2 days ago
America is right to attack Starmer's record on human rights
Aren't human rights wonderful? I'm sure many of our readers will recall the dark days before the passing of the Human Rights Act: child-snatchers prowling the evening streets to deny parents the right to a family life, gruesome thugs free to torture any citizen who might try and engage in a free election. 1997 really was awful.
It's easy to mock our unfortunate new state religion, but even the most hardened human-rights sceptic will be heartened to read the US State Department's annual report into human rights in Britain.
America apparently takes a different view on domestic affairs than the likes of Lord Hermer, warning that in 2024 'The human rights situation worsened in the United Kingdom' and that there are now 'significant… issues'.
The issues in question relate to our handling of free speech, particularly the 'enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression' in the aftermath of the Southport riots.
The State Department seems aggrieved that the British Government called on US tech firms to 'censor speech deemed misinformation or 'hate speech'', echoing the dismay of figures within the administration over the treatment of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after posting (and then deleting) a message judged to be racial incitement.
It's hard to dispute the measured criticism of our free expression issues, nor the suggestion of backsliding after the creation of censorship powers under the Online Safety Act.
But what makes this report so remarkable is how similar it is in form – if not character – to those expected of authoritarian rogue states like Belarus. After each example of free-speech violations, we are reminded of the condemnation of 'media freedom NGOs', as if our Government can no longer be trusted by our closest ally to maintain an independently liberal state.
It is meddling of the highest order, but meddling is what the US State Department is designed to do.
It has since the end of the Second World War sought to influence the domestic affairs of foreign nations, a position garnering endless criticism from the isolationist wing of the Republican Party who perceived it as a needlessly antagonistic mode of diplomatic relations.
The criticism isn't just domestic: countries as diverse as South Korea, El Salvador and Poland have voiced their irritation at attempts to steer their domestic politics towards America's sola fide conception of human rights, which apparently had something to do with flying BLM flags outside consulates and not complaining about American-funded NGOs.
This state of affairs generally suited the United Kingdom. After all, our Foreign Office is rather skilled in its own art of heavy-handed moralising, with the notion that it ought to promote the global framework of '#BeKind' over British interests.
We thought we'd never find ourselves on the receiving end of a patronising communique. Weren't we a sensible country?
But the re-election of Donald Trump changed the State Department — and every other federal department under the president's control — beyond recognition. Staff budgets have been slashed, LGBTQI+ flags have been pulled down, and relations with foreign allies reevaluated.
Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, has made clear that the agency will serve only in the interests of the American people. We're lucky, then, that the American people seem to be so concerned with our — and Europe's — creeping descent into illiberalism.
Some will struggle to accept being chastised by the US. Doesn't America have its own issues with human rights? Hasn't it persecuted non-citizens over comments made on the Israel-Gaza conflict, knowing they are not covered by First Amendment protections? These objections have some merit, but are unlikely to influence those within the department.
Issues of historic corruption in Ukraine didn't mean we withheld military support after Putin's invasion. No nation is pure: we'd suffer if well-founded and constructive criticism of allies was always considered off-limits.
There's a much more coherent rebuttal to be made of the State Department's report, and it concerns its methodology. If human rights only seem to be 'things the people in charge think are good' rather than a coherent moral framework for governance, perhaps they should be jettisoned altogether. I'm sure our Prime Minister, the former human rights barrister, can see the funny side.
