We’re not in disagreement here, not least because Bierce is almost impossible to disagree with. (And I think he would have greatly appreciated your entry; certainly I do.)
My point was that the master the law is serving here is not inherently and inviolably the master; it’s just a bad habit.
While there’s non question the collective “we” is guilty of valuing state power over the individual, the fact is that the Human Rights Act is law in the UK, not in a “vague declaration about obligations” sense but in a “legally binding, permits judges to overrule laws incompatible with human rights and, in civil cases, award compensation” sense. It could be cited far more often than it is, but that’s a flaw not inherent to the law - it’s a flaw in the decision-making process encouraged in those that practice it.
The manifest injustices of the law are rarely enshrined in law in and of themselves; even the worst laws more commonly enable injustice than require it. (Although our current government has been doing its best to change that.) Injustices arise from the actions of those that enforce the law, by their omissions more often than their actions.
Of course, as always in your life it is always that other people simply don’t get it. What a burden it must be to be smarter than everybody and even than the language you use.
I would urge you to read the Act more carefully. It really, doesn’t let itself trump anything. IANAL, and certainly IANABritishL, but it looks pretty clear that it’s not meant to be construed in a meaningful way if British Law says otherwise. It certainly doesn’t trump common law in its language. It also doesn’t trump the State Immunity Act of 1978, which appears to be a primary factor in this decision. It also doesn’t allow judges to overrule anything. It only permits them to create “Declarations of Incompatibility.”
You say it’s legally binding. Well of course it’s legally binding. It’s a law isn’t it? That itself doesn’t mean anything.
I will say that you’ve lead me down an interesting research path, and there are all sorts of policy papers and secondary legal sources and essays about this very subject that make for fascinating reading. There is a particular toothlessness to the act with regard to remedies, that was legislated in.
It’s really hard for me to explain this, but the law doesn’t sit on paper, especially in common law systems. The fact that the UK HRA isn’t cited more often, is evidence of its inadequacy and impotence, nothing more nothing less. You can’t expect the law to take a shape it wasn’t given in its language.
