A sad fact about the 1998 Human Rights Act

Who knew that political partisans would weaponise poorly defined and ambiguous articles of legislation to put the law in their favour and crush their hated opposition?

Who knew that political partisans would weaponise poorly defined and ambiguous articles of legislation to put the law in their favour and crush their hated opposition? The Human Rights Act of 1998, copying the rights held in the European Convention on Human Rights, and its recent interpretation connected to Piers Morgan’s acquittal by Ofcom, is a noteworthy example.

Last week, Ofcom declined to sanction the former co-host of Good Morning Britain over the comments he directed towards Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. After the couple’s interview with the US chat show host Oprah Winfrey, Morgan attacked Markle’s harsh and – most importantly - unsubstantiated criticisms of the Royal Family, as well as questioning the legitimacy of her mental health claims.

Morgan’s usual fiery and rebellious attitude on contemporary hot-button issues landed him in boiling water, and appeared to be the final straw given that he was sacked from the show immediately afterwards. Ofcom has arrived to lower the temperature, declaring that while Morgan’s statements may have been highly offensive (only to the fawning commentariat no doubt), they declared that his opinions did not violate industry guidelines or snap the law in two.

Morgan has been on a non-stop victory lap since the ruling, attracting the anger of those who tried to beat him with the hammer of censorship until it broke. One such individual was Omid Scobie, co-author of Finding Freedom, a twenty-five chapter propagandistic autobiography detailing the life and times of the Harry and Meghan super-couple and their escape from rainy, tabloid addicted England to sunny liberal California.

So where does the Human Rights Act come into play? In his criticism of Ofcom’s final verdict, Scobie tweeted that “Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, freedom of speech ensures everyone in UK “has the right to freedom of expression.” But it is not absolute—that freedom can also be subject to laws and “formalities, conditions, restrictions… necessary in a democratic society.”

In an attachment to the original post, he expanded upon his argument: ‘One of those restrictions is “protection of health or morals”, which makes me question Ofcom’s decision. While everyone should be free to express opinion on public figures, discrediting a person’s mental health issues on TV reinforced a dangerous stigma and put others at risk.’ I’ve included the full quote to shield myself from charges of taking things out of context.

Scobie’s reasoning here is chilling, but equally scary is that a criminal prosecution against Morgan is legally plausible. ‘Protection of health and morals’ is an umbrella term where any dissent against the regime can be purposefully targeted for extermination; I’m surprised the ‘protection of health’ segment hasn’t (yet) been drafted in to suppress criticism of pandemic public measures, so to speak.

The codification of Human Rights law is perhaps the only legal, cultural, and political feature where I am envious of our American cousins. For example, their first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No ifs, no buts.

No caveats which read that freedom of speech may be suspended if it violates national morals, or, in Scobie’s words, ‘put others at risk’. Nothing about the right to peaceful protest being upended if it helps pass around a virus from China. Although the merits of the US Constitution, and whether they are proactively protected by the judiciary, is a discussion for another day.

But here we have Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the books, and any anti-establishment movement must remain vigilant and prepare for the moment when the Omid Scobies of the future use it against them. Because someday soon, they will.