To think leaving the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) is a cause for concern?

[WakeUpAndBeAwesome]

On paper, the new Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, looks well qualified to understand the rule of law and flex her legal arm. She seems to be a competent lawyer (but being a good lawyer does not mean someone is also a ‘good person’).

I get that it’s easier for the government to win legal cases if they withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Change the rules of the games to make it easier to win the game. I get it. But I don’t agree in principle because it’s not in the spirit of the game or rule of law. Some rules put players at a disadvantage, but they’re rules for a reason (reasons that need consideration).

Why do the plans to take the UK out the ECHR sound worrying?

To me, it’s because human right laws were hard won (do people who support getting rid of human rights laws realise that or care?). Once lost it’ll be even harder to win back human rights laws (and they may never be re-won again). Losing human rights protections under the ECHR is a slippery slope imo. We’re all humans with vulnerabilities, so we all benefit from the enforcement of human rights laws under ECHR.

Yes, its hugely concerning. The UK seems to be becoming more like the US every year, which considering the state of much of the latter, is hardly a model to follow.

The ECHR of course is entirely independent of EU membership. We have already lost the protections of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides a "beefed up" version of human rights, so thats a huge removal of constitutionally guaranteed rights in a very short time. What on earth is going on? The pound is tanking because of all of this upheavel and the financial markets don't like it either. The UK needs to show that it is a stable democracy, not change its constitution every year and its prime ministers every two.

Its amazing that there is all this political effort being put into constitutional change, but not even a whisper from any politicians of any ilk about actually drawing up a proper modern single document constitution to the benefit of all citizens. You know, like every other country has. One which can't be changed by parliament on a whim.

I think if we get to the stage of losing the right to make FOI requests, that would be even more concerning.

What do you mean on paper she looks well qualified?

She wasn't even made a QC until she took on the role of Attorney General.

There has rarely been a less qualified person for the role.

*Convention

Of course it fucking is. No one can ever answer which of their human rights they wish to be taken away, or why the UK should join the only other European country that is not a signatory of ECHR - Belarus.

The papers whip up a lot of fuss about ECHR so people think 1. the asylum system is abused due to the ECHR and 2. removing it would stop this, both of which are bullshit.

Tories want to remove it so they can treat plebs more like shit than they already do.

And Suella Braverman is not really that well qualified.

On paper she has good academics.

“Law at Queens’ College, Cambridge. She later gained a master’s degree in Law from the Panthéon-Sorbonne in Paris and then qualified as a New York attorney.

Whoops 😬

Yes, European convention on human rights (ECHR).

The European Court of Human Rights, also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights.

Human rights aren't ever afforded to victims of murder, for instance, so I couldn't care less about it.

I think the constant red tape costs a bloody fortune and I’m absolutely sick of individuals playing the system. So actually I’m all for it. I know it’s an unpopular opinion but we’re in a time where unpopular decisions are going to be made.

That is a rather unusual and extremely expensive background. Most lawyers have to work as soon as they qualify, not go on a world tour of elite law schools. She doesn't appear to come from a particularly wealthy background, she attended private school but on a scholarship so its seems likely that she has been able to get funding for these opportunities in a way which isn't necessarily available to the majority, as opposed to having to knuckle down and work for a living at that stage.

I haven't heard great things about her competence, she seems ambitious and generalist but mainly renowned as a lawyer in political terms. There are far more impressive lawyers working in the field of government and constitutional law who I would be delighted to see as Attorney General but she isn't on a par with them professionally.

Really?

Do you have evidence of that?

Surely families of the victims get protection, no?

I don't like the idea of terrorists having human rights, if that helps.

Is this true?Evidence?

We’re at a time when human rights protections are maybe needed the most.

As I found out last night, you can't go against the grain, without inviting a pile on. I totally agree with you.

Where does this concept that every appointed minister is actually going to sit down and write the minutiae of every bill or response issued by their department come from? Because even if they never slept,,or ate,,or took a toilet break they couldn’t hope to do it.

the minister is appointed by the PM to oversee the public business carried out by that department. The policies are formulated and agreed in cabinet, and ultimately ratified by Parliament. The voters can them give their approval, or show their dissent by voting in an election.

Many people on here seem to think that The Government is like a small business, where you hire a lawyer to run the law department, and expect them to be doing the conveyancing and applying for CCJ . Ooh , she can’t be Health Secretary, she’s overweight! He can’t be Education Secretary, he’s only got one degree!

Fortunately nonne of this applies to Kwasi , who is dauntingly competent at almost everything ( though I hear he has trouble with his X box *)

*only joking

It’s the vocal minority, doing what they do best.

“Why is counter-terrorism a human rights issue?

“Both terrorism and counter-terrorism are human rights issues.

“Terrorism is a human rights issue because it involves deliberate attacks on civilians causing death and serious injury – and so engages the right to life and the right to physical integrity.

“Counter-terrorism is a human rights issue because the way that the state responds to the threat of terrorism may involve exceptional measures that depart from long-established legal principles, including fundamental rights.”

justice.org.uk/counter-terrorism-human-rights/

Absolutely

I’m not sure that only a minority of us don’t want to lose our human rights. Which of these do you fancy losing? (And remember, you can’t remove them just from people you don’t like - if they go, they go for you too)

My comment was in relation to something else.

That’s a bit of a strange point. Murder is clearly wrong, and punished by the law. What’s the connection with human rights for the living?
I think people who are anti ECHR are a bit like a lot of grammar school enthusiasts who assume their child would be at the grammar, not the secondary modern. Anti ECHR people think it’s only others whose rights will be threatened. It’s not. It’s all of us.

No, you said a vocal minority pile on anyone who goes against the grain, likening your experience to this so the point remains. It would have been stringer if the quite fun twin had shown the quote above yours too though.
Actually it makes no sense. If it’s ‘the grain’ it’s because it’s the majority view, surely?

Of course all of our rights will be affected. However, I would rather see rights being protected on an individual or common sense basis. It sticks in my throat to see a monster, who has carried out a heinous crime, to use the ECHR to get pity, aka justice.

Are you deliberately trying to derail the thread?

"Surely families of the victims get protection, no?"
What protection
Is a person is murdered how does the family get protected
Often killers are eventually released onto the streets
eg Harry Roberts who killed 3 policemen was released recently
Kenny Noye is due for release soon
Tracie Andrews has been released
Where are the victims family huinam rights in all this
It depends what you mean by human rights
If it means an erosion of the idea that a person is innocent until proven otherwise I am against
If it means that a person can enter the Uk illegally and be housed - I consider that an infringement of my rights as a hard working tax payer

What about innocent people who are accused of terrorism? If you get rid of human rights what happens to them? Or you?
The U.K. does have quite a record of terrorising innocent individuals to get them to admit to terrorist offences. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, the Hooded men and Internment without trial.