Tara Lyle: The cat is out of the bag over May’s human rights claims

In her speech to the Conservative Party Conference on Tuesday, she undoubtedly blundered when she cited an erroneous example of where human rights legislation had been used to stop an “illegal immigrant” being removed.

The Home Secretary went on to say: “I am not making this up – he had a pet cat.”

If she had checked, Theresa May could have quickly discovered that, in the words of a statement from the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, “the cat had nothing to do with the decision”.

Indeed the cat case was totally debunked several years ago. A cat was mentioned by an immigration judge, but was just a passing reference.

In fact a legal case to have this person removed was turned down, not because of the Human Rights Act, but because the Home Office’s own guidance stipulated that it should be.

What is really worrying though, and disappointing, is that this misrepresentation of the truth, by the Home Secretary no less, is just one illustration of the myths and misunderstandings that abound when it comes to human rights generally and the Human Rights Act in particular.

It is to her shame that Theresa May has jumped on the bandwagon. What she is doing is really political posturing designed to play to the gallery.

Theresa May has a very serious job to do. Her role involves ensuring that the population of Britain is protected. And that so are all our rights.

The Home Secretary should be an advocate of the hard-won legislation that Britain has indeed long championed.

We shouldn’t forget that the Human Rights Act grew out of the need to protect fundamental rights and freedoms in the wake of the horrors of the Second World War.

Now, and amazingly, human rights are being cast as a pantomime villain. Let’s recap, rights are designed to spell out what every human is entitled to by virtue of being a human being. Regardless of race, age or gender.

These are fundamental beliefs that we share as a country, and as people. We do not believe in torture. That is an immovable timeless truth that we have collectively decided upon. We believe in education, safety, a family life, religious freedoms, the right to peaceful protest and to a fair trial.

I wonder which of the rights here Theresa May views as expendable. These are not pick-and-mix rights. They all co-exist and apply to everyone.

Yet human rights have long been a whipping-boy of parts of the media. And for some politicians. There is an idea being put about that human rights send power to Europe and that Europe makes us do things we don’t want to.

Critics of the Human Rights Act should be honest – if we scrapped it then instead of cases being heard in UK courts, people would have to go to European courts in Strasbourg if they wished to challenge a decision.

Far from bringing power home, it would outsource decision-making.

Neither are human rights as blunt and inflexible as is being claimed. Some rights are subject to limitations, such as the right to freedom when people are deprived of it – in other words when they are jailed.

Even the much talked about right to a family life protected by Article 8 in the ECHR is not an absolute right, as Theresa May has herself acknowledged.

There are so many aspects of any case that a court must balance in “family” cases, including the seriousness of the crime and the best interests of any children.

Overall then, it reduces our capacity to champion human rights in fledgling democracies such as Egypt and Libya if we traduce and undermine human rights at home.

It seems such an obviously contradictory position to adopt when our own Home Secretary is denouncing human rights, even as the Foreign Secretary is trying to promote them overseas. Instead we should be proud of our legacy as human rights champions.

This discussion about scrapping the Act is nothing but a cheap and ill-informed effort to undermine the rights that belong to all of us.

Suggesting that we cannot punish criminals without abusing their human rights is simply lazy commentary and also untrue.

Cat flaps aside, politicians have a duty to inform the public accurately about human rights. In this instance, clarity should begin at the Home Office.