Thursday, 18 February 2010

What's not to love?

   Like most people, I have strongly held political views. I generally keep them to myself though because they're something on which I can become large-and-loud, and that's never a good thing.
   However a mail that recently landed in my inbox contained something that I think is worth passing on. I am not a member of any political party as each of the UK parties worth considering annoy me in their own way so the only political organisation that gets any of my cash is Liberty, the UK civil liberties and human rights pressure group.
   Back in 1998 the British government brought UK law into line with the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights by passing the Human Rights Act. Since then the Act has been jumped upon by the more vocal and nutty side of the Press as being there only to help all sorts of ne'er-do-wells escape the justice they deserve while completely ignoring that its real purpose is to guarantee some basic human rights for all of us in a way that due to our unwritten constitution we hadn't enjoyed before. Of great benefit to groups such as transgendered people, as you might imagine.
   Happily Liberty have been doing their best to redress the negative perception of the Act, to counter some of the myths and to try to educate the public on what it does for them rather than simply what it does for others. To that end they've launched their "What's not to love?" campaign. So next time you encounter some idiot ranting about how the Human Rights Act is simply a vehicle for immigrant terrorist paedophile travellers (or whatever other group the Express is having a go at today) to evade their Just Deserts, you can now refute them with some help from Liberty.

That URL in full:


  1. Although I veer to the centre-right on law and order matters, I do agree with you that the Human Rights Act is used as 'code' for bigotry when often the issue is how it used (and some of the rulings by Law Lords)rather than what it actually says.
    I've plenty of time for Liberty personally.
    Regards Caroline

  2. I guess that people see the way a law is used, and the law itself as the same thing. I have to say that whilst I agree with the law itself - some of the interpretations of it can devalue it somewhat.

    BTW Express? I thought they spent there time on Dianna specials, I thought it was the Mail that that just had a go at whatever group they felt like at the time. :) (as in your link I just noticed)


  3. If you'd told me fifteen years ago I'd be a Liberty member I'd have said you were mad. Then came ID cards, house arrest, blanket CCTV etc and it became rapidly obvious that they were the only serious pressure group on our side.

    I too think they're a bit to the left of me on some issues but I realise that if you want human rights you have to take the whole package, even the bits that might help people you don't like.

  4. They sound much like our American Civil Liberties Union. Right-wingers here like to call people they don't agree with "card-carrying members of the ACLU." And just like Liberty, they protect everyone, despite leaning left in their politics. Rights are for everyone, even regular people!

    Great group to support!

  5. @Stace: The Express is split 3 ways, 1/3 Diana/Madeleine McCann, 1/3 "Miracle pill found that will extend life indefinitely!" stories, and 1/3 "Immigrant paedophiles are stealing our hospital beds" foam-flecked rants about 6 weeks after the Mail has them.

    @Leslie: exact match. Liberty don't issue cards, but if they did I'd be a card-carrying member.