Convention as well as ourselves. To try and amend that is a virtually impossible task.” He added: “If you have a further


convention – a British convention [the Bill of Rights] – there’s going to be a complication in the position, because you’re going to have two conventions to which the courts are going to have a regard.” When Cameron suggested five years ago


that the European convention should be replaced with a bill of rights, the idea was lambasted by none other than Clarke, who at the time was chairing a Conservative Party commission on constitutional issues. Clarke said then that the plans were


“xenophobic and legal nonsense” and “anti- foreign”. Lord McNally, the justice minister and a


senior Liberal Democrat, has said he would resign from the Government rather than see the UK withdraw from the European convention, to which Britain has been a signatory for more than 60 years. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the


rulings or leaving the system. He said: “We have got a stark option: either we accept the European convention, or we don’t accept it and decide to leave the Council of Europe. “It’s very difficult to do what Mr Clarke indicated he would like to do when he’s chairman of the relevant body, because there are 47 signatories in Europe which are signatories to the European


Beyond the headlines Right to resign


Bill Aitken’s decision to resign as convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee was necessary and he had to go. The Conservative MSP’s remarks to a journalist that suggested a woman that had been raped was a prostitute were indefensible, reckless, and perhaps, naïve. It has become clear in recent days that Aitken had widespread cross-party support as justice convener. Liberal Democrat justice spokesman Robert Brown said he had been an “excellent convener” – suggesting his services will be sorely missed by the Parliament. But while the former Justice of the Peace was right to resign, the incident has thrown up a number of other pertinent issues – such as the kind of relationship


human rights group Liberty, rubbished the bill of rights plans. She said: “We have a bill of rights in this country. It’s called the Human Rights Act and is thoroughly British, European and universal in its values. “It protects all of us from the whims of politicians and, when the current frenzy of misinformation has died down, voters will worry about MPs who seek to put themselves above the law.” But Paul McBride QC, a leading Scottish


criminal defence lawyer and Tory supporter, said it was necessary. Writing in the Te Scotsman, he said:


journalists have with politicians and the way in which conversations they have with them are publicised. In some high-profile cases in the past, journalists undermining the trust of interviewees in pursuit of exposing major wrongdoing has been absolutely justifiable – on the basis that it benefits society. This case involving the Sunday Herald would not, however, fall into that category. Admittedly, a justice convener flagrantly undermining the seriousness of rape or the compassion that should be given to a victim would be inexcusable – but this did not appear to be the case. Quotes attributed to Aitken came from an initial phone conversation with a Herald journalist. An excerpt from that was leaked and, quite rightly, caused much concern. The impression given was that the victim of the sexual attack may have been a prostitute – but we did not get to read all of the conversation. Aitken said this conversation, which the leaked transcript came from, was off-the-record. This raises the question


“What we need to do is to leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, replacing it with a sensible bill of rights. “I was on a working group set up by David Cameron before the last election to look at how we could come up with a bill of rights to replace the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. We made a lot of progress and it would have been possible. Unfortunately as part of the deal with the Liberal Democrats the project was dropped. “But an important part of a bill of rights


would, for example, be that our parliaments in Westminster and Holyrood can decide whether prisoners should be allowed to vote, rather than have a decision imposed on us by a foreign court.” If Britain were to alter the relationship


between national courts and the European court, it would become the first country in the continent to do so. Possibly the most dangerous consequence of such a move would be an apparent abandonment of international agreement and human rights globally. Not only have critics of the ECHR said


we cannot trust judges in Europe, but the sex offenders’ register debacle has now led to some saying we cannot rely on British judges at the Supreme Court – suggesting there is a crisis in confidence in the rule of law.


Much of the rhetoric being used against


Strasbourg appears to scapegoat human rights protections. It has, understandably, led to fears that any


‘debate’ being proposed by the Government will be a mere token gesture on the way to pursuing a much more traditional Conservative policy.


of whether it is right for journalists to publish material that public figures have given to them where both parties have agreed (or think they have) that it is off- the-record. According to Aitken, he had a second telephone conversation with the journalist where he wanted to clarify his position. He said that during this call he gave a clear on-the-record quote, which he said made it clear that women were not responsible for any rapes and he condemned the attack on this particular woman. A transcript of that conversation was not provided.


It is difficult to excuse Aitken. He is a veteran politician; he should have known better and been much more media-savvy. However, in giving weight to the work he had done for victims’ services throughout his career up to this point, this incident does not seem to prove he was not morally cut out for the job. His level of professionalism, on the other hand, may not be so easy to defend.


28 February 2011 Holyrood 65


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96