We stand up for human value – we proudly defend the Human Rights Act

If you’re part of the Labour Party, or hold any similar values, you will certainly share the absolute belief in respect and dignity for everyone. I don’t think anyone in our movement, with our principles, would disagree.

And so, with those common values, we are entirely right to stand up, loud and proud, for the Human Rights Act.

The publication this week of Human Rights: Reflections on the 1998 Act by Jonathan Cooper in Stephen Hockman’s Law Reform 2015 (with foreword by Ed Miliband), brings us a thoroughly compelling perspective, founded on legal and intellectual arguments, and most importantly, a belief in the value of every human being, from which we can argue without reservation for the promotion and defence of the Human Rights Act.

Jonathan tells a narrative of the Human Rights Act, enriched by combining his own lived experience of human value and rights, along with the expertise and knowledge of his profession as a barrister and activist.

This is extremely useful intellectually and legally, but it’s also great stuff for those of us on the doorstep – as we face many people who have, quite understandably, been bamboozled with right-wing rhetoric on the issue.

For me it’s quite clear, that, as community representatives, activists, and politicians, we’re here to lead on these issues and not to follow.

But let’s set out the language of this conviction plainly.

The point is clear: there is nothing fancy about the Human Rights Act. It does what it says on the tin: it protects fundamental human rights. The rights reflected in the Act come from the European Convention on Human Rights, which was written by a Brit ([lowers voice] a Tory one, at that). So, we must directly confront the false claim that the Act imposes rights that are somehow foreign, or lacking in Britishness. As all of this matters in the sphere of the media, and within people’s perceptions, we must emphasise that these are absolutely British values and rights.

More importantly, there are the resoundingly positive areas of advancement, made possible only by the Act – think of children’s rights and LGBTI people, just to start (and then read Jonathan’s chapter for more on this). Indeed, the chapter points out the massive irony of a right wing media that derides the Act, but is always up for screaming frenetically whenever there is a remotely possible threat to the right of freedom of expression. Strange, isn’t it?

We need to confront the protagonists of the incoherent movement to destroy the Act – the likes of Chris Grayling and Theresa May – and ask them which rights they actually want to remove. Maybe the right to a fair trial? Or the prohibition of slavery and forced labour? Perhaps the prohibition of discrimination? I think you get the point.

As Jonathan reminds us, John Smith initiated the project, progressed by key players such as Tony Blair and Jack Straw, and so we should feel empowered to own it with real conviction.

At the same time, we never shut ourselves off from reform – but let’s not take for granted the Act and what it stands for, not for one single minute. We know all too well that rights oscillate between advancement and retrenchment, and we could easily see a decline in the rights that we have so fiercely fought for.

Charles Smith is the Parliamentary Candidate for Maidenhead