YESTERDAY the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon chose the Pearce Institute in Govan to announce that the Scottish Government would not grant the consent needed by the UK Government to scrap the Human Rights Act or to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Human Rights Act was passed through the UK Parliament in 1998 and came into force on October 2, 2000.
Since then it has became one of the foundations of British society; a landmark which societies seek to preserve because of its importance to human life in a turbulent modern world.
Its very existence allows our communities and societies to progress because it is embedded in our subconscious that our rights as human beings are protected by law.
The European Convention of Human Rights also protects our most basic rights. The right to life; the right to a fair trial; no punishment without law; and the freedom of expression.
We have to wonder why any Government anywhere in the world would want to remove itself from these fundamental rights.
The right-wing Conservative government in Westminster is seeking to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. What exactly a British Bill of Rights would look like is anyone’s guess.
The First Minister also raised this concern. Who gets to determine what is in and what is out?
Are we to rely on the judgement of a Conservative government that has already been accused of human rights violations by many campaign groups in relation to their attacks on welfare?
It isn’t just recently that the Conservative Party has spoken out against the Human Rights Act. When Michael Howard (the “did you threaten to overrule him” guy) was leader of the Conservative Party in 2005, he ran with an election promise to overhaul or scrap the Human Rights Act. Needless to say they suffered their third electoral defeat on this pledge.
It is with these concerns I feel Nicola Sturgeon’s position on this issue has to be supported and commended.
The Human Rights Act protects everyone in our society. In the near future, we will be taking many vulnerable refugees whose human rights have been violated in the most grotesque way in their war-torn countries.
They are currently viewed as equals under these acts. If we were to supplant this legislation with a British Bill of Rights, would they then be treated as less than human? Would the rights of the British citizen be superior to those in our country who are not (yet) citizens?
What is most interesting about Sturgeon’s choice of location to make this announcement is that Govan is a very diverse area. We have a multitude of people from all races and all walks of life. There are groups such as the Govan/Craigton Integration Network who already integrate asylum seekers into our community.
I think I speak on behalf of most people in Govan that we support her stance on protecting all of our human rights.
We do not want the rights of the vulnerable members of our community to be diminished simply because they aren’t “British”.
There is no Government in the world that should be allowed to deny these rights to people, especially the current UK Government when their own record on human rights has been called into question recently.
Sturgeon tells Westminster: We’ll never agree to scrapping Human Rights Act
The National View, September 24: Why keeping the Human Rights Act is vital to all the UK
Letters to The National, September 24: 56 MPs are fighting for our human rights
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here