Human Rights?

The blogger Cranmer has posted an interesting piece about Abu Qatada - the Al-Quaeda apologist and suspected activist - and the benefits he receives under the Human Rights Act. I have posted a short reply comment on his site - not nearly as elegant or thoughtful as Cranmer's own post I fear, but this is it:

The very notion of a Human Rights Act is suspect. Unlike a Bill of Rights, which safeguards the citizen against the potential tyranny of his government, a Human rights Act is subject to such contentious ideas of what actually constitute human 'rights', to say nothing of whether every human being is deserving of such rights, that it cannot be anything other than a playground for lawyers and ne-er-do-wells. People who dwell upon their rights will never be the most useful, helpful or charitable members of society, and a Human Rights Act merely reinforces their narcissistic rights gazing.