Laura Perrins: The Human Rights Act robs children of a normal family

An Act limiting the power of the State should be something all conservatives should support. Not so the Human Rights Act 1998, which is now routinely weaponised by lawyers to not only expand the power of the State but also to facilitate some very morally dubious activities.

The Human Rights Act was intended by the Blair administration to bring ‘home' the rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights. The ECHR was born out of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. It was, in its essence, a limit on state power. Therefore it is not surprising that it seeks to prevent the State from interfering with your family life, (Article 8) or limiting your free speech (Article 10), or indeed torturing you in any circumstances (Article 3).

However, over the decades this law has not only developed in a legally reasonable fashion but has morphed out of all recognition from its original intent. Instead, official bodies such can call on the power of the State to make someone act against their conscience – such as endorsing a political statement they oppose like supporting gay marriage. The Act has become part of the machinery of the State to enforce its totalitarian view on its citizens.

The HRA can be used to argue that killers should remain in the UK because they have a child and deportation would ‘interfere with their human rights.’ Many such perverse uses of the Act fill the law reports these days.

In addition to this, the HRA has seen the massive expansions of the lawyering and bureaucratic class. For instance, when the government proposes allocating resources to a particular group then often parameters need to be settled. Who is in the group, and who is out?

And often the settling of these parameters is decided by the courts after lots of (expensive) lawyering has taken place (the taxpayer usually picks up the bill). And once those parameters are set it must go back to the (tax-funded) bureaucrat, who gets to dish out the (tax-funded) cash to the claimants. It is a money pit.

The latest development however, must be the worst. And that is the use of the Human Rights Act to facilitate the buying and selling of human infants. Yup, you read that right.

It was reported that ‘Single parents will be given the right to bring up surrogate babies. Ministers are changing the law so that it is no longer only couples who can become the legal parents of children born to surrogate mothers.

'Until now only couples have been able to become the legal parents of a child born to a surrogate mother. But last year, as revealed by this newspaper, a High Court judge ruled that the couples’ restriction breaches the human rights of single people. The landmark case was brought by a British man who wanted to obtain a Parental Order after paying £30,000 to an American woman to give birth to his child.

'Now the Government has revealed that it is to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 to remove this restriction because it is incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

In future, any single person will be able to apply for a Parental Order and so become the parent of a surrogate child. The change is being made through a ‘remedial order’, which the Government can use to amend laws at odds with the European Convention on Human Rights without requiring a vote.'

Surrogacy law is complex but in sum, should a couple go abroad and hire another woman’s womb and purchase the same or another woman’s egg to produce a baby, the baby is legally the birth mother’s. The couple now have to apply to court for a parental order – which is usually granted.

Until now it was only married couples, civil partners or couples in an "enduring family relationship”  who could apply for such an order because it was recognised that a child needs a mother and father or at least two parents. However, the High Court has since ruled that failure to recognise that a single person could also take advantage of such an arrangement is discrimination. It seems a child needs a mother and father like a fish needs a bicycle.

Where once a Human Rights Act was intended to limit state power now anyone, absolutely anyone, can go abroad and essentially purchase a baby. The Act can be used to facilitate and legitimise the baby manufacturing and purchasing industry, along with intentionally depriving that child of its mother or father. It is an ugly development indeed.

(Image: RDVRS)

Laura Perrins

  • Devonian_Prof

    One more example of an unholy alliance between (a) bien-pensant left-liberals who know that morality is a fuddy-duddy notion that we need to be forcibly weaned away from as soon as possible, and (b) governments who find it so, so convenient to be able to legislate by decree without worrying about those pesky Parliamentarians. The sooner we abandon the whole caboodle of the European Convention on Human Rights and replace it with a properly-thought-out Bill of Rights, the better we can get a grip on the overweening ambition of both groups.

  • gammosiuwong

    So what do you think young MGTOW’s will do? Their options will be to either to have a family the traditional way and lose their children, house, income, pension, sanity etc etc come the divorce or go it alone and have a surrogate child who can’t be stolen from them. Not ideal perhaps, but far better than the first option.

    Wives will be redundant – can’t say they didn’t bring it upon themselves. Call it Karma!

    • Under-the-weather

      Prenup solves a lot of problems

      • Russell

        Courts routinely disregard prenups.

        • Under-the-weather

          Only in the US apparently, I’ve yet to see evidence of the same thing in the UK, and anyway something for men to be canvassing for and not waiting for women to do it for them.

          • Russell

            I think you’ll find that it was feminists (i.e. women) who lobbied for prenups to be disregarded in court.

  • Bik Byro

    And yet as any divorced father knows, a father who has committed no sin other than divorce his wife seems to have no human rights to see his children.

  • Earthenware

    “The Human Rights Act was intended by the Blair administration to bring
    ‘home’ the rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.”

    In other words, a lawyer-turned-politician leading a party of statist fanatics saw an opportunity to enshrine in UK law a mechanism to provide guaranteed income for other lawyers and at the same time vastly increase government power over the lives of ordinary people.

    Interesting to note how selectively that freedom of speech is applied. I hope everyone remembers that Paul Weston was arrested for quoting Winston Churchill.

  • North Angle

    UK government in creating laws to benefit lawyers shocker. A lot of MPs / Lords have affiliations (family members etc.) with the legal profession, if not outright ties. Funny that.

  • Under-the-weather

    Whatever happened to the rights of the child?, isn’t that also enshrined in European law – it was?.
    The right of the child should include the right to have access to both sex parents, and would have implications in a number of different areas including adoption, but also following divorce . I can’t think of any reason why a single person should have a right to create a child, which just isn’t possible alone, and infers without a named parent the right for the state to become a default parent.

  • I believe that someone should only have their human rights upheld if, in doing so, the human rights of some other person were adversely affected. A rapist, for example, should not be allowed to avoid deportation because he now has a wife and family. Other potential victims’ rights could be adversely affected and their views should be taken into account. We should allow him to have the right to take his wife and family with him if they wished to go.

  • James60498 .

    An ugly development, yes. But a very obvious one.

    Once it was decided that a child did not need a mother and father, but could have two fathers or two mothers or whatever then the rights of the child had gone.

    Once that has happened then why is there any need for two parents at all?

    This is only another step in the ever increasing insanity enveloping us all.

    (Personally I would rather have had just one parent than two “fathers” or two “mothers”. It’s clearly not the ideal situation, and it’s mad to start out with that as the intention, but for many children it has been a necessity due to death and other reasons. Far more normal).

    • RobertRetyred

      A deceased parent is still a parent, especially if they have been married to the still-living parent.

  • weirdvisions

    It had nothing to do with Human Rights and everything to do with enriching greedy lawyers.

    Blair brought the Act in. Blair is a lawyer.
    Mrs. Blair, a lawyer, immediately set up Matrix Chambers to cash in on the Human Rights Bill.

    The only people who benefit from ECHR are crooks, illegal immigrants, lawyers, Social Service (SS) child snatchers and the State.

    It needs scrapping. Cameron promised to scrap it but, being lily-livered and spineless, he reneged. Perhaps, once (if) we free ourselves from the shackles of the EU, it can be dropped into a convenient cess pit where it belongs.

    • Groan

      However as Laura herself points out the problem appears not so much to be the ECHR but the way in which the Gov. incorporated it into English Law. The result appears to be that case law has created a travesty of the intentions of the ECHR which was indeed drafted as some buffer against totalitarian tyranny. as I understand it those who have signed up to the ECHR but not incorporated into their law effectively take individual judgements by the relevant European Court as advisory but not automatically part of their national law. What Blair did was to ensure that such judgements were “precedents” incorporated automatically into UK justice. I wonder if a Bill of rights would lead to the same outcome if the same people are using it for the same purpose?

      • weirdvisions

        Agreed. And for that Blair deserves to be put up against a wall.

  • David

    Blair’s Human Rights Act was indeed a Trojan Horse. Humans are now treated as mere commodities. It is akin to a new slavery. Much ugliness, evil even, is now crawling out of the HR Act.
    So having ditched the philosophical and moral framework of Christianity, just what a terrible mess the brave new secularists are making of their post – Christian society.
    Will we like Russia be subjected to 70 years of descent down this slope to a cruel, godless, madness and then, when it all collapses, reemerge into something saner, rediscovering our Christian roots, as has Russia ? Only God knows.

    • Coniston

      Yes, it could easily last 70 years. Or longer.

  • Louis E.

    A same-sex couple do not fulfill the place of a mother and father…they are guardians but not parents!

    • likeIsaid

      Surely they are at least fulfilling the place of a mother or a father? If a heterosexual couple adopt then one of them dies does the other stop being a parent?

      • Louis E.

        They are located in the place,if you would…but they are not fully representative.With a single parent,or that parent and a same-sex partner or two or ten,something is still missing.

        • RobertRetyred

          It is. There are many accounts of children of gays (Cogs) being confused because they don’t have the two different human templates, male and female, in their lives. Gay pressure groups actively suppress these vulnerable children’s protests, even to the extent of having ‘academic’ papers ‘proving’ that Cogs have a better life experience.

          • Louis E.

            …and witch hunts against any academics who disagree with them.

      • Under-the-weather

        Actually they’re not replacing a mother and father and they can’t. What you’re suggesting is that the worse case scenario (that of losing a parent) should become common place, to satisfy the needs of people who put themselves above children who have no choice

        • likeIsaid

          Rubbish. I suggested nothing of the sort. I questioned the logic of the OP

          • Under-the-weather

            A single individual ‘can’t’ fulfil the role of both a mother and a father. Two women raising a child, create a situation when there is only one mother, neither are the father or can become the father. Reducing down to one parent is the worse case scenario, which is what I wrote, and shouldn’t be considered the norm. It’s a worse case scenario in which a child (before it’s even conceived) has no say, and this ‘legality’ enables the state to become the parent of last resort.

          • likeIsaid

            “A single individual ‘can’t’ fulfil the role of both a mother and a father.”

            Well, I didn’t say that did I? Either time. In fact in my reply to you I made it quite clear that was not what I was saying.

            “neither are the father or can become the father. ”

            Nope, didn’t say that either.

            “shouldn’t be considered the norm”

            Something else I didn’t say.

            If you want to argue with someone who has made those arguments then go and find yourself someone who did.

  • Colkitto03

    Isn’t this the natural conclusion to the fact that a lot of young men today don’t want to get married or have kids?
    Society has a lot of single women on its hands and a lot of them eventually decide they want families. Isn’t the law just following the feminist agenda? The selfish agenda?
    Personally I think marriage is a wonderful thing (and vital for a healthy society) but I can see that a lot of young men are steering away from marriage and also children.
    Therefore single parent adoption demands will only get stronger.

    • Under-the-weather

      Wanting and having a right to something are totally different things

  • Busy Mum

    I think your headline sums it up. The state does not want there to be any normal families as those are the little battalions that restrain its power.