To think that the broadsheets should understand the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ(17 Posts)
The ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights. The administrative body connected to it is the Council of Europe. This was formed in 1949, has 47 member states - including Russia and Turkey etc - and is solely concerned with human rights. It is not an EU institution in any shape or form.
The ECJ is the European Court of Justice which is the court of the EU - the EU confusingly has a body called the European Council but this is not the same as the Council of Europe above ......
Granted this is complicated, but I would expect broadsheets to know this, particularly if the point of their article is to allege that the Supreme Court will be biased because of its "European links"....
There are plenty of people around who support the ECHR but not the EU! It is also possible to support some sort of international association - such as a European [not an EU] legal research institution - without supporting the EU!
This makes me despair as this is not the DM and whilst I might not share the Telegraph's views, I would have expected them to be based on facts. This is a topic I am well versed in and can spot BS a mile off but how would I have any idea as to what twaddle I am being fed in relation to a topic on which I know nothing?
BTW, FWIW I spoilt my ballot paper in the referendum so this is not a political issue ....
Yanbu! I'm sure a large majority of people have no idea the EU and ECHR are completely separate things! Cant help but wonder if voting may have gone differently if people voting out because of immigration 'issues' realised.
During Brexit I saw the mistake being made time and time again by both sides ....very depressing
It's as if facts, truth and proper research are irrelevant in the face of knee jerk opinion in the press. It's like Gove saying 'I think we've all had enough of experts'. Honestly standards are through the floor. I find it shocking and saddening.
Yes, you do have to be a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights to be an EU member state but that is more about ensuring a decent baseline of respect for human rights in the EU. As you say they the CJEU (ECJ as was) is totally different fro ECtHR which is not part of EU. Journalists and politicians should understand the difference.
I find that whenever there is a newspaper article about something I have detailed knowledge of it is invariably full of errors. Unfortunately I think this is just indicative of the generally sloppy journalism that prevails in the British press, even in the broadsheets.
I think you're all missing the point, which Ian Hislop made on HIGNFY last Friday....
All the pro-Brexiter-s should, SURELY be delighted at BRITISH Judges setting out BRITISH law.
But no... Look at how the pro-Brexit press responded to the decision last week - they couldn't have been more scathing about British Judges. Hence the (hilarious!) irony that the pro-Brexit could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the decision of British Judges and usher Brixit in faster.
It is very funny!
The Telegraph these days is just a broadsheet Daily Fail. It ceased to be a serious newspaper years ago.
My parents got the telegraph until a month ago. I thought the standard of writing was awful, the editorial was like something a schoolchild could write.
I agree with pp about reading articles with which you have expert knowledge. I used to be a forensic scientist and the press never reported details of forensic science accurately.
Agree, OP. A few months before the referendum, the Mail ran a story about the grandfather of April Jones, the little girl in West Wales who was murdered a few years ago. The grandfather was telling people to vote Leave in the referendum, because the ECHR had ruled that in some cases whole-life sentences were illegal. Nowhere, either in the Mail report, or in the local newspapers where the story had originally appeared, did it say that the ECHR was nothing to do with the EU.
It was one small element in the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda the newspapers poured out, but very telling. Some newspapers would rather post an article that was a downright lie if it served their purpose rather than publish something that was factually accurate.
Agree op completely. What is particularly alarming to me is how often Teresa may conflated the two as Home Secretary and doesn't seem to know joe these institutions work.
IMissGrannyW: "Hence the (hilarious!) irony that the pro-Brexit could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the decision of British Judges and usher Brixit in faster."
Well, no. That's the OP's point. They can't appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, they can appeal to the European Court of Justice.
YANBU. I really wish that papers would routinely point out on every report mentioning the ECHR that it has nothing to do with the EU, and that leaving the EU doesn't mean leaving the EHCR.
The telling thing is that if you point that fact out in a Mail comment, you will inevitably get a mega-high disapproval rating. Even more so if you blow their mind by setting out the fact that Churchill was a prime mover behind the European Convention on Human Rights and we have been signed up to it since the early 1950s. They really hate inconvenient facts that don't confirm their prejudices.
Possibly there might be a way to go to the ECHR -though probably for the Remainers- presumably on the basis that someone has losts their Article 8 family life rights or something ...
I have to say that during the Referendum I picked up REMAINERS on social media indicating that if we voted out we would all lose our human rights and linking to articles about various other cases etc etc. These were people [and my good friends and family!] who were actively campaigning for Remain in RL and not just on social media. I can only therefore assume that they were also going out onto the street telling people that they would all lose their human rights ....
This was certainly not a one way error and who knows how many people voted remain as a result of their mistaken beliefs on this very important issue ....
Actually, I think your friends had a fair point. The Tory Party have campaigned to repeal the Human Rights Act, something which they would probably struggle to do if still an EU member.
well possibly but that is a matter of politics rather than law and certainly not something that they realised ....
in any event as far as Conservative politicians are concerned there are very divergent views on the ECHR and the EU - TM wanted to leave the ECHR but not the EU, Dominic Grieve wanted to leave the EU but not the ECHR ,,
sorry I am wrong Dominic Grieve voted remain - but there are people voting leave to Eu but wanting to remain in ECHR
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.