The truth is, the cat’s out of the bag

Hey, wouldn’t it be great if we could make up stories just for the fun of it? Nothing too serious, obviously, just the odd white lie to make our lives seem more fulfilling, and less like the meaningless, biologically-driven catastrophe they undoubtedly are.

Better still, what if these little fibs could actually be attached to a serious argument? That might be even more hysterical. It sure would help us skew perceptions, almost fairly, and make our position seem somewhat more tenable. That would be swell, don’t you think?

The best fun to be had, however, would unquestionably involve a fabrication which was pesky enough to incite misplaced anger against a particular act of parliament, such as, oh I don’t know, let’s just say the Human Rights Act of 1998.

And so it turns out – by some fortuitous twist of dramatic irony – this is exactly what occurred last week at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester.

As you’ll have already heard, Home Secretary Theresa May took to the stage and outlined plans to change immigration rules to reduce the number of foreign criminals and illegal immigrants successfully claiming the “right to family life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to avoid deportation. She blamed the Human Rights Act – the UK equivalent of the ECHR – for its role, citing various examples of individuals who avoided extradition because of it.

If only she had stopped there, or done some proper research, or didn’t live such an insipid life that she needs to make up stories. Because on a basic level the Human Rights Act is not a perfect piece of legislation, there’s no such thing, and any attempt to improve it would normally be welcomed.

But nope, she couldn’t resist revealing (with just a hint of gleeful fury) the case of “The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat. This is why I remain of the view that the Human Rights Act needs to go.”

And, I’m sorry to be crude, but that statement is essentially bollocks. No one has ever been refused deportation because they owned a cat. Up until that point there was some truth in her argument: sometimes people are able to abuse the system of “Human Rights”. So why did she feel the need to shamelessly manipulate the truth when making this point? It seems to have been about grabbing attention; yet in trying to get people on side May has achieved the exact opposite. It’s an utterly self defeating approach.

Rather than focusing upon substantiated criticisms of the act, and suggesting means of improvement – or alternatives such as a possible UK Bill of Rights – the focus has shifted onto a bloody cat. A lack of factual accuracy has served to do away with, and direct attention from, what could have been a sensible, adult dialogue.

That’s the worst part. The lying, underhand approach used in an attempt to initiate a change. No one likes when a ruling is abused. I for one would happily watch any number of undeserving illegal immigrants and criminals sent back to their own country, but only when there is genuine evidence to support such a move. Lying is petty and childish and bestial. No, it’s worse, animals aren’t that stupid.

To Summarise: if Theresa May believes replacing the Human Rights Act will make this achievable, I’m all for it, providing she uses facts to prove such a reshuffle would be effective. The replacement legislation would have to provide greater clarity though, protecting those individuals who deserve it, whilst making it easier to remove those who do not. Supposing the Home Secretary can achieve this, without lying, I’ll eat my cat – I am not making this up.