Few news bulletins pass without some reference to immigration and in particular the arrival on our shores of people in small boats. It has generated an enormous amount of passion and has become a deeply divisive issue.
The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has made two statements to Parliament promising a series of measures which will radically reduce the rights of people who have arrived here in the past, many of whom are working in the NHS, in the care sector, and elsewhere in the economy. If Mahmood’s proposals come to fruition, some would find themselves unable to achieve indefinite leave to remain even after living and working in the UK for 20 years.
To enable this to happen, they claim, we have to radically modify the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This suggestion also relates to the Human Rights Act (HRA) which incorporates the rights set out in the ECHR into British law. The Government has described the proposed changes as “the most sweeping asylum reforms in modern times”.
The current debate has focused on the narrow issue of immigration and the irregular boat crossings. Clearly, the government has been rattled by public anger, a fierce campaign in the right-wing media, and dramatically falling poll ratings.
Deeper issue at stake
Yet there may be a deeper issue beneath some parties’ distaste for the ECHR. After all, the drive to abolish or reform the HRA was a feature of several Conservative manifestos long before the boat crossings became such a problem. The Tories often labelled it “Labour’s Human Rights Act” when it was in fact a bi-partisan measure.
The HRA was essentially a shift in power. For the first time in our history, citizens were given specific rights and a means to challenge state power. Perhaps it is this shift which lies at the heart of the dislike of the Act and of the Convention.
Many of the rights we enjoy – even take for granted – were not given to the people but dragged from governments, sometimes after years or decades of protest. Enfranchisement is an example with a long, slow history. Women’s suffrage took around six decades to achieve with much struggle, first by the suffragists and later the suffragettes. It is noteworthy that the very word “suffragette” was coined by a Daily Mail reporter to belittle the campaigning women. This serves as a metaphor for how women were viewed by the male establishment of the time. Some women reading this may think not much has changed.
The democratic gulf
People imagine when they vote in elections that they are having some kind of say in the running of the country. Were that to be the case. The pantomime of our election process hides the fact that most control of the political narrative is in the hands of a tiny handful of men: the owners of our newspapers and the tech oligarchs who determine what we read, what we see on our screens, and what is on social media.
As James Madison reminds us, “all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree”. And these men exercise considerable power over governments and ministers. They loathe the BBC, for example, precisely because despite its faults it does try to convey truth and facts.
They also loathe the EHRC and the HRA because the rights enshrined within represent a threat to their control and power. Those who possess power never want to share it. However much power they have, they always want more.
Another tactic to accumulate this power has been the introduction of more and more legislation to limit protests. This started with the last government and is being added to by the current one. Ministers do not like protests. They attract attention and shine a light on disliked or hated policies.
Many people are angry at the lack of support given to Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state, for example, and have attended protests to express their disquiet. Police powers to prevent or limit protests have markedly increased in response, leading to hundreds of arrests.
Be aware
I would argue that the row around immigration is being used as an excuse to try and limit the influence of ECHR powers and our rights generally. We do not need to weaken the Convention to control our borders. All we need is a functioning Home Office.
This desire to diminish the ECHR and HRA, and implement ever more controls on protests is deeply worrying. The ECHR and HRA convey hard-won rights, and we should be greatly concerned at attempts to remove them.
The families of Hillsborough used the Act to achieve justice. The victims of John Worboys also needed it as did those subject to police infiltration in the Spycops scandal. The shift in power to ordinary people which the HRA enabled – providing the means to challenge bad decisions, indifference, or incompetence – is resented in the corridors of power.
Ministers cannot of course come out and say this openly; they must find an excuse. The “crisis” in immigration gives them the cover they need. The reality is that even if they achieve their wish, it will not solve their problems.
The road to autocracy consists of a series of small individual steps. We should be very, very aware.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
