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.

A bit like those, on here, not understanding how domestic courts work.

The only reason to leave is to get rid of some of the rights, which ones do the Tories not like?

the right to life (Article 2)
freedom from torture (Article 3)
freedom from slavery (Article 4)
the right to liberty (Article 5)
the right to a fair trial (Article 6)
the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t against the law at the time (Article 7)
the right to respect for family and private life (Article 8)
freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9)
freedom of expression (Article 10)
freedom of assembly (Article 11)
the right to marry and start a family (Article 12)
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights (Article 14)
the right to protection of property (Protocol 1, Article 1)
the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2)
the right to participate in free elections (Protocol 1, Article 3)
the abolition of the death penalty (Protocol 13)

Could be an idea to read up before ripping up www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/what-are-human-rights

Oops, don't know why there's a quote there.

Dont see the issue. We wrote the rules. We basically invented the modern court system. Some shakier states might need the ECHR to keep them in check but we dont. We have our own system in place

🙌 hallelujah.

ECHR keep us accountable. Without them we could change the rules. We could change how the courts work, we could become like Belarus or Russia.

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.

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.

This, and this!!

It is extremely concerning, and I say this as a very close family member of a murder victim. I cannot believe anyone would think that it's a good idea.

When thinking about children's rights, how many were thinking of the rights of the 9 year old girl, murdered in Boston? Who killed her?

Because things change. And can change very fast for women.

It's not worrying because we shall continue to be bound by our obligations under the UN

Which are higher (in international terms) than the EU ones.

It's just taking out the middle management. It's not removing human rights, or abrogating from our UN treaty obligations. There should be no change.

But I can see how the presentational issue is being leapt on, either by those who do not know about or understand the role of the UN. Or by those who wish to misrepresent by omission.

I think your degree may have been a poor investment. ECHR upholds the right to life.

Stop trying to score cheap points off someone's personal tragedy.

Oh and because PM Johnson passed a nifty wee law that said if the government believe that you could be entitled to citizenship elsewhere they can strip you of your UK citizenship without telling you. So you could go on holiday and then discover you are stateless when you try to get home. So if you are black, brown, Jewish, had a foreign grandparent or have a foreign spouse or are from NI, the government can make you homeless and stateless.

I think you don't know which direction this was going in. How do you think the victim's killer's UK rights are going to be administered? It is no good insulting people's intelligence, when you're not coming from a position of strength.

But what rights do you want removed? Because the UK isn't leaving the ECHR to give people more rights. They arrest someone for that murder. Do you want to remove his right to a fair trial? How about his right not to be tortured? Should he face the death penalty? And what if they've arrested the wrong person?

Human rights should be universal and not at the whim of whatever PM is in power at the time.

@Culldesack Can you articulate why you’ve brought up that case in particular? You’re seem to be alluding to something but unable to say it clearly.

Do you think the murderer was an asylum seeker (thus relevant to comments above)? Do you think the fact that the murderer was not British means he will be treated better? Do you think his deportation will be blocked because of some kind of human rights? Do you think he will not be charged with murder? What is the relevance to this thread that necessitates a family’s tragedy to be brought out in public again?

Indeed.

(To be very clear, the murderer was NOT an asylum seeker. Can see someone reading that without context and jumping all over that.)

They are and will remain universal.

Because we are, and will remain, signatories to the UN convention - which is a much more important one than the EU offshoot modelled on it.

‘Swearing and insults, always the same from the left’

Where did I say I was from the left? I’m actually dead centre and would be considered a ‘Blairite’ or ‘One Nation Tory’ when they still existed. I can say for certain that you are not or the ‘normal’ right though.

I think me swearing is nothing compared to mine and my kids rights being threatened though so off your fuck.

I know people are going to hate hearing this, but this was the biggest reason I voted against brexit.

Brexiteers were vocal about this from the start, it shouldn't be coming as a surprise now

The ECHR is not an EU offshoot. It existed long before the EU.

Because we are, and will remain, signatories to the UN convention - which is a much more important one than the EU offshoot modelled on it.

It's got nothing to do with the EU.

You were had @Leafy3. Did you not check out what the ECHR is before voting Leave?🤦‍♀️

Did you misread my post there @TooBigForMyBoots ? 🤦

Oh. Oh dear. 🫢

“EXC: Cabinet agreed to shelve Raab’s British Bill of Rights designed to protect against meddling ECHR in Strasbourg, The Sun can reveal. It was due back in Commons next week.

New PM risks major blowback after delaying the second reading of the legislation - which was due on 12 September. A senior govt source: "The bill is a mess and its not going to come back in anything like its current form."

But much vaunted plan to make the Supreme Court in London ultimate decision-maker on human rights issues – not the ECHR in Strasbourg - now risks running out of time now before the end of the Parliament. Officially it will be “reviewed” but opponents say “it’s dead”.”

mobile.twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1567471503884648448

(don’t know how seriously I can take The Sun, but interesting if true.)