Human Rights v Civil Liberties
Is there a contradiction in asking the state to protect our civil liberties?
Liberty Annual Conference, Saturday 8 June 2002 Conway Hall, London

Peter Rossi

John Wadham, Director of Liberty, opened the conference with a call for 'Liberty to engage with the libertarian political tradition, in whichever political party'. Thus the scene was set for a day of debating within a narrowly defined intra-governmental framework, more akin to a Fabian meeting, that any purporting to promote liberty. The aim of the debate seemed to be limited to how the current political system could be fiddled with, rather than asking if the system is intrinsically flawed.

Indeed, Liberty have given up on the libertarian tradition, stating that it cannot help promote liberty within the current political system. Instead, they advocate placing a positive duty on the state, mainly through the Human Rights Act (1998), not to infringe our freedoms. It was not unsurprising then to hear the Attorney General, Lord Peter Goldsmith QC, arguing that there is no contradiction in asking the state to protect our liberties, and that 'civil liberties and human rights are two sides of the same coin'. In an otherwise uncontroversial speech, Steven Norris, ex-Conservative MP, made the valid point (one of a rare species on the day) that Civil Liberties are an 'oppositional issue', which suffer from amnesia when a party takes power. He reiterated Liberty's dismissal of libertarian ideals, stating that they are 'sadly, now outdated and discredited!'

A workshop titled 'Libertarian Right v Liberal Left: insurmountable differences?' (one of four ran concurrently), promised much, but in the end delivered very little. Chris Tame (Libertarian Alliance), was paired with Tess Gill (Old Square Chambers), who had clearly dropped off the left edge of every liberal political scale. Chris Tame submitted us to a tirade against what he called the 'police state', labelled a 'tedious rant' by an audience interruption, before Tess Gill advocated 'extensive' government interference. Hinting at the contemporary proliferation of Human Rights, as they are known, she cautioned that 'any Right can go too far and become impractical', yet then attempted to sell us the benefits of the minimum wage, workers' Rights,...etc. I wouldn't like to live in her world, in case she decides that upholding the Right to life (ie: not to be murdered), is a little tiresome, and resources could be better used in guaranteeing people jobs.

This fetishistic drive to legislate desires as Human Rights is, it seems to me, utterly perverse in nearly every sense. How can a Right, if properly limited to those that are inalienable to humans, by virtue of being human, be 'impractical'? It is the creation of workers' Rights, gay Rights, gender Rights and the rest, that has introduced the concept of impractibility. Are these people not humans? The reply came that it is discrimination against these groups that has prompted the call for Human Rights. However, this response suggests that if Human Rights were not created, they would not exist. Why not treat everyone as an individual human being and respect the concomitant responsibilities? Do we need to further divide society by giving different groups different Rights?

A further problem with the Human Rights Act, as discussed by Claire Fox in the final session of the day, is the length and breadth of the qualifying remarks contained in it. For example, article ten, in relation to freedom of expression, except in the case of threat to territorial integrity, protection of other's reputations...etc. The number of qualifying remarks suggests that, government bureaucracy aside, the Rights themselves are worthless. What type of Right is it that requires so many qualifying remarks, if any at all?

The rest of the final session was overshadowed by Imran Khan's surprisingly racist tone. I use the term 'racist' with care, but I can think of no other word for someone who advocates affirmative action in compensation for a 'skewed' system and states that the only people who think about race/gender are those discriminated against. Have we not heard similar rhetoric from the racist groups in the north of England and Europe recently? His defence of positive discrimination against the charge of 'reverse racism' was based on the difference between the oppressed and the oppressing. It should not be controversial to say that positive discrimination or affirmative action is racist (sexist), because that concept is implicit in its design: to discriminate on the basis of race (gender). Of course, there may be institutional racism and if so, that is not acceptable. A level playing field is, or should be, the universal starting point, and a racist system cannot meet this condition. However, by using racism as a 'means to an end', as suggested by Imran Khan, you turn the goal into a chimera, because you necessitate continual interference to maintain the desired balance.

The answer to the question in the title of the conference: 'is there a contradiction in asking the state to protect our freedoms?', seemed to be unequivocally 'No'. However, the discussions did not begin to question the consequences of having a state so receptive to assiduous rent-seeking, and was not concerned with the implications of adding even more legislation to the 4150 regulations issued in 2001 alone. As a result, the conference failed to even get off the ground.