The UN human rights chief has criticised Theresa May for comments made in the wake of recent terror attacks, accusing her of offering a “gift” to every despot who “shamelessly violates human rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism”. In a highly charged speech, the UN high commissioner for human rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, spoke of his fears that the current climate in the UK and the US is endangering laws enshrined in the postwar period of hope and reconciliation.

The prime minister’s comments, in which she called for human rights laws to be overturned if they were to “get in the way” of the fight against terrorism, were described by Hussein as “highly regrettable”, particularly in stoking anxiety among the public.

Delivering the annual Grotius lecture for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, he laid the blame for May’s comments in part on the culture inspired by tabloid newspapers in the UK. “Human rights law has long been ridiculed by an influential tabloid press here in the UK, feeding with relish on what it paints as the absurd findings of the European court of human rights in Strasbourg,” he said.

“This viewpoint has some resonance with a slice of the public unaware of the importance of international human rights law – often seen by far too many people as too removed from everyday life, very continental, too lawyerly, too activist, ultimately too weird.”



Hussein took issue in particular with May’s threat “to restrict the freedom and movement of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not evidence to prosecute them in full in court”.

Despite the expectation that government officials would privately suggest that the government’s support for human rights “remains steadfast and unchallengeable”, this risks stoking discontent, he said. “Whatever the intention behind her remarks, they were highly regrettable, a gift from a major western leader to every authoritarian figure around the world who shamelessly violates human rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism.”

Talking about the horrors of the second world war, he said: “Only the death of some 100 million people in two world wars and the Holocaust could generate the will necessary for a profound change. Humanity had fallen off a cliff, survived, and, having frightened itself rigid, became all the wiser for it. The prospect of nuclear annihilation also sharpened postwar thinking.

“And soon after, states drew up the UN Charter, reinforced international law – codified international refugee law, further elaborated international humanitarian law, and created international human rights law and international criminal law. It is precisely these bodies of international law that are now endangered.”

Two years ago, Hussein attacked the Sun newspaper for publishing an article by columnist Katie Hopkins, branding her use of the word “cockroaches” to describe migrants as reminiscent of antisemitic propaganda. He pointed out that the word “cockroaches” was used by both the Nazis and those behind the genocide in Rwanda, and urged the UK’s government, media and regulators to respect national and international laws on curbing incitement to hatred.

Hussein was also critical of the US president for fuelling popular resentments. “Rather than focus on potentially violent individuals driven by takfiri ideology, or any other extreme ideology,” he remarked, “the Trump administration is pursuing its executive orders on the travel bans all the way to the supreme court, despite their being struck down as unconstitutional in the lower courts.



The UN official’s speech, entitled Is International Human Rights Law Under Threat?, reflects growing concern that the rise of nationalism is undermining international courts and agreements. Theresa May has been a persistent critic of the European court of human rights and has repeatedly called for the UK to leave its jurisdiction.

Hussein pointed out that “British ink, reflecting an enormously rich legal tradition, is found throughout the European convention on human rights.”

Drawing to a conclusion, he observed: “Some politicians, for whom economic, social and cultural rights mean little, are indifferent to the consequences of economic austerity. They view human rights only as an irritating check on expediency – the currency of the political world.”