Human rights: who's responsible for poor coverage in UK media?

Solicitors, barristers, campaigners and civil servants gathered at the Law Society to tackle the problem of'How to communicate and explain human rights concepts to a sceptical public'. Predictably, the media was in the firing line.

Despite many potential positive stories of how human rights legislation has improved lives, some parts of the tabloid press still show a relentlessly negative framing of the issue: human rights are repeatedly associated with dodgy foreign criminals and other 'undeserving' causes.

It seems to me that, if the legal profession and human rights campaigners want to see a more positive view of the subject, they must make some of these stories accessible - from the care of the frail and elderly to whistle-blowers, or issues about pollution and the environment.

There was an admission by several participants that better communication needs to include more easily accessible explanations of individual judgments.

A second theme which emerged is the problem of complexity and the need for a better understanding of how the Human Rights Act can be properly applied. The lawyers, challenged by some of the journalists present, did concede there is a lack of good expositions about the whole area, leading to confusion about how human rights interact with the wider legal and public policy framework.

Then there's the problem in much British media coverage of the perceived 'foreignness' of human rights. It's often forgotten that Britain - and British lawyers - were instrumental in the inspiration and drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights. And there remains frequent confusion between the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg (above), implementing the European Convention, and the EU, which has a different court: the Court of Justice of the EU. It's a blurring of lines that some Eurosceptic MPs are prone to promote.

While tabloid hostility to the whole human rights agenda is often associated with Conservative politicians, interestingly Lord Michael Wills, the human rights minister in the last government, admitted in the discussion that Labour, having introduced the legislation, went rather lukewarm on the subject because of sharp internal divisions on the issue. The government failed to provide real drive and leadership in promoting a human rights agenda.

In that sense it's hardly surprising that the media lacks a wider and more nuanced discussion on the subject.

More like this

EU institutions: do you know the difference between the European Council and the Council of Europe?