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.

Suella Braverman has a law degree from a prestigious institution. So… I no longer know what to expect tbh.

You have no concern about ripping up the Good Friday Agreement?

Actually I take that.... But! Counterargument.
She doesn't care because it won't touch her part of society. It will be ordinary people, not shielded rich ones. The ordinary who are in here thinking that it's totes fine to not have secured human rights.

I kind of want to know how many of them moan about Qatar football....

YANBU - last year I read The Secret Barrister's first book where he makes the excellent point that it is never in the public's interest for people to have fewer rights. The government and the media like to frame these things are preventing some or other outrageous-sounding thing (eg 'Prisoner got legal aid to sue for uncomfortable blanket!') which is either totally untrue or massively distorted. This is great until you or your family or anyone with a totally legitimate grievance needs legal aid, or to launch a claim for racial discrimination or whatever thing the government has made harder or taken away as a right.

I don't doubt this government wants US-style 'Your employer owns you' style working arrangements - they'll frame it as because people are 'lazy' and 'unproductive' and somehow removing their rights is supposed to make them more motivated (IIRC, research shows workers with fewer rights are less motivated). Also the UK's productivity metrics, which they are always complaining are so low, are totally outdated because they are based on a 'producing widgets' economy, which we haven't been for years, and don't take account of digital productivity and the knowledge economy, that are actually pretty productive. But 'The party of business' apparently doesn't understand this.

Bold claim.

Did the newspaper tell you that or have you got some actual experience or evidence to back this up?

Newspapers are in the business of selling stories, not the whole truth.

Except Suella Braverman and her part of society are still vulnerable as human beings and are not above the law (although they may feel like it). They may think they’re shielded but may need the ECHR just as much as an ordinary human.

Which human doesn’t need the right to protection from torture and inhuman treatment?

Which articles in the ECHR would Suella Braverman not want for herself and her part of society?

The golden rule would really help here. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Equality, fairness and justice. Basic principles…

Banned from practicing in America though

YANBU - last year I read The Secret Barrister's first book where he makes the excellent point that it is never in the public's interest for people to have fewer rights.

Yep.

The Secret Barrister books are brilliant. More people should read them to understand how the law works and the impact of politics and sociology-economic factors on the law.

The media has a lot to answer for turning people against their own interests.

*socio-economic

Why was she banned?

It is easier to escape the rules when you make them and to prosecution if your mates are still up there. Or at least that's what they think.....

They shouldn't want rights erosion, no one should. Anyone with law degree (and tbh even without it because it is quite logical)should understand the basic of Rule of law and why rights are needed and NOT to be distributed sporadically based on "I don't think you deserve them atm babes"

@Bubblebubblebah “It is easier to escape the rules when you make them and to prosecution if your mates are still up there. Or at least that's what they think.....”

Easier to think they can escape the rule of law. Precarious position. Pride comes before the fall…

That complacency has a way of biting people on the bum.

Like that time the Prime Minister was fined for Partygate.

Wow, that's a weird take on this. Thankfully, very few people become victims of murder, but all of us should be entitled to fundamental human rights. It's a cornerstone of a civilised and democratic society.

How would a murder victim exercise their human rights if they had them?

Agree OP. I find it concerning. It fits with this govt's style of pushing for more power, whilst fighting against accountability for its actions.

That would have been tough for the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven and Judith Ward, all of whom were wrongly convicted of terrorist offences and locked up for years.

Unless and until we have 100% foolproof legal system, imo it's wrong to deny basic rights to convicted criminals. Their loss of liberty is the punishment for their deeds.

Grow up. That is such a fringe attitude amongst politicians that no one would support it. General public like hanging, mind

@LakieLady Checks and balances are important… ECHR seems to serve this function. Without it then what do we have?

I strongly urge anybody, before coming to a conclusion about what Braverman or any other politician says about this subject, to read Fake Law by the Secret Barrister, or at least the section on human rights.

They explain it much better than I can, but basically people like Braverman, and before her Raab, are lawyers, arguably perfectly clever, competent ones, who deliberately and cynically misrepresent aspects of the law and the legal system, exploiting and encouraging misinformation and ignorance about it, to further their own ends, and those ends are to gain political support. They care not one jot about what is fair, right or makes legal sense. They just want to be popular.

In the process, there is invariably a scapegoat employed as part of the misinformation; in the case of human rights, a big one here is terrorists and other heinous criminals and we are encouraged to believe that HR help them and not us. All a load of atrocious bollocks.

What protection are you worried about losing by exiting ECHR? What do you think will happen if we did? Locked in our homes? Oh, sorry that already happened even with the glorious ECHR.

I ask you the same question. Take your pick from the list that @PestorPeston posted upthread:

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)

How about the tearing up of the Good Friday Agreement? Is that a price worth paying?

Jeez, the knee jerk reactions of people who don’t want to afford others human rights is terrifying.

First they came.... Springs to mind actually

What if you or someone you cared about was wrongly accused of murder? Would you care about the (human) right to a fair trial?