The European Convention on Human Rights

[Noddy]

I think you may be getting the causation the wrong way round. Off the top of my head I can't think of any senior politician or any mainstream movement that is on record as opposing the current human rights framework just because it's somehow associated with Europe/the EU: To do so would be patently absurd (although that sadly doesn't seem to stop many on the left from believing and propagating that absurdity). However if (like myself, and like many on the right) you view the human rights framework/the ECHR as not fit for purpose and as profoundly damaging to the UK, then it's almost inevitable that you'll quickly notice that the EU and the supranational structures around the ECHR pose a huge obstacle to any meaningful reform of the ECHR, and therefore you're likely to be motivated to become more pro-Brexit as a result. That's the more likely reason why you'd see a correlation between pro-Brexit views and anti-ECHR views.

As @ainsworth74 points out, could you please let us know how the ECHR is ‘profoundly damaging’ to the UK?

 

[Peterthegreat]

My big question would be : "are a number of other European countries (aside from those ruled by hardliners, such as Hungary) considering doing likewise?"

If yes, then anti-ECHR sentiment might, perhaps (but more likely not) have some foundation.

If not, it would, to me, look suspiciously like the exceptionalism of the British right-wing. If the UK right is the only political grouping in Europe complaining about it, that would, to me, seem distinctly suspicious.

I suspect a similar number to those wanting to leave the EU.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My big question would be : "are a number of other European countries (aside from those ruled by hardliners, such as Hungary) considering doing likewise?"

If yes, then anti-ECHR sentiment might, perhaps (but more likely not) have some foundation.

If not, it would, to me, look suspiciously like the exceptionalism of the British right-wing. If the UK right is the only political grouping in Europe complaining about it, that would, to me, seem distinctly suspicious.

Does whether something is right or not depend only on whether other European countries agree with it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2023 ==

Is this a wind up?

Of course not. The point is, we all (well, I assume just about all of us) accept that everyone's life ends at some point, whether through old age, illness or some other cause - and no-one claims that human rights have been breached on account of that. Since we accept that there are situations where it's OK (normally very sad, but in terms of human rights, OK) that people die, that logically means that any right to life cannot be - as @najaB appears to be claiming - absolute: There are (very common) situations in which it rather obviously does not apply (And that's even before you start to consider the situations where a person appears to have forfeited their right to life through their own actions - such as being about to kill someone else).

I suspect that in ethical terms the 'right' that is being talked about would be better framed not a right to life per se, but as a right not to be arbitrarily killed.

 

[nw1]

Does whether something is right or not depend only on whether other European countries agree with it?

If 30-ish people (all of whom have a good reputation) say one thing is right and one person says it's wrong, would you trust the 30 or the one?

Certainly 30/31 is a more convincing majority than 52/100.... <g, d & r....>

 

[ainsworth74]

Does whether something is right or not depend only on whether other European countries agree with it?

Of course not. But the majority of European countries are friends and allies who take similar (broadly speaking) cultural approaches to the world whilst the only European nations that are significantly pulling away from the ECHR are Russia and Belarus (who you would presumably agree are neither friendly nor societies/governments we should wish to copy?). Therefore it is not unreasonable to question whether there is actually something fundamentally wrong with the ECHR when it is only certain factions of the UK right win g(because it isn't even the entire Tory party or wider right wing groups) that are objecting to the ECHR. That seems a bit weird. If there was something fundamentally wrong with the ECHR, to the point that leaving it was necessary, you would surely see other groups both within the UK and outside, including other Governments, advocating for reform or exit. Loudly. But, er, you don't really. Other than certain sections of the UK right wing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If 30-ish people say one thing is right and one person says it's wrong, would you trust the 30 or the one?

Certainly 30/31 is a more convincing majority than 52/100.... <g, d & r....>

If they were people I trusted or whom I knew had some expertise, I might well take that as guidance if I didn't have time to look at the arguments myself or if it was an issue I didn't really care about so was happy to go along with whatever the majority opinion is. But in general, I prefer to look at issues on their merits rather than on the basis of trying to follow what other people are saying.

 

[renegademaster]

The ECHR is very overrated imo.
An actually deposistic regime would just invoke article 15, which the court almost never says no to.
Operation Demetrius(NI internment of suspected but not proven IRA members without trial) would shock people today but we stopped ECHR from intervening.

 

[eldomtom2]

The ECHR (the convention) is so riddled with loopholes as to protect very little, and the ECHR (the court) interprets it in ways that protect even less, such as its upholding of blasphemy laws.

I don't think the Tories want to leave the ECHR for good reasons, though.

 

[yorksrob]

Withdrawing is a nonsense idea.

This country was happy to sling citizens out who'd been naturalised for several decades, just because we'd lost the documents (the Windrush scandal). We need some oversight frankly.

It's also not an unduly lenient body on justice. It has (quite rightly IMO) upheld the nation's right to specify whole life tariffs in some circumstances.

 

[najaB]

Since we accept that there are situations where it's OK (normally very sad, but in terms of human rights, OK) that people die, that logically means that any right to life cannot be - as @najaB appears to be claiming - absolute

The right to life is absolute. That doesn't mean you'll live forever. If you really think that the former means the latter then I really don't know what to say.

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course not.

I'm certainly struggling to see at as anything but! You're the only person I've ever heard of which appears to conflate the right to life with some suggestion that this should mean that people can't die. Ever. Even of natural causes. Which surely the only way to read this:

If you think the right to life is absolute, how on Earth do you account for that, on all the available evidence, every single person who has ever lived either has died or will eventually die?

I mean I'm starting to think that you don't actually know anything about the ECHR, at all, if that's the level of argument that you're using to suggest that we should withdraw from it.

There are (very common) situations in which it rather obviously does not apply (And that's even before you start to consider the situations where a person appears to have forfeited their right to life through their own actions - such as being about to kill someone else).

What are these "very common" situations? I'm struggling to think of a scenario that could be described as "very common". Even the most likely scenario of self-defence or defence of others isn't all that common. Which is typically why when it does happen it makes the news.

 

[Enthusiast]

To withdraw from the ECHR, you also need to replace the Good Friday Agreement, with the approval of both sides in Northern Ireland.

David Allen Green wrote on this topic in his blog.

Perhaps if the Northern Ireland Assembly ever gets round to er... reassembling, they might care to discuss the issue. They'll have to be quick though because, on past evidence, their habit of assembling seems not to last too long.

Personally I've never found the need for protection from the State. Many developed countries seem to get by without having a supra-national court to moderate their affairs. I don't know too many people who have been tortured by the UK State, or who have been imprisoned without trial, or who have been refused compensation for wrongful imprisonment, or who have been punished twice for the same offence. I don't know too many who have sought remedy in the UK for such misfortunes but been disappointed. I have heard of a few who have disagreed with decisions against them having exhausted all the judicial options open to them here. I suppose it depends if you believe they should have recourse to a foreign court having done that. I don't.

 

[najaB]

Personally I've never found the need for protection from the State.

Most people don't either. Until they do.

 

[GusB]

"Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

- Martin Niemöller

Those advocating the scrapping of the EHCR need to think very carefully about where it will lead. The right to protest lawfully has already been seriously curtailed, but that's okay because it only affects Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. Such draconian measures may not affect you now, but wait until there's something that you need to protest about. By then it will be too late.

I wouldn't trust our current government to run a bath, let alone ensure that there's an adequate replacement for the protections that the EHCR gives us. Let's also not pretend that it's something that "Europe" has imposed upon us; we were instrumental in its creation.

 

[Gaelan]

The ECHR is entirely about protecting the individual (who those on the right are usually most keen to protect ironically!)

Ah, but you've made the classic error of expecting intellectual consistency from the right.

 

[class ep-09]

Leave ECHR … welcome to russia .

I would not trust UK government to keep my human rights if we leave ECHR, not to mention asylum seekers .

They removed right of this country people to freedom of movement just to appease some right wing morons within tory party…
So as long as there is a bit of oversight from supra national court , I can sleep bit more at ease .

Also - even if UK leaves ECHR - how is that going to stop the boats or other illegal ways how asylum seekers get in to the country , and how is that going to stop the criminals profiteering ?
Uk still won’t be able to “send these people
back” to France or any other country for that matter without agreement with them .

Another point is that current trade and cooperation deal UK have with EU as a condition requires UK to be part of ECHR .

No ECHR no deal

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Neither of these are punishment, but the right to life is not absolute, even under the ECHR, which expressly permits states to use capital punishment, and even allows "absolutely necessary" force when referring to law and order:

My understanding is that's true of the original convention, but in 1985 Protocol 6 was added, banning the death penalty in peacetime, and then in 2002 protocol 13 additionally banned the death penalty in wartime.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2023 ==

I mean I'm starting to think that you don't actually know anything about the ECHR, at all, if that's the level of argument that you're using to suggest that we should withdraw from it.

There may be some crossed threads here. I was replying to a poster who was trying to claim that the right to life was some absolute principle, with an apparently implied, in all circumstances. My point is that that basically conflicts with the laws of physics and so does not make sense as either a moral or legal principle. I think the wider point here is that, although I understand what the intention is behind 'right to life', that phrase is actually pretty sloppy: A right not to be arbitrarily killed probably more accurately describes the intention in the original ECHR.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2023 ==

Apparently? I don't understand it really. The State gets things wrong more frequently than would really be considered ideal. Giving it the ability to kill seems quite chilling to me. But each to their own I guess.

I don't want to turn this into an off-topic argument about the death penalty per se, but I would say that, whatever your individual feelings about the death penalty, whether the death penalty forms part of a country's justice system is surely a political question for that country and that country's electorate to determine - and is therefore not really appropriate for having policy permanently locked down by an international court.

There are after all many issues on which I feel passionately that things ought to be a certain way, or the Government ought to be doing certain things - just as you clearly feel about the death penalty. But generally speaking, as someone who believes in representative democracy, I'm happy to see those issues resolved by the ballot box (even if it means they don't always go the way I would like): I don't generally try to lock in my political beliefs by making them part of a permanent convention and international court that therefore becomes largely immune from any democratic influence.

 

[alex397]

Yes let’s leave. Let’s be like Russia and Belarus

 

[gordonthemoron]

I’m a fan of Winston Churchill, he who was instrumental in creating the ECHR, and no one will be taking my rights away. Anyone who argues for leaving the ECHR is arguing for YOU losing your rights

 

[dosxuk]

Anyone who argues for leaving the ECHR is arguing for YOU losing your rights

There is the caveat to that with people arguing for a better solution, but that doesn't seem to apply in the majority of cases.

 

[ainsworth74]

There may be some crossed threads here. I was replying to a poster who was trying to claim that the right to life was some absolute principle, with an apparently implied, in all circumstances. My point is that that basically conflicts with the laws of physics and so does not make sense as either a moral or legal principle. I think the wider point here is that, although I understand what the intention is behind 'right to life', that phrase is actually pretty sloppy: A right not to be arbitrarily killed probably more accurately describes the intention in the original ECHR.

Only if you fail to appreciate that the ECHR is about protecting the individual from the State. Of course everyone dies. That is a fact of life and, outside of sci-fi, will always be. But the ECHR Article 2 right to life is not "sloppily" named when it comes to ensure that the State cannot kill without justification, without investigating the circumstances of a death and should, in some situations, be proactive in preventing death. I have a right to my life, as do you, as does everyone in the UK. The State cannot kills any of us without justification or investigation. It is bizzare to me that anyone would think that this is a bad thing, so bad in fact, that we should leave the organisation that says such things and align ourselves with Russia and Belarus.

But generally speaking, as someone who believes in representative democracy, I'm happy to see those issues resolved by the ballot box (even if it means they don't always go the way I would like): I don't generally try to lock in my political beliefs by making them part of a permanent convention and international court that therefore becomes largely immune from any democratic influence.

So the ECHR is a step too far? It binds us too tightly? Are we also bound too tightly by any other treaties? Any other agreements? What about other organisations to which we are members? Should we leave NATO? The UN? The CPTPP? The ICC? What specifically is it that makes you feel that the ECHR is an unacceptable affront to democracy but the others are okay? Or is it the view now of those on the right that the UK should be party to no treaties, no supranational organisations, no agreements?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

so bad in fact, that we should leave the organisation that says such things and align ourselves with Russia and Belarus.

I would have expected better of you than to make such obviously absurd comparisons - since I'm sure you're aware the UK is nothing like either Belarus or Russia in terms of political system or how the Government treats its people. Not being in the ECHR no more aligns us with Russia and Belarus than it does Australia, Canada or New Zealand - all perfectly well functioning democracies that generally respect the human rights of their populations without being in the ECHR. I could also cite the USA, although I realise that's maybe not such a good example with the obvious question marks over the state of democracy there and issues with how some of the population have been treated.

So the ECHR is a step too far? It binds us too tightly? Are we also bound too tightly by any other treaties? Any other agreements? What about other organisations to which we are members? Should we leave NATO? The UN? The CPTPP? The ICC? What specifically is it that makes you feel that the ECHR is an unacceptable affront to democracy but the others are okay? Or is it the view now of those on the right that the UK should be party to no treaties, no supranational organisations, no agreements?

Most of the other organisations you cite specifically deal with how nations interact with each other. Clearly, it's impossible for nations to interact without agreeing some rules on their behaviour etc. as well as organisations to manage transnational activities - hence organisations like the UN or NATO.

I would also say there is a basic standard of behaviour expected of Governments that is so fundamental to upholding democracy/legitimate governance/treatment of individuals/etc. that it goes beyond day-to-day politics and justifies international agreements to enforce that behaviour. On the whole, I'd say that, although I have disagreements with it, the original text of the European Convention on Human Rights does fall into that category, at least in intention, as does the ICC (International Criminal Court). But stuff like the later protocols that ban the death penalty do not fall into that category: Those protocols represent clear interference in the domestic politics and the internal judicial system of countries in a way that is not justified either by the necessity of dealing with international relations or by anything fundamental to do with legitimate governance. It's up the voters of each country to determine whether they want to have the death penalty for certain crimes.

 

[najaB]

But stuff like the later protocols that ban the death penalty do not fall into that category: Those protocols represent clear interference in the domestic politics and the internal judicial system of countries in a way that is not justified either by the necessity of dealing with international relations or by anything fundamental to do with legitimate governance. It's up the voters of each country to determine whether they want to have the death penalty for certain crimes.

Every attempt to reinstate capital punishment in the UK has failed to find support in parliament, so I really don't see the problem.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Every attempt to reinstate capital punishment in the UK has failed to find support in parliament, so I really don't see the problem.

Sure, and failing to find support in Parliament is democracy working. Personally, I somewhat regret that failure to find support but I respect that because it's how democracy works. What I cannot respect is that previous generations of politicians who were opposed to capital punishment have signed us up to protocols that bind us to not having capital punishment in perpetuity (unless we withdraw from those agreements), even if the will of the electorate/Parliament subsequently changes in the future: That is not how democracy is supposed to work.

 

[bspahh]

I would have expected better of you than to make such obviously absurd comparisons - since I'm sure you're aware the UK is nothing like either Belarus or Russia in terms of political system or how the Government treats its people. Not being in the ECHR no more aligns us with Russia and Belarus than it does Australia, Canada or New Zealand - all perfectly well functioning democracies that generally respect the human rights of their populations without being in the ECHR. I could also cite the USA, although I realise that's maybe not such a good example with the obvious question marks over the state of democracy there and issues with how some of the population have been treated.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA have written constitutions. The UK has relied on the "good chap" theory of government, which has problems if senior politicians are not good.

 

[AlterEgo]

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA have written constitutions. The UK has relied on the "good chap" theory of government, which has problems if senior politicians are not good.

This is very far from correct.

New Zealand does not have a written constitution and instead has a political settlement spread over multiple documents, like we do. Canada also does not have a single written constitution either, and is partly written and partly unwritten.

 

[Noddy]

I would also say there is a basic standard of behaviour expected of Governments that is so fundamental to upholding democracy/legitimate governance/treatment of individuals/etc. that it goes beyond day-to-day politics and justifies international agreements to enforce that behaviour. On the whole, I'd say that, although I have disagreements with it, the original text of the European Convention on Human Rights does fall into that category, at least in intention, as does the ICC (International Criminal Court). But stuff like the later protocols that ban the death penalty do not fall into that category: Those protocols represent clear interference in the domestic politics and the internal judicial system of countries in a way that is not justified either by the necessity of dealing with international relations or by anything fundamental to do with legitimate governance. It's up the voters of each country to determine whether they want to have the death penalty for certain crimes.

Is this why you find the convention ‘profoundly damaging to the UK’, as stated in Post 4? Because while we could debate (probably till the cows come home) about whether or not it is mildly undemocratic (bearing in mind we live in a country where most majority governments are elected by a plurality of voters), I cannot possibly see how this is causing ‘profound’ harm to the UK.


I also find it odd (as someone who is clearly intelligent) that only a few weeks after Andrew Malkinson had his conviction (for a rape he did not commit) quashed after spending 17 years in jail and even longer on the sex offenders register, you are advocating for a return of the death penalty. DNA evidence identified it was someone else but state agencies (appear to have) withheld this evidence for over 15 years. If that had been a rape and murder conviction…

 

[Enthusiast]

Every attempt to reinstate capital punishment in the UK has failed to find support in parliament, so I really don't see the problem.

I also find it odd (as someone who is clearly intelligent) that only a few weeks after Andrew Malkinson had his conviction (for a rape he did not commit) quashed after spending 17 years in jail and even longer on the sex offenders register, you are advocating for a return of the death penalty.

The issue is not the death penalty, per se. There was no advocacy for it. It is the fact that the UK government could not reintroduce it even if every person in the land wanted it, every MP voted for it and it was agreed by the House of Lords and given Royal Assent.

 

[Tester]

The issue is not the death penalty, per se. There was no advocacy for it. It is the fact that the UK government could not reintroduce it even if every person in the land wanted it, every MP voted for it and it was agreed by the House of Lords and given Royal Assent.

Academic - since I would single-handedly ensure that that would never be the case

 

[Noddy]

The issue is not the death penalty, per se. There was no advocacy for it. It is the fact that the UK government could not reintroduce it even if every person in the land wanted it, every MP voted for it and it was agreed by the House of Lords and given Royal Assent.

I hoped using separate paragraphs and saying ‘I also find it odd… …that you are advocating a return of the death penalty’ would be clear enough but if it’s not the first paragraph in my reply is about the convention, and second is about the death penalty.

Perhaps there is another good reason for leaving the convention but it seems to keep coming back to the death penalty…