The European Convention on Human Rights

[DynamicSpirit]

Is this why you find the convention ‘profoundly damaging to the UK’, as stated in Post 4?

No that isn't the reason. And sorry, you asked about that before and I didn't get round to replying because there was so much else to reply to. The reason I regard the convention as profoundly damaging is that I view the whole philosophical framing of the convention as mistaken because it's framed entirely in terms of rights: But in reality, responsibilities are just as important (if not more important), and that's how the convention should have been framed. You simply can't have a decent and stable society if it's all based on everyone demanding their 'rights' and demanding that society provide for them, and noone thinking about their responsibility to treat others fairly and to work to provide for others. But that kind of entitlement culture seems to be exactly the trajectory that UK society (and indeed society across much of Europe) is heading in - and I would say that's in big part thanks to the ECHR and the way it's put thinking entirely about 'rights' as the legal framework for how we treat other people. That is the main reason I regard the ECHR as profoundly damaging to the UK: I feel that entitlement culture is a big factor behind many of the UK's long term problems. Not the only factor, but an important factor.

So don't get me wrong - I do broadly agree with the intentions behind most of the articles of the original ECHR: On the whole, they do correctly identify behaviours that are incompatible with a decent democratic and humane society in which people can expect a reasonable life, and I do think there should be some international convention that codifies those expectations. But the framing should have prioritised responsibilities over rights. To take one example: Yes, you might feel we all have a 'right' to a family life, or not to be killed. But what that really means is that we all (and particularly Governments) have a responsibility not to unreasonably destroy other people's family lives or to kill other people. A convention framed in that way would have my full support.

An entirely separate and secondary reason why I tend to support withdrawing from the ECHR is that I feel it's become overgrown and has started to extend its reach beyond basic behaviours required of any decent society into unduly interfering in matters that are more rightly for each country's electorate to decide - and the issue of the death penalty is probably the best example of that. I think that's possibly connected with that the ECHR doesn't really contain any mechanism to review its provisions to ensure they are still uncontroversial and appropriate. Human nature being what it is - the inevitable result is that - just like any bureaucracy - it grows over time and tries to extend itself into new areas. Really, to be sustainable long term, an overarching legal framework like the ECHR needs to have some mechanism to prevent the natural bureaucratic tendency to keep growing.

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…

Well I'm trying to avoid any explicit discussion of the death penalty per se because I'm sure that would rapidly take over this thread and then we'd end up with a locked thread

Suffice to say, what happened to Andre Malkinson was truly awful. But the problem there wasn't the particular punishment meted out for rape: After all, Andrew Malkinson has basically had his life ruined - even without the death penalty. The problem was the failings that caused crucial evidence not to be disclosed etc. - and that's where our attention should be. I'd also point out that cases like this, awful though they are, are rare: The far, far, bigger problem is people being murdered, raped, badly injured, robbed, burgled, defrauded, etc. by criminals. For every one person who suffers a miscarriage of justice, there must be hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who have their lives ruined by the actions of criminals (including btw many criminals who having destroyed their victims 'rights' without any concern, are very quick to demand their own 'rights' when it suits them, as per the ECHR).

Of course, in an ideal World, no-one would suffer injustice, but we don't live in an ideal World, and we have to do the best we can in a horribly imperfect World. I think there is a risk that if we focus too much on rare but tragic miscarriages of justice - to a point where we harm our ability to prevent crime (for example, by refusing to countenance the death penalty even where it is deserved, perhaps leading to more people being raped or murdered), then we end up doing more harm than good.

 

[Noddy]

@DynamicSpirit Thank you for your detailed reply which I very much respect! I do just want to pick up a couple of points.

That is the main reason I regard the ECHR as profoundly damaging to the UK: I feel that entitlement culture is a big factor behind many of the UK's long term problems. Not the only factor, but an important factor.

If we assume there has been an increase in entitlement culture in the UK (whether real or presumed) how is this attributed directly to the convention? You are of course entitled to your opinion but evidence of link would better. And more importantly how would removing the UK from the convention possibly bring about a cultural shift away from this?

I’m not sure I understand how entitlement culture is a big factor behind the UKs ‘long term problems’. This is a bit vague. Perhaps you’re referring the UK poor productivity compared to other countries? But if the convention is causing these issues why are they not occurring in other signatory countries?

I’m certainly no cultural theorist(!!) but if I look at British history pretty much every generation going back centuries has demanded, and generally received, more than the previous generation. So although we may feel it more because in the early part of the 21st century everything is moving faster (or at least may feel like it is) than in previous decades I’m really not certain that culturally we are any different to our predecessors in demanding more? We are clearly much richer than previous generations, so perhaps this exaggerates ‘entitlement culture’ because it often becomes much more about the (rich) self rather than the (poor) collective.

Suffice to say, what happened to Andre Malkinson was truly awful. But the problem there wasn't the particular punishment meted out for rape: After all, Andrew Malkinson has basically had his life ruined - even without the death penalty. The problem was the failings that caused crucial evidence not to be disclosed etc. - and that's where our attention should be. I'd also point out that cases like this, awful though they are, are rare: The far, far, bigger problem is people being murdered, raped, badly injured, robbed, burgled, defrauded, etc. by criminals. For every one person who suffers a miscarriage of justice, there must be hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who have their lives ruined by the actions of criminals (including btw many criminals who having destroyed their victims 'rights' without any concern, are very quick to demand their own 'rights' when it suits them, as per the ECHR).

While Andrew Malkinson has had his life ruined, he does now have an opportunity to make the most of the rest of his life. The death penalty is absolute, and whilst I totally agree we should focus on making sure these miscarriages don’t happen in future, you are never ever going to have a 100% perfect system. And sorry one innocent person being murdered by the state is simply one too many.

(for example, by refusing to countenance the death penalty even where it is deserved, perhaps leading to more people being raped or murdered), then we end up doing more harm than good.

I totally disagree with this statement. But do you have any evidence it’s true? Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any evidence for this when comparing US states that have the death penalty Vs those that do. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-...y-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

 

[najaB]

The problem was the failings that caused crucial evidence not to be disclosed etc. - and that's where our attention should be. I'd also point out that cases like this, awful though they are, are rare

Surely once is too often? Doubly so if capital punishment is involved.

 

[Tester]

Of course, in an ideal World, no-one would suffer injustice, but we don't live in an ideal World, and we have to do the best we can in a horribly imperfect World. I think there is a risk that if we focus too much on rare but tragic miscarriages of justice - to a point where we harm our ability to prevent crime (for example, by refusing to countenance the death penalty even where it is deserved, perhaps leading to more people being raped or murdered), then we end up doing more harm than good.

If I am understanding you correctly, you appear to be suggesting that it's ok to have a bit of collateral damage (innocent people killed by the state) in order to maximise the number of guilty people killed by the state.

I humbly suggest that you have made the case most eloquently for why it is utterly appropriate to codify an absolute prohibition - beyond any government's ability to amend - of any such practice.

Welcome on board

 

[ainsworth74]

The reason I regard the convention as profoundly damaging is that I view the whole philosophical framing of the convention as mistaken because it's framed entirely in terms of rights: But in reality, responsibilities are just as important (if not more important), and that's how the convention should have been framed. You simply can't have a decent and stable society if it's all based on everyone demanding their 'rights' and demanding that society provide for them, and noone thinking about their responsibility to treat others fairly and to work to provide for others.

(including btw many criminals who having destroyed their victims 'rights' without any concern, are very quick to demand their own 'rights' when it suits them, as per the ECHR)

But again the ECHR is about protecting the individual from the State. It is not about regulating the way that individuals treat each other. If I step out of my house and get stabbed to death my rights under the ECHR have not been breached, the ECHR is silent on the issue because it is not concerned by such things. If I step out of my house and get shot to death by a police officer on the other hand then that police officer is going to need to show why it was reasonable and proportional to kill me as the State has acted to deprive me of my right to life. You continue to take an absolutist view that is not supported by the intent and function of the ECHR. That's why you don't see victims of crimes taking court action using the ECHR against those that committed the crimes against you. It has nothing to do with them. So you are making a criticism of the ECHR about something which isn't anything to do with it.

Perhaps there has been a rise in entitlement culture, perhaps there hasn't. I'm not sure either way personally. But saying we should leave the ECHR because more people feel that they should expect decent treatment from the State and when they don't get it take action to correct that mistreatment seems bizarre. I do see what you're saying about criminals insisting on their rights but they are also human beings and ensuring that the rights of everyone when it comes to their interactions with the State are respected and protected is surely vital. Again the ECHR isn't anything to do about me punching you (not that I would, hopefully our disagreements aren't that combative ) and leaving you afraid to go outside, it's about making sure that when I'm rightly arrested the State the police doing so don't just rough me up a bit and then sling me in hole and forget about me because you're a member of the Governing political party and friends with the local MP so they arranged it for you (by way of example, I have no idea whether that's the case or not!!!).

The far, far, bigger problem is people being murdered, raped, badly injured, robbed, burgled, defrauded, etc. by criminals.

How does leaving the ECHR help with that? Surely the solution to that issue would be properly funding the police so that they can provide a visible deterrent (bobbies on the beat!), with the necessary resources to conduct their investigations swiftly and effectively, properly funding the CPS so that they can review the evidence given to them by the police quickly, making accurate charging decisions and preparing their case papers comprehensively and engaging with the courts and defence team properly. We should surely fund the courts themselves properly so that court building are fit for purpose, that there are enough judges sitting in the available court rooms to ensure that cases are heard quickly. We should be funding legal aid to make sure that anyone who is accused of a crime can access effective representation that ensure that their defence is conducted properly to assure is that the guilty are being found and the innocent released, that courts aren't getting bogged down dealing with self-representing defendants who don't know what they're doing. That we are properly funding our prison system so that the convicted aren't just dumped into run down and dangerous prisons which do nothing for them but house them in degrading conditions for a fixed period of time before releasing them back into the wild with almost no attempt to actually prepare them to re-enter into society and, often, end up releasing them more equipped to continue committing more crimes.

I agree crime is a problem and I'd love to see a Government take it seriously and address the massive issues within our criminal justice system. But I don't agree that leaving the ECHR does anything to address that problem. It isn't the ECHR that has driven any increase, real or perceived, in crime in the UK. It is an issue of the Governments making from decisions that they made from cutting the numbers of police officers, reducing the funding for the CPS, closing courts and cutting court funding, disastrously privatising probation services and underfunding prisons and prison officers.

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.

I mean I was a little disappointed by this to be fair:

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?

Because that also seemed very absurd coming from someone who I often disagree with but otherwise respect!

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.

I mean personally I'd be quite keen for other countries to join the ECHR (though some rebranding required obviously!), or a similar perhaps UN led body, regarding a respect for explicitly defined Human Rights with at least some measure of enforcement as is provided for by the ECtHR. I'm not sure that just saying "well no-one outside of Europe needs the ECHR" is that compelling either when you consider that outside of a handful of examples (I think you could probably add South Korea, Japan and Taiwan with some qualifications to that list) Human Rights aren't doing all that great at the moment globally.

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 take your point and it's encouraging to hear at least there is some sort of line. It's occasionally felt that some on the right-wing side of the spectrum won't be satisfied until the UK has left everything!

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.

Though, of course, the elected UK governments ratified all of those protocols. Often being amongst the first to do so...

An entirely separate and secondary reason why I tend to support withdrawing from the ECHR is that I feel it's become overgrown and has started to extend its reach beyond basic behaviours required of any decent society into unduly interfering in matters that are more rightly for each country's electorate to decide - and the issue of the death penalty is probably the best example of that. I think that's possibly connected with that the ECHR doesn't really contain any mechanism to review its provisions to ensure they are still uncontroversial and appropriate. Human nature being what it is - the inevitable result is that - just like any bureaucracy - it grows over time and tries to extend itself into new areas. Really, to be sustainable long term, an overarching legal framework like the ECHR needs to have some mechanism to prevent the natural bureaucratic tendency to keep growing.

But the ECHR only grows in ways that the members within the Council of Europe wish it do so and the membership of the Council is drawn from the Governments of the member states. If the Governments of the members did not want to, say, abolish the death penalty it would not have been abolished. We might not directly elect the Council members but they are drawn/chosen from/by our elected governments. If there hadn't been a groundswell of movement within European countries at large to abolish the death penalty then it would not have been abolished by the ECHR.

It is notable perhaps that the ECHR lagged behind a great many countries abolishment of the death penalty in peacetime. Protocol 6 (peacetime abolishment) entered into force in March 1985 by which time the overwhelming majority of member of the Council of Europe had already abolished it in domestic law. Similarly Protocol 13 (wartime abolishment, the defacto abolishment in all circumstances) entered force in July 2003 by which time the overwhelming majority of members of the Council of Europe (which by that time included a lot more countries following the end of the Cold War!) had similarly abolished it in domestic law.

It doesn't look to me like the ECHR is over reaching its powers but reacting to changing circumstances. By 1985 most countries had decided that the death penalty in peacetime (and in some places wartime as well) was no longer an appropriate criminal sanction. So that was codified within the ECHR. By 2003 most countries decided that the death penalty in any situation was no longer an appropriate criminal sanction. So that was codified by the ECHR. If it had been the reverse then it would be a different kettle of fish but the members of the Council of Europe lead and the ECHR followed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I mean I was a little disappointed by this to be fair:

That was referring to my statement, 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'm not sure how to reply to that. To my mind, it seems obvious that if you accept that you can at any time be deprived of X by natural causes/because that's how the Universe works and that's morally fine, then it's completely contradictory to simultaneously claim that having X is a fundamental right that must always be upheld. So I really don't see what your objection is to my statement or why you'd feel disappointed by it.

Though, of course, the elected UK governments ratified all of those protocols. Often being amongst the first to do so...

I think the real issue here is, to what extent is it reasonable for an elected Government to try to bind future elected Governments that might have a different opinion, which is what was effectively being done by adding the death penalty to the ECHR.

But the ECHR only grows in ways that the members within the Council of Europe wish it do so and the membership of the Council is drawn from the Governments of the member states. If the Governments of the members did not want to, say, abolish the death penalty it would not have been abolished.

Is 'the member Governments want to do X' sufficient grounds for putting X permanently in the ECHR? How would you feel if, by chance, most of Europe voted in right wing Governments who fervently believed in private enterprise, and these Governments decided to add a protocol to the ECHR forbidding nationalization (maybe, on the grounds that it interferes with people's rights to own businesses or something), thereby preventing any successor left wing governments from persuing public ownership?

I think that to justify putting something (call it X) permanently in the ECHR you need far more than 'Governments currently believe in X' - you need something more like, that it is uncontroversial across the political spectrum and academic/philosophical opinion that X should never be done in a democracy. That is simply not the case for the death penalty.

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure how to reply to that. To my mind, it seems obvious that if you accept that you can at any time be deprived of X by natural causes/because that's how the Universe works and that's morally fine, then it's completely contradictory to simultaneously claim that having X is a fundamental right that must always be upheld. So I really don't see what your objection is to my statement or why you'd feel disappointed by it.

I think we just had the forum's Billy Madison moment.

For clarity, no sane person is even slightly of the belief or opinion that the the Universe respects human-given rights.

 

[Wynd]

The ECHR discussion prooves that the Trojan Horse of Brexit can work at least twice.

"Hey give us this, and we will serve you better."

If you tolerate this, as the lyric goes.

 

[SteveP29]

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.

But anyway there does appear to be a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding what the ECHR is for and what it is about. The ECHR is entirely about protecting the individual (who those on the right are usually most keen to protect ironically!) from the power of the State. The responsibilities of individuals to each other has nothing to do with it. It's to make sure that no matter who you are, where you've come from, what you've done, what your colour, creed or anything else happens to be, you will be protected from the power of the State.

Regulating the interactions of individual behaviour is not the purpose of the ECHR. It was born from the fires of World War 2 to make sure that no Government would ever again be able to go around and murder, torture or otherwise dehumanise people that lived within it's reaches. It is to make sure that if ever the awesome power of the State is directed against you that you have protections from that power.

It makes sure that the State cannot kill you unlawfully, that is if it is to kill you it must be able to justify that action. That if you do die in State custody that the state has to investigate the circumstances that led to your death. It ensures that that the State has no ability to deprive someone of their life. I cannot understand why anyone would want to weaken that provision to make it easier for the State to kill. We've literally just had a case where an innocent man was imprisoned for seventeen years. The State has repeatedly demonstrated now and when it was first abolished that it cannot be trusted to get it right and only kill the guilty. I don't know about anyone else but my desire for vengeance against criminals is not such that I'm willing to handwave away the risk that the State gets it wrong and kills an innocent person. After all it could be me, or you.

I would also quibble with the idea that this is an antiquated notion that is out of step with modern reality. Article 2 as written provided an explicit carve out for the death penalty. It was only Protocol 6 in 1985 which determined it would only be permitted in times of war and Protocol 13 in 2003 which prevented it in all circumstances. 2003 might be twenty years ago now but let's not pretend that Article 2 is some dusty piece of old law.

Or how about Article 3 that makes sure that the State cannot torture you, it cannot subject you to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Police cannot just rough you up a bit if they think that you're guilty but have the temerity to protest you innocence. Article 6 which grants you the right to fair trial, that you hearing must be carried out by an independent and impartial court which is held in public. That there must be a presumption of innocence, that you must have access to legal advice as well as time and resources to prepare your legal defence. That they should not be unnecessary or excessive delays. Making sure that the State cannot just determine that you're guilty and arrange a trial with a judge who will make the decision the State wants and, even if it can't sort that, makes sure that you just languish in prison waiting trail for an indeterminate period of time. And so on and so on.

I find it crackers that people seem to think that, for some reason, the ECHR is an outdated document or somehow infringes on our rights. The ECHR is a living thing which develops along with society and protects us, all of us, from the power of the State. Both now and in the future.

So far all we've heard, in this conversation, is that it's bit annoying that the ECHR prevents the State from killing people with the death penalty and that it is "profoundly damaging to the UK". I have yet to hear a cogent explanation for how it is profoundly damaging the UK nor indeed what other rights, that is to say protections for the individual against the State, that are causing that damage and should therefore be removed.

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.

Because a number of white people don't want brown people in this country.

 

[class ep-09]

Because a number of white people don't want brown people in this country.

It is worse - they don’t want anyone , who has strange name / surname in this country .

 

[Wynd]

Bit rich given that some people of power, and colour, im thinkign of 3 in particular, are evidently some of the most racist people going.

The fact that they all hold, or held, offices of state, is as sickening as it is sad.

 

[Noddy]

Bit rich given that some people of power, and colour, im thinkign of 3 in particular, are evidently some of the most racist people going.

The fact that they all hold, or held, offices of state, is as sickening as it is sad.

I think colour has very little to do with it for them. They’re from extremely wealthy, upper/middle class/caste backgrounds (Sunak is married to a Brahmin) that don’t associate with poor people. And given that most asylum seekers/refugees are poor people, often from the fringes of society, the result is hardly surprising.

 

[DC1989]

After years of being told it was being a member of the EU that caused all of our problems, now we're told it's actually being a (founding!) signatory of the ECHR. I guess once that doesn't work in 5 years it will be being a member of the UN or the WTO or the G7 or the OECD.

They'll go nuts if you smash up Churchills statue but actively try to smash up all of his legacy. It's disgraceful

 

[nlogax]

After years of being told it was being a member of the EU that caused all of our problems, now we're told it's actually being a (founding!) signatory of the ECHR. I guess once that doesn't work in 5 years it will be being a member of the UN or the WTO or the G7 or the OECD.

So many of our problems are this country's own fault. One of our best export industries is blame.

 

[SteveP29]

So many of our problems are this country's own fault. One of our best export industries is blame.

Said it for years that anyone who has problems as a white, British person (a common denominator in all things wrong with Britain activists etc) those problems are not the fault of:

The Unemployed,
The Disabled,
The EU,
Immigrants (illegal or otherwise)
Refugees,
Asylum Seekers

Although the above are not completely blameless, those 'problems' are 95% the fault of our own Government and little men with persecution/ inferiority complexes and opportunists like Farage.

 

[ainsworth74]

That was referring to my statement, 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'm not sure how to reply to that. To my mind, it seems obvious that if you accept that you can at any time be deprived of X by natural causes/because that's how the Universe works and that's morally fine, then it's completely contradictory to simultaneously claim that having X is a fundamental right that must always be upheld. So I really don't see what your objection is to my statement or why you'd feel disappointed by it.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point because equally I cannot see why you don't get how, to me and others on this thread, what you say here is barmy to us. Of course everyone dies that's an immutable fact of life. That people die doesn't somehow contradict with having a fundamental right to life when it comes to your dealings with the State.

I think the real issue here is, to what extent is it reasonable for an elected Government to try to bind future elected Governments that might have a different opinion, which is what was effectively being done by adding the death penalty to the ECHR.

Of course Government's bind each other all the time. We like to pretend that "no Government can bind another" but they do constantly. It is always possible to change the status quo, depending on ones interlocutor on the other side, but Governments are bound all the time by the actions of the previous in small and large ways.

Is 'the member Governments want to do X' sufficient grounds for putting X permanently in the ECHR? How would you feel if, by chance, most of Europe voted in right wing Governments who fervently believed in private enterprise, and these Governments decided to add a protocol to the ECHR forbidding nationalization (maybe, on the grounds that it interferes with people's rights to own businesses or something), thereby preventing any successor left wing governments from persuing public ownership?

Deeply concerned of course but I'm not convinced that that would move me to be wanting to leave the ECHR considering the other areas that it provides important protections in. My desire to be able to explore other methods of owning and delivering services is not such that I'm willing to give up the right to life, prohibition on torture, to a fair trial, to freedom of expression or association, etc etc, just so that the UK can nationalise it's water companies or something. I'm not convinced that such a thing is particularly likely though!

I think that to justify putting something (call it X) permanently in the ECHR you need far more than 'Governments currently believe in X' - you need something more like, that it is uncontroversial across the political spectrum and academic/philosophical opinion that X should never be done in a democracy. That is simply not the case for the death penalty.

I'm sure that if those who were pro-death penalty were able to gain power in enough members of the Council of Europe that it would be perfectly possible to repeal Protocol 13 and 6 to go back to the "raw" version of Article 2 where the death penalty is permitted. But I suspect the real issue is that those who would like the State to kill are aware that gaining that level of pan-European support is unlikely because it is a settled matter. Europe as a continent, out with Belarus and Russia, has decided that we've moved past the need for the death penalty as reflected by the amendments to the ECHR.

After years of being told it was being a member of the EU that caused all of our problems, now we're told it's actually being a (founding!) signatory of the ECHR. I guess once that doesn't work in 5 years it will be being a member of the UN or the WTO or the G7 or the OECD.

Whilst I don't think this applies to @DynamicSpirit as they've made clear their objection is that feel it interferes on domestic UK matters and don't have an objection to inter-governmental/national organisations (in principle), I do think that there's a section of right-wing opinion that will continue onto the next international agreement/organisation if they do get us out of the ECHR. They said we needed to leave the EU to fix many of our problems, we have, that's not worked. Now they're starting to chunter about us needing to leave the ECHR to fix our problems, if we do, it won't work. They'll then no doubt move onto to some other organisation, we'll leave, it won't work. They'll then go onto yet another and another and another. Anything to avoid confronting the fact that the majority of our problems are self-inflicted. Often made worse by external factors to be sure but the fundamental problems are home grown.