Paedophile using gym
Yes, there is the predictable screeching of outrage from anti-Human Rights groups after a decision on whether to ban a council tax payer from using council facilities was delayed because it might infringe his human rights. Why? The council tax payer in question was a paedophile, and the gym in question was in the grounds of a school, and that means that the Human Rights Act is automatically at fault (well, if you’re a Thatcher-loving, Express-reading authoritarian of course). There is no indication that the council decided against a ban on human rights grounds, only that it delayed making the decision to allow adequate consideration of the human rights issues. Personally, I’d much rather they did that than rush the decision only for the ban to be overturned because they hadn’t treated the human rights issues with sufficient importance. Doing it the way the right-wingers want would almost certainly result in the paedophile being allowed to continue using the gym, whereas doing it properly and legally means that, if they do decide a ban is appropriate (and in compliance with human rights law) then it will more than likely stick.
I am also dismayed that the Department for Constitutional Affairs has chosen to put its own political agenda over giving accurate information to the public – they claim that ‘[p]ublic safety and security remains the primary consideration when considering human rights issues’ when in fact judges apply a ‘proportionality test’ – in other words, the amount of infringement of a person’s human rights must be proportionate to the aim to be achieved. That means that it might very well be considered (though there has of course been no court decision, and we therefore can’t be sure) legitimate to ban a paedophile from the grounds of a school, but it certainly does not mean that anything that the government decides is necessary for public safety is acceptable.
There is legitimate concern about this paedophile being allowed to use a gym in the grounds of a school, but the hysteria is not helped when the DCS releases factually inaccurate statements which further confuse the public perception of human rights law.
Oh, and, one more thing. ‘’‘Why the hell was a gym for adults put in the grounds of a school in the first place? Isn’t that asking for trouble?’‘’
See also
- BBC Action Network – In defence of the Human Rights Act (written by Jo Morgans of the British Institute of Human Rights)
- BBC News – Fury over paedophile at child [sic] gym
- Full text of the European Convention on Human Rights
- Full text of the Human Rights Act 1998 (it is split up into multiple bits because of the OPSI’s excessive commitment to modems. grr.)