LONDON, May 17 (UPI) -- British Home Secretary John Reid insisted Wednesday that human rights law would no longer prevent the government from deporting terror suspects, extremists and other foreign criminals. In a sustained attack on the criminal justice system, he pledged to rebalance it to favor public security over the rights of the individual.
The criminal justice system was increasingly out of touch with the concerns of the public, who perceived it to be skewed in favor of the offender, he said.
"That is what lies at the heart of people's concerns about the criminal justice system... they think the courts are more worried about the rights of criminals than the rights of victims," he told the Police Federation's annual conference in Bournemouth.
He insisted: "Any court system that puts human rights of foreign prisoners ahead of the human rights of safety and security of the millions of the United Kingdom citizens is a wrong decision -- full stop, no qualification."
Reid cited a recent court decision to allow nine Afghans who hijacked a plane to Britain to stay in the country until the security situation in their home nation had improved.
"It is decisions like these that cause people, including this home secretary, to ask whether our system is at present balanced and fair in judging the rights of an individual against the rights of many individuals."
Whether it was legislation, administration or interpretation that was causing this imbalance, he would work to ensure it was corrected, he said.
"I want a system that is fair and seen to be fair by the majority of law-abiding citizens in this country, one which balances individual rights and public protections," he said.
"If we need legislation to do it, then we will have legislation," he said. "This is not something I will shy away from, even if it inevitably brings me into conflict with some of the civil liberties lobby, because there are 55 million people in this country whose civil liberties need protecting, not just one or two individuals."
Reid's remarks represent the latest move in a government offensive against human rights legislation which it claims is hampering the fight against terrorism and other forms of crime.
The British judiciary has in recent years struck down a series of government anti-terror measures, including the indefinite detention without charge of foreign terror suspects, on the grounds that they conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act -- which incorporates the ECHR into British law.
Ministers are currently battling human rights groups over the planned deportation of some 12 foreign nationals, allegedly linked to terrorism, to their home countries in the Middle East and North Africa. As the ECHR outlaws deportations to countries where the returned individual would be at risk of torture or mistreatment, the government is currently working to secure guarantees from recipient nations that deportees will be treated in accordance with international standards. However human rights and legal groups, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, say such agreements are little more than pieces of paper with no legal worth, and accuse the government of trying to circumvent international law.
Prime Minister Tony Blair continued the offensive in Parliament later, insisting that a lack of safety in recipient nations would not prevent the government deporting foreign criminals.
"Those people in my view should be deported irrespective of any claim that they have that the country to which they are going back may not be safe," he said.
But the reality of the proposition facing the government was evident in Blair's equivocation over the merits of the Human Rights Act.
The Act "does allow for a balance between the rights of the individual and the wider collective rights of society," he said, insisting it was "perfectly possible" for the courts to strike a "more sensible" balance.
However, the prime minister added, "If that balance is being interpreted wrongly then we have to look at that and of course it is open to us always, as a House, to decide that we will legislate irrespective of the Human Rights Act."
But even within the government, there is a dispute over the efficacy of human rights legislation and the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the majority.
After Blair Monday branded the judgment on the Afghan hijackers "an abuse of common sense," Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer hit back, warning that criticism of judges for their human rights rulings risked undermining judicial independence.
Speaking at the Hansard Society in London Tuesday, Falconer, a close ally of the prime minister, defended the Human Rights Act and attempted to dispel fears that it protected criminals at the expense of public safety.
Britain's commitment to human rights was permanent, Falconer said. "They are the bedrock on which our society has been built. We fought to defend those freedoms in the Second World War, we enshrined them in the European convention, and we were among the first signatories of that convention."
He acknowledged that in some cases the interpretation of human rights law might have led it to be misapplied, but insisted: "This should not be used as a prop to argue for withdrawal from the convention.
"The convention rights do not remotely reduce the ability of the state to provide proper protection for its citizens. Indeed it imposes an obligation on the state to protect its citizens from death or injury."
His argument was echoed by Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, who said the government knew "very well" that the Human Rights Act protected the rights of everyone: victims, the accused and the wider public.
"It is high time to separate reality from spin about the much maligned Human Rights Act. The Act protects free speech, fair trials, respect for private life and the prohibition of torture -- the values which distinguish democrats from dictators and terrorists."
She urged the home secretary to remember that "there is no public safety without the rule of law and that all of us benefit from human rights and common decency."
