (briefly) released from prison. Unless we were also to deport his mother and brothers (on what basis?) - would 'common sense' really send him 'back' to Italy, a country he doesn't know at all and where he knows no-one, because of a crime he committed when only a child? Common sense is harsh, in that case, stupid, vindictive - and unchristian (since that is the value the torygraph prizes above all others - except perhaps for 'britishness').

The article goes on to deal with another human rights blunder:

In July, the European Court of Human Rights blocked the extradition to the United States of Abu Hamza, the radical Muslim cleric, and a number of other suspects who were due to stand trial for alleged terrorist offences. Given that British courts had already approved their extradition, the ECHR judgment was a direct infringement on this country's judicial sovereignty. It is this kind of case – rather than that of Chindamo – that makes the situation intolerable.

Huff puff puff. Let's look at some of the things that happen in a supermax gaol, which is where Hamza would have been put - probably for the rest of his life. Extracts from the European Court's judgement.

ADX Florence was the only federal “supermax” prison. It was a 490-bed facility with single occupancy cells, which opened in 1994. The decision to place an inmate at ADX Florence relied on a classification system based on the risk posed by a prisoner...

90. ... a Time magazine article of 5 November 2006 ... described spartan cells and almost no contact between prisoners and other people, since food, mail and laundry were passed through a slot in the cell door. Prisoners were strip-searched before they were allowed to exercise. There were also staff shortages which caused irregular meal times, reduced telephone calls and exercise time. A television interview with a former warden also described frequent force-feeding as a result of hunger strikes by prisoners in protest at their conditions.

91. The applicants also provided a report by a psychiatrist, Dr Terry Kupers, which had been prepared specifically for the present proceedings. He considered that a supermax prison regime did not amount to sensory deprivation but there was an almost total lack of meaningful human communication. This tended to induce a range of psychological symptoms ranging from panic to psychosis and emotional breakdown. All studies into the effects of supermax detention had found such symptoms after sixty days' detention. Once such symptoms presented, it was not sufficient to return someone to normal prison conditions in order to remedy them. If supermax detention were imposed for an indeterminate period it also led to chronic despair. Approximately half of suicides in prison involved the 6 8% of prisoners held in such conditions. The effects of supermax conditions were worse for someone with pre-existing mental health problems. Dr Kuper's conclusions were supported by a number of journal articles by psychologists and criminologists, which the applicants provided.

Babar Ahmad and others vs the United Kingdom

For more on the psychological effects of solitary confinement, see the Istanbul statement on the use and effects of solitary confinement, adopted at the International Psychological Trauma Symposium in December 2007. David Cameron and the Daily Torygraph should note that:

The use of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolutely prohibited under international law (Article 7 of the UN convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN convention against Torture (CAT), for example). The UN Human Rights Committee has stipulated that use of prolonged solitary confinement may amount to a breach of Article 7 of the ICCPR (General comment 20/44, 3. April 1992). The UN Committee against Torture has made similar statements, with particular reference to the use of solitary confinement during pre-trial detention.

From the Istanbul statement

Here is the relevant passage from the United Nations Human Rights Committee:

“The Committee reiterates its concern that conditions in some maximum security prisons are incompatible with the obligation contained in article 10 (1) of the Covenant to treat detainees with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. It is particularly concerned by the practice in some such institutions to hold detainees in prolonged cellular confinement, and to allow them out-of-cell recreation for only five hours per week, in general conditions of strict regimentation in a depersonalized environment. It is also concerned that such treatment cannot be reconciled with the requirement in article 10 (3) that the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment the essential aim of which shall be the reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners. It also expresses concern about the reported high numbers of severely mentally ill persons in these prisons, as well as in regular in [sic] U.S. jails.

The State party should scrutinize conditions of detention in prisons, in particular in maximum security prisons, with a view to guaranteeing that persons deprived of their liberty be treated in accordance with the requirements of article 10 of the Covenant and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.”

General Comment 20

And this from the UN Committee Against Torture:

“The Committee remains concerned about the extremely harsh regime imposed on detainees in 'supermaximum prisons'. The Committee is concerned about the prolonged isolation periods detainees are subjected to, the effect such treatment has on their mental health, and that its purpose may be retribution, in which case it would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 16).

The State party should review the regime imposed on detainees in 'supermaximum prisons', in particular the practice of prolonged isolation.”

Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, United States of America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, 18 May 2006, paragraph 36

So.

We can repeal the Human Rights Act, back out of the European Union and the Council of Europe, rescind ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and of the Convention against Torture (UN CAT) - and then we can send Abu Hamza off to a super-max gaol to be tortured. Or we could just do it ourselves.