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.

@Dotjones ”No civilised country should be without the death penalty, it's an essential tool in the same way that courts and prisons are.”

So why have civilised societies outlawed the death penalty?

At least with the current system, miscarriages of justice can be caught through an appeal process. With the death penalty… they’re dead so no ability to appeal a miscarriage of justice (except maybe their angry and vengeful ghost lol 😂).

The BMJ event write about the unwillingness of executioners:
Death Penalty: not for civilised society

Perhaps an argument can be made for the death penalty under the modern approaches to justice, but it needs to go through a process before any referendum to re-introduce it to civilised society.

Even things like the right to marry and start a family are not rights.

So why do you think the British lawyers writing this right into law would do that? (Noting that British lawyers were involved in the ECHR).
Could it be that family is also at the heart of holding civilised society together?

I suspect that right has helped many non-resident parents maintain their right to see their children in acrimonious breakups. In a day and age when fewer people marry but still have families, this right may be key to some people having access and a relationship with their children (family).

That law may have helped many couples get IVF treatment. Some people may never have been born without this right in law…

“The family is the nucleus of civilization and the basic social unit of society. Aristotle wrote that the family is nature’s established association for the supply of mankind’s everyday wants. Research clearly shows that the institution of the family is the first form of community and government and, as Michael Novak said, the first, best and original Department of Health, Education and Welfare.” - Stronger Families, Stronger Societies

"Freedom of expression" isn't a right either. Lots of people have been convicted for expressing opinions which have been deemed unacceptable by others.

And many haven’t been convicted thanks to bringing this human right to their defence. Cases are judged on a case by case basis.

If this right wasn’t there to help defend freedom of expression, then wouldn’t you worry?

"The right to life" - we all die, therefore this isn't a right. Life-saving treatment can be withdrawn on the order of a court, therefore we don't have this right.

That’s a bit fatalistic. “we all die’. Whilst it is true that this right can be challenged on that basis, it’s also not in the spirit of the law.

Many advancements in medicine have gone hand in hand with this right to life. The right to life places an obligation on public authorities to provide life-saving or life-prolonging medical treatment.

You’ve highlighted cases where life saving treatment has been withdrawn - but again this goes through a process on a case by case basis. The flip side is that life saving treatment has been Given thanks to this right…

The life expectancy not too long ago was around 50 (off the top of my head). Now it’s about 80. Not a leap to find that the right to life laws obliging health providers to provide life saving and life pro-longing treatments have helped this shift in life expectancy.

An added 30 years on life expectancy - that impacts the political landscape greatly. Imagine how differently politics would look without the over-50s? Quite a chilling thought indeed, especially in an age when people are having children later in life.

She’s not that competent a lawyer.

The right to marry and family is more in case of government not allowing it. For example there used to be a thing when foreigners had to basically ask Home Office if they could marry. Certificate of Approval scheme was found against human rights if I remember correctly for various reasons including the fucking fee.

Do you know what's the best profit making business in UK? Not amazon, Home Office.

Well I thought that when I heard her arguments for removing the ECHR.

Essentially “remove these rules getting in my way and I’ll win my cases”.

Change the rules of the games and sure she can win. Some may also call that cheating… the rule of law.

Human rights, civil liberties, constitutional protections - call them what you will are so simple to understand that anyone who doesn't really needs to be kept away from sharp things.

They are always (and only) a protection for the individual from the state. Nothing more. Nothing less.

They are a backstop for when all else has failed.

The people who (claim) they are quite happy to surrender them need to remember that without them, they are reliant on the goodwill of the people in government. And frankly that is the worst possible argument for removing any rights I can think of. Look at how many rights they have managed to removed with the ECHR in place.

The knuckle draggers on this thread and elsewhere need to ponder why every single attempt to remove the UK from the ECHR has ended in a damp squib. Despite having had a Tory government since 2015.

@Dotjones I really hope you don’t have children. You are either a moron or a troll, and in both cases a detriment to any children you may have either now or in the future.

I think it was a joke? Maybe? Yeah?

We won't get rid of the different articles, just there will be some clarification on their interpretation. Some are interpreted in a ridiculous way (we all know the ones) and we just need some common sense and pragmatism to take over

"We won't get rid of the different articles, just there will be some clarification on their interpretation. Some are interpreted in a ridiculous way (we all know the ones) and we just need some common sense and pragmatism to take over"

So for example, a Syrian whose only living relative is a a sibling who is settled in the U.K., arrives here on a boat and claims asylum.

'Common sense' and 'pragmatism' would be applied and that person could be deported to Rwanda without having their asylum claim heard, and because they no longer have a right to a family life it would be acceptable that they could never return to the U.K. and be here with their last remaining family member.

That's the sort of thing you're thinking of?

Lawyers are at fault for abusing the HRA, bending it to protect the "rights" of convicted criminals or terrorists. Why should they have the right to a family life? What about the rights of their victims?

Sorry but in every instance where there is a conflict of interest between a criminal and a law-abider, the rights of the law-abider should take precedence. Every time. No exceptions. Criminals should be dealt with in whatever way minimises their negative effects on everyone else. Ordinary people should not be put at risk of crime from people who are already established as being criminals.

@Florenz Interesting that you chose to ignore my post from earlier (you know, the one with actual facts in a link). I’ll ask again - what cases are you referring to that have used the HRA or ECHR to favour the rights of the criminal rather than the victim?

Lawyers are at fault for applying the law for their clients?

But that's their job!

Their job is to obtain the best legal outcome for their client.

Just want to point out that third of UK has criminal record so not protecting rights of criminals or whatnot would essentially end up with "ah well, third, three thirds, same thing, lets just scrap it all".

"Just want to point out that third of UK has criminal record so not protecting rights of criminals or whatnot would essentially end up with "ah well, third, three thirds, same thing, lets just scrap it all".

Its grim that so many people see individuals who've been through the criminal justice system and served their sentences as subhuman. No wonder suicide rates are so high among prisoners and ex prisoners. We're genuinely completely sh*t in the U.K. when it comes to reform - which is probably why recidivism is so high here.

Deport to where? If they are foreign we can do that now, if they are British we obviously can’t.

Just want to point out that third of UK has criminal record

No, roughly a third of UK men have a criminal record
If you're going to post sensationalist things like this it's worth getting the facts right

Lawyers are at fault for doing things inconvenient to the state, apparently. Some people really would be happier under fascism.