So the Daily Fail has a headline Woman passenger's jet rage at Nick Clegg over his support of Human Rights Act. The article contains the line "David Cameron pledged while in opposition to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA), which he said prevented Britain from deporting foreign terrorists." While talking about a passenger who had to be physically restrained from an onslaught against the Deputy Prime Minister.
Apparently according to the Fail the physical assault and terrorism by one woman is a sign that many are angry at the deputy Prime Minister for vowing to keep the HRA. One person in an incident of air rage is the voice of the people! Wow! Those Occupying the London Stock Exchange (or to be precise a public space close by) certainly seem glad of the rights under the HRA.
No doubt as her attack happened over international territory and I trust over the EU, she'll be glad that it will mean she is entitled to a fair trail, unlike if it had occurred once off the plane in Cairo. That her liberty and security as well as those of the other passengers were protected by her being restrained because of her attack. That she won't be tortured or face the death penalty for attacking another passenger on a plane. That she wasn't deemed to be a threat to the plane so much that she may have been shot by an air marshall, but that the life of everyone on that plane was protected, even hers. That she was allowed her freedom of conscience to make her points to the DPM. She also had her freedom of expression until it was restricted when it reached into the realm of needing to prevent disorder and crime.
Yeah you've guessed it I've just stated her case in relation to six of the ten articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. You'd almost feel that a majority of people had voted for a party that was opposed to the HRA in May 2010. It's not just the Lib Dems on page 9:3 of A Future Fair for All the Labour Manifesto they say
"We are proud to have brought in the Human Rights Act, enabling British citizens to take action in British courts rather than having to wait years to seek redress in Strasbourg. We will not repeal or resile from it."
So there you have it, there is no public will to get rid of the HRA. There is only a Tory will that ignores the many fine points in it because it gets in the way of them doing things that they want to do, even more so than the Liberal Democrats it seems.
Read also What Zadok Day over at A Song of Liberty actually found to be what happened, but that sort of mutually respecting conversation doesn't sell the Daily Fail or the Scum.