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.

The rules and laws under which ECHR operates were largely written by us initially. This isn't a withdrawal from the rule of Europe, it's a reframing of what the UK believes should be considered a human right in law.

Very concerning, I agree OP.

People who support removal of the act are weapons grade dumb. The act covers key items from the right to marry who we want to the right to privacy.

Of course those in power who want to get rid of it will focus on terrorists in order to win support because they know the clapping seals won’t read what the act covers and believe they will be fine. They will support initiatives which will see their own children starve in order to spite foreigners.

The right to legally deport terrorists should be the first thing to be addressed by the UK. No terrorist should have their own human rights superceded by innocent people's HRs.

..and here starts the insults.

I feel really sad. How has it come to this? A human rights system has one major goal - the state isn't allowed to oppress people. Of course there will be disputes over how this works in practice and you as an individual might not agree with the judges in every case, but overall, human rights are A Good Thing, something to be proud of. And of course states don't like them, because they constrain their power. But why would individuals buy into the story that states should have unfettered power?

The UK will retain its domestic human rights, for example the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I'm not sure why people are talking as though rights, per se, will be eroded.

exactly it doesnt mean there will be no human rights!

I will insult anyone who supports reducing mine and my children’s rights. I’m sick to the fucking back teeth of supporters of this pseudo Tory party pushing for my life to be harder.

I will not have my life and opportunities reduced in order to help the government remove a teeny number of terrorists, many of whom have British citizenship so won’t be accepted by another country anyway.

We’ve seen from ‘Rwanda’ that it’s hugely expensive to remove people who have zero British citizenship to go to a country which is actually happy to have them. Why do think a country like Pakistan for example will take back a British passport holder who committed their crimes on Britain? We can’t force them.

Think it through if it’s worth reducing the rights of your family for what will just be expensive drawn out legal disputes.

Swearing and insults, always the same from the left. I'm not going to bother addressing anybody, from hereonin, who cannot rationally debate.

No, but we will be called all sorts to point that out. The UK has many domestic rights that will remain. How did we manage before 1998? 🙄

The ECHR was originally proposed by Winston Churchill and drafted mainly by British lawyers Seems weird that we want to leave.

That's the standard you think the government should subscribe to when it comes to your human rights?

To place the same value on your human rights as a murderer would?

Weird.

We used the ECHR which came into force in1953.
The Brits wrote the ECHR so I guess we just drafted over stuff that we already used.

Why on earth would losing any rights be seen as a good thing? The popular narrative amongst many posers that the ECHR is all about ensuring criminals and terrorists have a good time just shows how much more education is required in schools on this.

What we won't have is constitutional protection of any human rights. They will be at the whim of the government of the day. We already have spectacularly poor vertical constitutional protections in this country. You seem unaware of the variety of case law supported by the current human rights which enhance those rights. Much of those may be lost. Another poster pointed out that Belarus is the only complete non-signatory to the ECHR in Europe. Imagine aspiring to join in!

I think when you have a government that can't enact its planned legislative agenda without breaching people's human rights, and so plans to withdraw from the decades long convention that protects them, then the direction of travel is extremely concerning.

Unfortunately, European Law, was part of my first degree. I am aware of its mechanism. I remember the laborious task of learning each Article.

Completely ignoring the point that human rights are essential for protecting the innocent.

No point trying to take the moral high ground when you're arguing for the removal of my and my children's human rights.

So you're presumably aware of Kamino, Danske Slagterier, etc and why not having even administrative decisions made against individuals without due process isn't a good idea? Do you welcome your local authority making a wrong decision which devastates you financially without holding some form of hearing first where you can have legal representation?

How will your rights, and those of your children be removed? Are you saying we will be living in a tyranny?

Is judicial review going as well then?

What red tape does the ehcr bring?

Oh is it literally nothing?

@justaladyLOL but people who enter the UK illegally can’t be housed. Unless you count being detained/imprisoned as housed?

Of course, this means understanding that asylum seekers entering the UK aren’t entering illegally. (And that by definition illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are very different things.) In fact, the government’s own requirement is that in order to claim asylum, you have to first enter the UK.

Not that many people who don’t look into things will know that though, given that even many conservative mps refer to asylum seekers as illegal immigrants. Which is incorrect, and they know is incorrect, but they rely on people not understanding the difference. And I wonder if part of that is to hide that fact that uncontrolled boat crossings have increased under the current government due to inept policy.

I agree, its chilling OP.
Doesn't mean this policy won't be cheered to the rafters by the public though.

I remember I happened across a pro Brexit street stall protesting against May's Brexit deal. I asked a person on the stall why he objected, he said because it wasn't Brexit. I asked if he'd read it, he said 'no' . I asked his colleague if she'd read it, answer 'no'. Turned out that not one of them, about 12 people, had actually read it. I suspect it will be the same with those cheering our exit from ECHR, they'll just get their information from tabloid headlines.

YANBU @WakeUpAndBeAwesome. The attacks on our democracy and rights by the Tory government is fucking terrifying. It looks like their plan is to spend the next 2 years destroying the rights of UK citizens.