Catgate

Theresa May at the Tory conference raised the subject of an illegal Bolivian migrant, who, according to May, persuaded a British judge to allow him to stay on the basis of his pet cat (or Felis Catus, to use its more formal name...). Her purpose was clear: to undermine the standing of the Human Rights Act as part of a debate within the Coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Conservatives are determined to see its repeal, whilst us Lib Dems want to see its preservation and rightly so!

International Human Rights is a subject close to the hearts of Liberals and is the hallmark of a just society. Maintaining proper provision for human rights within a society ensures the freedom of individuals against the state, which is a fundamental part of Liberalism

It was quite frankly a juvenile speech and May showed painful ignorance of how the HRA operates, perhaps to rouse the Tory audience who seem to view the HRA as a threat to our national security (the usual right wing hyperbole). Theresa, let me be frank - judges do not make decisions on the basis of pet cats - I mean please! The Bolivian individual concerned had to show evidence of domestic life as part of his case on why he should remain, of which his pet cat was one piece of evidence and he was able to demonstrate a domestic life with his British partner and therefore could remain. Her advisors and speech writers were to be frank irresponsible in their analysis. Thank goodness for Ken Clarke at the Ministry of Justice (I think Ms May would struggle in that department).

After World War II, the European Convention of Human Rights was drafted. British lawyers had a significant input in shaping this ground breaking document. Europe had been torn apart by war, death and genocide and the purpose of this document was to ensure that never again would such barbarism return to our continent. Britain is a signatory to the convention and even if the HRA was to be abolished, would remain in that convention.

Under the old system, claimants had to seek redress in Strasbourg on Human Rights cases, It was just such a painful and slow process with claimants having to look to Strasbourg for resolution, which can now happen in our domestic courts. The Human Rights Act merely incorporated that convention into British domestic law but did not invent additional rights that were not already available. If we were to abolish the act, we would merely return to the old system, which was ludicrous. It was a fine achievement of Tony Blair's government that this act was put into law.

We should all be proud of our Liberal tradition in human rights in this country, that we seek to protect the dignity of man by ensuring the basic rights of life for individuals. I am also proud that this country is decent enough to give migrants/refugees or other vulnerable groups respect and protection through the legislation, as that demonstrates to the world the kind of society we want to be. A society that seeks to protect and not abandon. The irresponsible Tory rhetoric mustn't be allowed to undermine this tradition and Liberals must seek to protect it and defend human rights.