Human rights laws have been “very beneficial” in improving standards even though some cases can be “irksome” and “costly” for the government, according to a former attorney general.
Dominic Grieve QC said the Human Rights Act had made public bodies “pay attention to human rights in making decisions, particularly those affecting the old, vulnerable and children” and has led to an “improvement in standards.”
Mr Grieve, who was in post between 2010 and 2014, made the comments after the Government confirmed former Court of Appeal judge Sir Peter Gross would lead a panel to consider whether the Act needs to be reformed, some 20 years after it was brought into force.
Independent Human Rights Act Review: Parliamentary Committee calls for evidence
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is seeking views to help inform its response to the Government s independent review of the Human Rights Act and its outcome.
The Committee would welcome submissions which focus on one or more of the following issues:
Has the Human Rights Act led to individuals being more able to enforce their human rights in the UK? How easy or difficult is it for different people to enforce their Human Rights?
How has the operation of the Human Rights Act made a difference in practice for public authorities? Has this change been for better or worse?
At the end of November Joshua Leifer, an Associate Editor of
Jewish Currents [
JC], wrote an article about the “tragedy” of Jeremy Corbyn. He did not seek the opinions of any Jewish victims of the “antisemitism” witchhunt in the Labour Party. As the first Jewish member of the party to be expelled I submitted a response.
At first I was simply ignored and after a reminder, Arielle Angel, Editor-in-chief, explained that it was a lack of resources that prevented them publishing my reply.
JC “simply do not have the bandwidth to publish full response articles to articles we’ve published”. So I am publishing my response here.