Letter: Human rights

John Brand's celebration of the European Convention on Human Rights (Comment, 4 November) was oratorical rather than logical. Rights enthusiasts usually suggest that rights are fundamental to guarding civilised and peaceful society.

However, while rights can have a positive impact, they are also fundamentally flawed.

They are vague, proliferate on each side of every argument, and encourage an active victimhood that seeks recompense indiscriminately. The noble ends enshrined in rights would often be better expressed through straightforward prohibitions.

For example, a law against killing is simple and effective, but a "right to life", though superficially identical, can lead to all sorts of spurious applications. The open-ended nature of rights delegates too much authority to lawyers, as they build up a structure of interpretation independently of elected politicians.

There is often confusion about what rights are and where they come from, yet they sound so enlightened and are promoted as the basis of an objective moral system. Their most senior proponents are often motivated to progress a wider liberal agenda.

Richard Lucas

Broomyknowe

Edinburgh