In what ways, and to what extent, is the Human Rights Act controversial?

The Human Rights Act (HRA), introduced in 1998, has been emotive
ammunition in the House of Commons since its inception. The bill itself is
uncontroversial; the controversy comes from its implications and so in the
seventeen years since passing through both houses it has divided parties in
an era of consensus.
A key issue for politicians is the ethical debate of who is entitled to
their human rights. The indefinite detainment of terrorists in Belmarsh Prison
in 2004 was ruled as unlawful because it breached the right to a fair trial and
no punishment without law. While the government has a duty to protect the
public from harm they also have a duty to protect the rights of the individual.
The Law Lords ruling over the Belmarsh Terrorists only added to the
controversy. For some the Human Rights Act is used to protect those who
intend to cause harm and is seen because of this as very controversial.
The interpretation of the Human Rights Act is done by unelected judges
who cannot be held accountable. The HRA has been perceived to give too
much power to judges and has changed Common Law in previous cases, like
sentencing times. Judges have manipulated and changed governmental
plans. The intended bill over detention time was for holding prisoners without
trial for 28 days. This was however voted down in the House because it
impeded on the right to freedom, a 14 day detention period was then
introduced. The Human Rights Act has changed Common Law, done through
judge made decisions, and this means it is controversial.
The Human Rights Act is a divisive political issue both between and
within parties. Eurosceptic Tories like Jacob Rees-Mogg and UKIP Members like
Nigel Farage support a 'British Bill of Human Rights.' This would probably
reduce the rights of immigrants seeking asylum. Currently people have the
right to a family which has allowed several people to remain in the UK
because a forced emigration would impede on this right. The Human Rights
Act protects asylum seekers and is therefore seen as controversial because it
is universal to all people regardless of their actions.
One way the HRA is controversial is because of its seemingly wavering
impact. Prisoners in the UK are denied their right to vote, regardless of their
sentence length. This is controversial to a large extent because the law
should not be flexible or varying. This relates to the previous point over who
should be protected by the HRA. Despite being proved guilty of crimes,
prisoners are still humans and therefore by refusing their right to vote their
rights are being impeded.
The most controversial issue with the Human Rights Act is the fact is
not enforced by a UK court of law but rather the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR). At a time of divide over Europe the HRA is controversial to a
large extent because it hands over law making powers to another body that

is not elected by the British people. Some politicians believe Europe holds too
much power and we are submitting to their ideas as oppose to holding up our
own values, which causes the suggestion for a British Bill of Human Rights
as well as withdrawal from the European Union.
However in many ways the HRA is uncontroversial. The majority of
legislation contained in the Act reflects current UK laws anyway. There are
few debates any politician or philosopher could put forward as to explain why
Human Rights are not an acceptable concept. The HRA not only reflects the
law but holds it up allowing for protection of the minority that can sometimes
be lost in a political legislature. Also the ECHR agrees with the vast majority
of the HRA so Europe does not hold as much power as some sceptical Tory
MPs would make out.
The HRA is not a controversial piece of legislation. Few would argue its
contents are somehow undemocratic. The controversy arises from the
judgements passed down by individual judges on individual cases. However,
they are chosen to do this job by the Judicial Appointments Committee that
contains at least 6 lay people and go through rigorous training and
experience to maintain their neutrality and independence. Human Rights are
vital and should be protected, by having the HRA in place the Governments
protection of its own citizens can be scrutinised better. Although some
consider a British Bill of Human Rights to be better it would largely mirror
what is already in place. The name attached to such a bill can disregarded. As
a leading nation on the world stage we must be an example of Human Rights
protectors and the HRA allows us to do that.