OPINION: Does Suella Braverman believe in Universal Human Rights?
Dr Mursheda Chowdhury, Chair of the Refugee Buddy Project, gives a personal analysis of our Home Secretary’s philosophy.
On Wednesday 10 August 2022, the Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP gave a keynote speech at the Policy Exchange – a Conservative “think tank” which purports to inform government policy – entitled ‘Equalities and Rights: Conflict and the need for Clarity’. Her speech was highly informative because within it she outlined her philosophy of Human Rights, which inevitably informs and justifies her views on “illegal migration”.
This speech may have gone largely under the radar with other news dominating the airwaves, and the fact that it was delivered to a receptive audience in an echo chamber. But we ignore it at our peril. Her re-appointment, as Home Secretary, by the Sunak administration, bodes ill for the future. Many of her words, if they are allowed to take root, will be repeated by the commentariat, and eventually by Joe Public, as factual and reasonable without any questioning. And we will find ourselves somehow collectively accepting the morally unacceptable. No doubt Suella Braverman’s skill as a trained and articulate barrister gives her the edge over Priti Patel in the ability to use sophistry to convince the doubters to accept even the most glaring Human Rights violations.
SOME BABIES ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
So, let’s critically examine the details of her philosophy of Human Rights. She states that “Conservatism contends that Human Rights are ‘inherited’ as opposed to ‘natural’, and “tradition is the tool to ground the abstract in the concrete,” and that these rights are ultimately bestowed and upheld by “Parliamentary Sovereignty.” If rights can only be inherited – that is, predetermined by an accident of birth, or place of birth – there is no concept of universal Human Rights, natural to every baby born on this planet. According to her philosophy, some babies should have fewer rights than others. To put it another way, some babies are more equal than others. If this is the case she cannot agree with Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948: “We are all born free”, and Article 25: “All children should have the same rights when they are born”. Indeed, she would be hard pressed to prove that her philosophy of Human Rights harmonises with the UN Declaration, as she claims. Her philosophy clearly, directly opposes it. (She claims to believe, rather absurdly, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 merely recognised the rights already enjoyed by British People, thanks, presumably, to the infinite wisdom of British Parliamentarians down the years. As if the UN was simply helping the world to aspire to be British.) Perhaps she was hoping that no-one would notice her implicit rejection of the Declaration.
CREDIT: Andrew Grainger
It can easily be argued by those versed in philosophy that her concept of Human Rights is actually not based on traditional Conservatism, as she asserts. Those pre-eminent philosophers of capitalist thought, John Locke and Adam Smith, contended that Human Rights are ‘natural’ and ‘fundamental,’ and that these ‘natural’ rights may, or may not, be enshrined in man-made law. Either way, such rights exist.
RIGHTS NOT GIVEN, BUT WON
Suella Braverman’s re-writing of History continues in her speech through her pronouncements that Human Rights were based on English tradition, bestowed by Parliament; omitting the fact that these rights had to be fought for and were not freely given by the largesse of a powerful Parliament. The “rich heritage of rights” she patriotically refers to, but declines to detail, were actually hard won by ordinary people. Ordinary people who suffered and died for those causes: the Suffragists, the Chartists, the Abolitionists, the Trade Unionists, such as the Tolpuddle Martyrs, and many others. Instead, she credits the conferring of the right to vote for women in 1928, for example, to the Conservative government at the time, without any reference to the years of struggle by ordinary women and men to achieve this, despite the barriers put up by Conservative (and Liberal) administrations up until that point. It is a sad reality of human history that rights – that should be natural and inalienable – have always had to be wrested from the powerful. Her arguments only serve to convince me that in Suella’s view, the status quo is very much as it should be.
The notion that Parliament granted all of our rights, because it has always been the generator and guardian of British liberties, is obvious nonsense. Anyone with a passing knowledge of British history will know that Parliament itself, as an attempt at democracy, was peopled for many centuries, well into the twenty-first century, by landed gentry, the rich and the privileged classes. Any claim that it has always represented the voices and interests of the people, collapses on the simple fact that the majority of people were not even allowed to vote until the twentieth century. Even today, being an Eton alumnus remains a major advantage in gaining a seat at the heart of power. (The fact that Sunak went to Winchester College, only serves to underline the continuing dominance of a handful of schools.)
It is a dangerous idea that parliament should be the ultimate arbiter in deciding rights and wrongs, when it is blatantly obvious that the ‘honourable’ members are not above breaking the law themselves. Numerous scandals over the years evidence that a fair number of them struggle to comply with ethical standards, in both the public and private spheres. So, for Parliament to have the “final word” as she proclaims, peopled as it is with such flawed members, is surely morally and ethically problematic. Her preamble to this assertion is inevitably an appeal to patriotic pride, which is a well-known technique of the powerful to benumb the minds of their subjects.
A FLAWED CONCEPT
The term ‘illegal migration’ is one that has gained traction in political and public discourse even though it is a flawed concept, and not recognised by the UN Declaration. Article 13 states: “We all have the right to move freely within our country, and to visit and leave other countries when we wish.” (And Article 14 adds: “If we are at risk of harm we have the right to go to another country to seek protection”) So, there is no such thing as ‘illegal migration’, as moving freely across the earth is a natural right. Politicians using this terminology are being completely disingenuous when they know full-well that according to international law, an individual should not be penalised for fleeing to a different country, nor indeed for the manner of their arrival in that country.
The legality issue arises through national laws designed to control national borders, with some migrations legitimised, such as those from from Hong Kong and Ukraine, while others are de-legitimised, such as those from the war zones of Yemen. This is often determined purely on a political basis by Parliament. Given that refugees are often generated through the unethical foreign policies of militarised, powerful, mostly western nations – either through direct military invasion, as in Iraq or through indirect proxy war, as part of the military-industrial complex, as in the Yemen. Frequently, the UK, along with other so-called upholders of democracy and Human Rights, end up punishing the victims of their own egregious actions. So, displaced people who have been de-legitimised have no other choice but to seek out unsafe means of travel to escape from their circumstances.
Even more disingenuous is the Rwanda plan, of which Suella Braverman apparently “dreams.” This is a dream where the right to “visit and leave other countries” is taken away and handed over to officers of the state just to feed the populist sentiment that is a vote-winner for any unprincipled politician. Yet, these self-same politicians are fully aware that the numbers being deported this way can only be very small. The majority of ‘illegal migrants’ end up seeking asylum due to the very real threats they face that caused their displacement in the first place.
A PLAIN TRUTH
The current Home Secretary Suella Braverman does not address the moral and ethical issues that are raised by her proposed policies on ‘illegal migration’. Rather, she implies that such concerns are irrelevant because, “Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to the fundamental principles of Human Rights”. She justifies her policies on the basis of the almost divine power of Parliamentary Sovereignty to exercise its will, regardless of morality, ethics and international law. Her philosophy underpinning this is that no child is born with natural, inalienable rights – instead they are inherited, or granted by parliaments, or maybe not given at all. To be plain, the philosophy of your Home Secretary does not recognise Universal Human Rights. And that is dangerous. Ultimately, it is a threat to every person on this land, be they citizen or non-citizen.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Excellent article which gets to the roots of the issue. Parliament must be held to account.