No, not human rights. The British “Human Rights Act” and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on which it is based. Robin Harris explains why in the Telegraph (thanks to Ali Dashti):
International human rights law and the institutions devised to enforce it are supposed to reduce the power of nation states.
But the only countries likely to co-operate are already liberal democracies. And the threat posed to the political and military leaders of those democracies by such institutions may well paralyse international interventions to deter tyrants.
That is why America is so opposed to the new International Criminal Court.
But if the exaltation of human rights has done little good to the outside world, it will continue to do tangible harm to Britain, where freedom is strongly entrenched.
Because of the ECHR – with or without the Human Rights Act – it is now impossible to expel foreigners who pose a threat to the country’s security.
Because of the ECHR – and the attitudes that adherence to it has encouraged within Britain’s judiciary – it is proving immensely difficult to uphold in the courts the measures required to maintain immigration control.
In all areas of public life where an ethos of discipline and the use of discretionary force are required – from the Armed Forces to the police, and from schools to jails – the possible recourse to “human rights” risks imposing paralysis and introducing disorder.
This is the umbrella under which Al-Muhajiroun continues to operate.