|
No right to be judge, jury and executioner
 The
controversy over the future of the killer of London headmaster Philip
Lawrence signals what could be another disturbing erosion of civil liberties.
PAUL DONOVAN argues the government must stand firm and not be swayed by
a right-wing media campaign.
THE EMOTIONAL outburst by Frances Lawrence over the decision of an immigration
court not to deport Learco Chindamo the murderer of her husband
Philip does not serve justice well.
Chindamo was sentenced to life in 1996 for murdering headmaster Philip
Lawrence.
The punishment for that crime was the denial of his liberty. Once he has
served his life sentence then the punishment will be completed.
The decision as to what happens next regarding deportation is one entirely
for the courts.
When he does come out Chindamo will be on parole and no doubt under close
supervision.
What Mrs Lawrence appears to be asking for is the power for her personally
to go on punishing the individual concerned.
While the hurt she has suffered must be immeasurable she cannot now step
into the breach declaring herself to be judge, jury and executioner.
She does herself no credit by calling into question the Human Rights Act
(HRA). Indeed, she demonstrates only a misunderstanding of the concept
of inalienable human rights.
The HRA by its very nature guarantees every individual their human rights.
Inalienability means that every individual has those rights, they are
not to be given and taken away according the whim of a politician or grieving
widow.
What Mrs Lawrence appears to be saying is that human rights are not inalienable
but tradable. She as the widow of the victim should have the power to
take away the human rights of the offender. This position is completely
at odds with the idea of inalienability.
The government role in the whole affair has been shabby to say the least.
Never slow to exploit a populist opportunity, it has jumped into the high
profile case to defend Mrs Lawrence’s corner against the courts.
This is the same government, let’s remember, that continually erodes
every citizen’s human rights to the point where recently it has
detained people without trial for years on end.
Unfortunately, Mrs Lawrence’s outburst has now been seized upon
by opponents of the HRA as another good reason to do away with the legislation.
The Conservative Party and a number of right wing tabloids have been in
the vanguard of this movement to abolish the HRA.
It really ought to be a no-brainer in political terms. Who in their right
mind would vote for a party that is campaigning for the removal of their
own human rights?
The Conservative Party of course has form regarding the denial of human
rights to citizens when it was in government.
Irish people in particular will remember how in case after case they were
denied justice and forced through all the domestic courts before finally
ending up at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg for
a judgment.
One such famous case was that of the three IRA volunteers shot down by
the SAS in Gibraltar.
It took years for the families and legal teams to finally exhaust all
the domestic courts before arriving at the ECHR where the unlawful killing
verdicts were finally returned.
The then Conservative Government fought the Gibraltar and many other Irish
cases all the way.
So it was a great relief when the Labour Government brought in the HRA
which simply brought the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic
law thereby removing the need to go to Strasbourg to get a remedy.
It does not say much for the quality of public discourse in Britain that
legislation simply guaranteeing human rights can be so misrepresented
as to appear like a charter for criminals.
Irish people know all too well the cost of giving the police and security
services more powers and resources to do the job without the accompanying
responsibility and human rights structures of accountability.
The government has got itself caught in a cleft stick situation. They
are the authors of the HRA yet unwilling to defend the legislation in
cases like that of Lawrence and Chindamo where the populist fury has been
whipped up.
The biggest fear always for the gutless politician is of appearing unpopular.
There is the real danger that the Lawrences and Chindamo will in the end
be used as pawns in the ongoing game of removing citizen’s human
rights on the basis of the need for security and the law and order of
all.
Given the lack of a written constitution in Britain and the ongoing constant
effort to reduce citizen’s human rights the HRA and all it stands
for are more crucial today than ever before.
Indeed with further incursions on liberty like identity cards on the way
the need is for more guarantees of human rights from Europe not less.
In an increasingly authoritarian country the HRA is an important guarantor
of everyone’s human rights.
There will be times when people disagree with decisions but for the good
of us all these decisions must remain with the courts, not populist politicians
or even grieving widows. |
