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.

They are. And they vote! They are the same morons who believed slogans on buses about Brexit saving the NHS etc. I do not believe in democracy any more sadly. There are too many utter imbeciles.

@WakeUpAndBeAwesome do you remember Priti Patel having trouble mixing up her terrorists & anti-terrroists (about 2 years ago?) it would have been funny if it weren't so scary that she was in power & so clueless (not comparing you btw!)

OF COURSE giving up any Human Rights is a bad idea. For all of us.
They are hard won & relatively recent in human history. We ALL have rights.
Yes, they can be temporarily suspended in cases of murder / terorrism but thats a slipperly slope as '1 mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter' & all that.

Braverman is not a reassuring choice of post. She will be quietly working on @Fladdermus list whilst we are all scared silly about our energy bills this winter

As much as I would love to so we can reinstate the death penalty it doesn't make economic or security sense whilst we are at war with Russia. I don't necessarily oppose us leaving and forming a closer alliance with the USA etc but not right now

Do you think the UK joined the ECHR in 1998?

You're wrong - the UK joined the ECHR in the 1950 (it came into force in 1953). I presume your reference to 1998 relates to the incorporation of ECHR rights into domestic law via the Human Rights Act, but that's not what is at issue in this thread. The suggestion from Braverman was not just to change the Human Rights Act but to leave the Convention itself.

Good idea it's abused at every turn.

1. That is not true. The ECHR is much more important to the protection of human rights in member states than the UN, not least because there is a right to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights, which does not exist for individuals through the UN system. For the same reason, there is an extensive body of ECHR case law that does not exist for UN instruments which are much more aspirational than enforceable.
2. The ECHR is not an EU institution 🙄

What I can’t understand is why supporters of removing the ECHR don’t just move to the sort of countries who kick people out without a fair trial or commit state sanctioned murder like Saudi Arabia?

Why try to turn our county into Saudi Arabia instead? I’m more than ok for people to move to these places and potentially fuck up their own lives if that’s how they feel but why try and drag the rest of us down with them?

If they are opposed to gay marriage or be fired at will by their employer, there are multiple countries to choose from.

1. You sure? You seem to incredibly invested in defending the tories at every turn.

2 & 3) Ah sorry, I forgot you were the preeminent authority on the subject. I shouldn't listen to the concerns about withdrawing from the ECHR that have been raised by politicians, organisations, and commentators of all political hues.

Culldesack says it will all be fine so that's that. Oh, and this iteration of the Tories deserve every bashing they get.

Incidentally, not a single person advocating leaving the ECHR seems to be aware that it would also mean tearing up the Good Friday Agreement.

This country is going to the dogs , yes if leaving gives us more autonomy to make our own decisions then we should go

I haven't read the full thread apologies but I think, as is evidenced in the few responses that I have read, that most people don't actually understand what human rights actually are and should perhaps read up on the subject before commenting.

For instance what right is being contravened by someone being released from prison?

The right to life is most often understood as is the fact that human rights relate to treatment by the state not by other individuals.

People do not realise how much they benefit from having 'human rights' and that is because they have them. When they are taken away and the state can act as it wants, how it wants, when it wants it will eventually come for everyone in some way, but people think they are so perfect that they don't 'need' that protection.

"3) My rights, as a citizen won't be going anywhere."

I think this is instructive.

The reason the government wants to do this is so that they can enact policies which under current arrangements would breach the human rights of asylum seekers and migrants.

And that's going to be ok with Conservatives, who, judging from what I see every day on social media, don't see these people as fully human anyway.

So you're happy with killing innocent people? Because unless you can have 100% confidence in the police, the government(!) and the justice system, that will happen if you have the death penalty. And lets be honest, the UK does not have a good track record with convicting innocent people.

But it’s been sent “to the dogs” by the very people who you’re trusting to take us out. If everything’s got so much worse over the years that the conservative have been in charge, why would you trust them to make anything better for you?

And just scrap the Good Friday Agreement too?

@hattie43 they won't be 'our' decisions though.
They will be - and are - the decisions of the super rich who fund the Conservative party. People who are completely out of touch with society and who are unaffected by the laws which determine every aspect of our lives.

These are the people who've cut legal aid to rhe point v few even have a hope of pursuing justice. They are the same people who want you to pay for every aspect of your health care (and even a short ambulance ride can cost hundreds of pounds), the people who wish to remove your rights at work, remove your rights to an unbiased fair trial, monitor your every movement...etc etc.

This isn't scare mongering, it's already happening now.

What do you mean by autonomy @hattie43? The right to torture? The right of male bodied folk to access women's single sex spaces? The ability to strip women of their right to abortion/contraception? The right to lock people up for wrong think?

IT doesn't help at all.

What about people accused of terrorism, do you want them to have human rights?

Heres a hint, ALL humans deserve human rights.

I think you meant “seems to care” rather than “seems to be aware”

Those who seem certain that their rights as citizens won’t be at risk by leaving the ECHR don’t seem to be aware that it is often British citizens who have had to use the ECHR to vindicate their human rights against a government that would prefer to ignore them.

The point is that the way you can legitimately ensure a law abiding person has fair rights to justice, is to ensure all people have those rights.

It ensures that everyone has an unbiased trial.

It's absolutely essential to individual freedom and democracy.

Perhaps it would be easier for justice to be done if the courts were properly funded and there were not long delays. Ryan Giggs and those accusing him of coercive behaviour and other offences have to wait until next summer for justice to be done, for example.

The ECHR not only ensures justice, but also the number of cases which the government does not 'get its own way' are very few as a result.

Probably both.

There does seem to be a significant overlap between people who want to leave the ECHR and those who either don't know or don't care about the risk of resuming what was essentially a civil war within the UK until 25 years ago.

If what im reading is right Truss has put in Bauverman but axed the British Bill of Rights. If the latter is true, I'm a lot less concerned as that would suggest a commitment by the back door to the ECHR.

, ALL humans deserve human rights.

Some really really don't .

Harry Cole AT mrharrycole
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 its dead.

DH and I have had a long conversation about Truss's Cabinet over lunch. The people she has put into Cabinet are interesting as they are probably more competent than both May's and Johnson's. This doesn't mean I like them nor that I agree with their ideology but it's worth keeping an eye on. This COULD make them more worrying as a right wing government, or it could be a good sign

What I find fascinating is that whilst there may be the focus on the right wing nut jobs that are Mogg and Braverman you also have much more sane choices in Jake Berry and Tungendhat in there too. It's much more broad than Johnson’s Cabinet and I'd argue her choices seem much more thought out. If the Bill of Rights is killed off that's also the Rwanda plan dead.

This also opens up an interesting paradox. If you keep the ECHR you have something to blame at the election for immigration. Labour's ECHR. If you put in the bill of rights and its still a fucking farce over Rwanda you cannot blame someone else for the mess. It could be a political gambit for seeking reelection.

But in the short-term I have to say this action would kill off a lot of my immediate concerns about Braverman and the axing of the ECHR.

My first thought on Truss is she could prove more interesting and canny than I had anticipated. I shall reserve judgement but its a really interesting move if this is indeed true.

Keep your eyes on it for developments. It could be more revealing than you think.