Human Rights Lawyer. A euphemism for left wing political activism?

Over the past what thirty years? human rights law has increasingly been entangled with ideological narratives — particularly on issues like immigration, criminal justice, identity politics, and freedom of speech. The Human Rights Act 1998, the ECHR, and high-profile judicial decisions have been interpreted (especially by critics on the right) as left-leaning in their consequences or motivations.

I read this article this morning in the telegraph about a ruling by IPSO which looks to me (and many more much better informed people than I) like a serious infringement of freedom of the press and free speech. So, I did a quick search on Google to find out who was on the board of the IPSO and it came as no surprise to discover the Chairman is a human rights barrister called Lard Faulks. As it happens some further research seemed to indicate that he is one of the more conservative human rights lawyers on the market but it got me to thinking that whenever we see these sorts of headlines, lurking somewhere at the bottom of it, is a lawyer and very often a human rights lawyer.

Let’s be honest — the legal profession has always leaned left, particularly in academic and internationalist circles. But what was once a mild tendency has hardened into something more dogmatic. Over the past two decades, human rights law in the UK has been shaped by globalist frameworks, supranational courts, and domestic legal institutions that often rule in favour of values like inclusivity, identity protection, and expansive interpretations of "harm" — sometimes at the expense of classical liberties such as freedom of speech and press autonomy.

This is not accidental. Law schools, NGOs, and regulatory bodies have become pipelines for a new elite consensus: one that sees speech not as a neutral right to be defended, but as a tool that must be curated — and sometimes restricted — in the name of social harmony, equality, or public safety.

And this consensus now shapes organisations like IPSO.

In theory, IPSO’s role is simple: to uphold standards in the British press while preserving freedom of expression. But critics argue that in practice, it too often acts as a referee with a loaded whistle — coming down harder on politically unfashionable reporting, or on titles seen as right-leaning or populist.

This isn’t about wild conspiracy — it’s about cultural alignment. When board members all emerge from the same world of legal NGOs, human rights law, equality commissions, or academia, it’s little wonder they bring the same instincts to the job.

And while they may sincerely believe they’re applying principles of fairness and dignity, their rulings can still tilt the media playing field — silencing dissent, neutering investigative journalism, and chilling debate on controversial issues.

The Hollowing Out of “Neutral” Institutions

The IPSO situation is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. Across public life, from education to healthcare to policing, institutions that were once proudly neutral are now seen as ideologically aligned — often without ever admitting it.

• Charities are run like advocacy groups.

• Regulators talk like campaigners.

• Public bodies speak the language of social justice, diversity metrics, and stakeholder inclusion — often at the cost of trust from ordinary people.

• 
  

When “human rights” becomes code for one political outlook — and only one — it loses its moral universality. That’s the danger we're seeing unfold at the heart of IPSO.

Where Do We Go From Here?

None of this is to argue against the value of human rights — or the need for legal minds in our regulatory bodies. But we must not be naive about the risks of cultural and ideological homogeneity within such institutions.

True pluralism means more than surface-level diversity. It means including people who hold competing visions of the good — those who believe in absolute free speech, not just “responsible” speech, and those who defend the public’s right to offend, provoke, and expose — even when it’s uncomfortable.

If we care about press freedom in Britain, we must demand regulators who understand what that freedom actually costs — and who are prepared to defend it, even from within.