Category: ECHR

Steady erosion of rights continues


Changes to the European Convention latest moves

May 2026

The endless discussion about who shall be the leader of the Labour Party has meant the latest moves to whittle away rights has received little attention. The guiding influence is immigration, a factor which is a kind of idée fixe in our politics and seems to have the capacity to win or lose elections for individuals or parties. It is claimed that the UK’s membership of the ECHR is preventing us dealing with the problem and in particular the wish to deport people back to their country or origin.

It is not unique to the UK hence the declaration last week giving European governments more power to deport immigrants. The 46 members have decided that ‘states had an undeniable sovereign right to control their borders‘. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, said ‘countries can [now] take action on illegal immigration‘. A questionable statement on many levels. The UK government wants to set up ‘hubs’ in foreign countries to process claims. It has been described as giving governments more ‘wiggle room’ to return migrants, even if there is a risk of mistreatment on their return. It is perhaps a measure of the moral collapse of our political parties that this agreement has generated almost no discussion and scarce mention in the media beyond the facts of the declaration.

Large sections of our community have no love for Europe and the Brexit beliefs still remain strong among many who also have believed at the time of the Referendum that the legal controls would be gone as well. The key proponent of Brexit and leader or the then UKIP party, Nigel Farage said last year ‘the Reform [his new party] will remove the UK from the European Convention and disapply International treaties‘. Reform did well in the recent local elections winning many seats and control of 34 councils. The loss on the other hand of so many Labour held seats has put the future of the prime minister under threat which is where we came in. .

The issues

There are many issues worth setting out:

– The concerns about immigration and the role of people not born in the UK is very one-sided. A number of politicians making most noise about immigrants are themselves – almost bizarrely – sons or daughters of … immigrants. Priti Patel, Suella Braverman, Shabana Mahmood, Danny Kruger and many more have parents not born in the UK.

– There is little recognition, in the desire to deport those already here, of the essential role immigrants and foreign nationals play in our society and economy. The health service for example could not operate at its current level nor could care and nursing homes for the elderly. London underground and bus services would be down to skeleton levels of activity. Much of our food would disappear off the shelves.

– No recognition of the fact that the rise in those coming by boat has been caused by government’s closing almost all means to claim asylum legally.

There are also issues of morality and rights which seem to get ignored or set aside.

– As Amnesty International has put it, it risks creating a ‘hierarchy of people‘. Those who enjoy rights under article 3 not to be subject to torture and those who do not. We are seemingly happy to trade and sell arms to countries which practice torture but we don’t want those fleeing it to come here.

– It shows a politics which is driven by populism and biased coverage. In all the press coverage about immigrants which fill the pages of the mostly right-wing media, there is next to no coverage of the large numbers emigrating. It creates the illusion of the country becoming full-up like pouring more and more water into a jug. GB News is at last to be investigated by Ofcom for not countering in an interview with Donald Trump claims that London had no-go areas for police and parts of the UK were governed by Sharia Law. The interviewer did not challenge the president on this nonsense and retransmitted the interview the following day.

– It attacks the most vulnerable and those least able to defend themselves.

– It panders to the belief that immigration and immigrants are somehow the cause of our economic malaise. Never mind weak investment, low productivity, lack of export growth, high interest rates, poor training and other policy failures, just ship out the immigrants and somehow Britain will be great again.

– It is just another step in the drip, drip, drip of steadily removing rights. The limits on the right to protest and increasing and often ill defined police powers. The various acts we have noted before e.g. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023, with more legislation in the pipe line, are increasingly been seen as attacks on free speech. There is an attempt to reduce the number of jury trials. Juries have irritated politicians by freeing some people despite directions to convict by some of our reactionary judges.

We need to be much more aware of this populist drive to diminish or weaken our rights. The claims that the Human Rights Act is a ‘criminal’s’ or ‘terrorist’s charter’ is based on the false notion that such people are using the act to escape justice. Autocratic regimes almost always base their rise to power by finding a minority to foist onto the blame for the ills of society and their own failure to govern effectively. It is not done dramatically but bit by bit. It is not even true to say ‘by stealth’ as it is done in plain sight.

Local MPs John Glen and Danny Kruger are revealed by They Work for You, generally (Glen) and consistently (Kruger) to vote against proposed equality and human rights legislation. We cannot therefore rely upon either of these two gentlemen to support threats to our rights by these actions.

Sources: HRW, Civicus, Guardian, Irish Times, GB News, Standard.

Recent posts:

Thought of becoming a subscriber?

0

Proposal to limit application of rights law for some prisoners


David Lammy seeking to limit access to article 8 rights for some violent prisoners

February 2026

David Lammy, the Secretary of State for Justice, is proposing to establish Supermax style prison units similar to that established in the USA. In addition, he wants to limit the applicability of the ECHR article 8 rights to those prisoners. The supermax prison in Florence, Colorado has been criticised by human rights groups including Amnesty: “The US government’s callous and dehumanising practice of holding prisoners in prolonged solitary confinement in the country’s only federal super-maximum security prison amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and is in violation of international law“.

‘Not designed for humanity’

The inhuman nature of the facility is encapsulated in this quote from Howstuffworks:

“The only time that inmates are allowed out of their cells is for an hour of exercise. Handcuffed and shackled at their feet, inmates are either led to an empty room with a single pull-up bar, or taken outside to the yard, where they are locked alone inside a caged pen.

“Robert Hood, a former warden at the ADX told The New York Times that the ADX was “not designed for humanity. When it’s 23 hours a day in a room with a slit of a window where you can’t even see the Rocky Mountains — let’s be candid here. It’s not designed for rehabilitation. Period. End of story.””

A report was published ‘Independent Review of Separation Centres‘ by Jonathan Hall KC into separation in prisons which contains a section reporting on his visit to the facility in Colorado. He was not given full access which might explain his rather benign view of the facility and contrasts markedly with the above extract. He does not address or even seem to be aware of the inhuman nature of the prison and its dreadful effects on inmates.

Lammy is concerned at the prospects of article 8 rights being applied if such units are established. Article 8 is the respect for family and private life and part 2 of the article limits public authorities from interference with these rights except for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of others (that is prison officers). Clearly, by establishing any facility remotely like the inhuman system operating in the US would almost certainly lead to legal protests and action.

British prisons are in a state of almost permanent crisis. According to the Howard League for Penal Reform, we currently have 87,249 incarcerated [accessed 4 February], the highest per capita total in Europe. Many of the prisons are decrepit, suffering severe infestations and prisoners are often confined to their cells for 23 hours a day. Recidivism is 28.9% [Government figures – January to March 2024] with those serving sentences of less than 12 months having a rate of 66%. Numerous reports conclude the system is not working.

The proposal has raised serious concerns although the idea has received strong support from the shadow justice secretary Mr Nick Timothy (Con) who wants the UK to leave the ECHR altogether. There are issues of how to handle dangerous prisoners who pose a risk to those whose duty is to guard them. Copying the inhuman US system is not an answer. The chief executive of the Howard League has pointed out that it is not necessary to impose such levels of inhuman conditions and this was not recommended by the report.

Another concern is that limiting the application of ECHR rights might be followed by other proposals by one government or another, all of whom would like to see us leave the Convention. Perhaps we should ponder Dostoevsky who observed the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.

1

Minutes and Newsletter, December


Minutes of our December meeting

December 2025

We are pleased to attach our minutes and newsletter for the December group meeting thanks to group member Lesley for compiling them. They include several reports some of which appear elsewhere on this site with links to other sites of interest.

Item 12 refers to upcoming events which if you are interested in joining us are a good opportunity to make contact.

December minutes (Word)Download

Previous posts:

0

Importance of Human Rights: UK Support for the ECHR


November 2025

Nigel Farage’s proposal for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights was defeated on 29 October by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58. The vote was largely symbolic: a ten-minute bill without government backing is often used simply to air an issue. The Liberal Democrats led the opposition to the bill, a number of Conservatives joined Reform UK in supporting it and many Labour backbenchers chose not to abstain but voted against it, fearing that were it to pass even symbolically, it would send a negative message to European allies.

The position of the Government remains that while it may pursue some changes to the interpretation of the Convention it would under no circumstances seek to abolish it.

75th  Anniversary 

A statement of support for the ECHR was signed by almost 300 organisations to mark the 75th anniversary of the Convention. Organised by Liberty, the statement highlighted the many ways the Convention has helped ordinary people from victims of sexual violence to LGBT+ service personnel, public interest journalists to mental health patients and victims of grave miscarriages of justice, as with the Hillsborough and Windrush cases.

It calls on the government to make the positive case for the UK’s human rights protections and claims that the way the Convention has been scapegoated in recent years has had devastating real world consequences. 

Meanwhile a survey for Amnesty by the widely respected agency Savanta concluded that more than 8 in 10 UK adults say that human rights protections are as important – or more important – today than when the ECHR was created after the Second World War. When asked which rights matter most to them, UK adults chose: the right to a fair trial (42%); the right to life (41%); the right to privacy, family life and respect for your home (40%).   

Support for staying in the ECHR is almost twice as high as support for leaving.  48% want the UK to remain part of the ECHR.  Only 26% want to leave.  

People believe rights should be universal, permanent, and protected from political interference:   87% agree that rights and laws must apply equally to everyone, 85% agree we need a legal safety net to hold the Government accountable in cases like the infected blood scandal and Grenfell and 78% agree rights should be permanent, not something the Government of the day can reduce. 

Respondents were shown a list of major UK scandals or institutional failings and asked which made them feel the importance of strong legal protections and accountability. The top five were: 

Grenfell Tower – 46%; Hillsborough disaster and cover up – 42%;   Infected blood scandal & the COVID inquiry – 37%; The murder of Sarah Everard – 36%;   Windrush scandal – 29%.   

ECHR and Immigration

In response to critics attributing the real problems of the UK’s immigration system to the ECHR, the Good Law Project set out some basic facts about the Convention, namely that it does not provide a right for people to enter or remain in a country of which they are not a national; that the Court rarely rules against the UK on immigration issues at all  – since 1980 only on 13 of the 29 cases concerning either deportation or extradition. And while the Human Rights Act of 1998 incorporating ECHR rights into UK law makes it unnecessary to go to Strasbourg, successful claims to stay in the UK are rare. Last year out of a total inward immigration of 948,000 only 3,790 cases related to the Human Rights Act were won at immigration tribunals.

Protect the Protest: Palestine Action and Judicial Review

Amnesty and Liberty will be making the case to lift the ban on the proscribed activist group Palestine Action in the Judicial Review scheduled for 25 – 27 November.

Defend Our Juries are urging the police not to bow to pressure from the Government but to allow the

peaceful protests organised throughout November at the continuing crisis in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. They say that police are struggling to enforce the law in the face of peaceful protesters, many of them elderly. Some police forces are refusing outright to make arrests. International and national human rights groups, politicians and United Nations representatives have condemned both the ban and the subsequent attacks on civil liberties. Unions are declaring that they will not recognise the ban, with over 2,100 now arrested under ‘terror charges’ related to this peaceful sign-holding campaign.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty’s Director, criticised the Home Secretary for statements “that create a chilling effect by dissuading people from exercising their fundamental right to peaceful protest. At any time, any interference with freedom of expression must be strictly necessary, proportionate and in full accordance with the law.” 

In a further incident of Transnational repression Sheffield Hallam University terminated a staff member’s project about Uyghur forced labour after Chinese security officers interrogated a staff member in Beijing and a Chinese company named in the report filed a defamation lawsuit in the UK. The university retracted the ban but only after  Professor Laura Murphy, specialising in human rights and modern slavery, began legal action against it for violating her academic freedom.

Latest posts:

All our posts are free to use by other Amnesty or human rights sites.

0

Farage loses vote to leave the ECHR


Reform leader loses Commons vote

November 2025

Edited, 5 November

Last week, Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform party, lost his Commons vote to leave the ECHR. Reform, along with many Conservatives, are pushing the idea of leaving the European Convention as means to solve the immigration crisis and in particular the Channel crossings. In a vote, 154 were against and 96 for leaving.

Farage is not alone and in the Guardian link to this story, local readers will see the East Wiltshire MP Danny Kruger sat beside him. The Salisbury MP Mr John Glen (pictured) has also joined the chorus, no doubt following his leader Kemi Badenoch, who made an abrupt U-turn on the subject at their conference in September. It appeared in the ‘View from the Commons‘ piece in the Salisbury Journal (16 October). Entitled ‘Exiting ECHR not about watering down our rights‘ it seeks to justify the U-turn by Kemi Badencoch.

‘We do not need it’ ‘Mr Glen told us claiming that Common Law is all you need because ‘we are perfectly capable of upholding our rights and freedoms‘. Why then did scores of people have to go to Strasbourg to get justice? Why did the Hillsborough families have to wait years to get their justice? And the Birmingham Six were finally exonerated when judge after judge failed in their duty? And all those who spent years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit. A list of other cases where people sought justice from Strasbourg can be found here. The Post Office scandal?

The Conservatives have hated the Human Rights Act and it’s noteworthy that both Glen and Kruger ‘generally vote against laws to protect equality and human rights’ according to They Work for You. They are happy with a legal system that largely protects the rights of the powerful and the property owners but are somewhat less concerned with the rights of the powerless even assuming they could contemplate using the law at all.

Mr Farage argues that we will not have true sovereignty until we leave the Convention, a similar argument to that put forward at the time of Brexit. The threat to our sovereignty is more likely to come from the Trump administration in the US. Trade sanctions and threats to NATO are much more serious than anything coming from Europe.

The Guardian piece above was written by Daniel Trilling who came to Salisbury to speak on immigration matters.

Image: Salisbury Radio noting that Mr Glen voted to leave the ECHR.

1

Conservative Party’s Plan to Repeal Human Rights Laws


Speech by the leader of the Conservative party in Manchester

October 2025

These are some extracts from the speech Kemi Badenoch MP gave to the Conservative party conference in Manchester this week. We have selected those parts which focus on human rights issues and in particular the plan to leave the European Convention and to repeal the Human Rights Act.

“[…] It is fundamental, why can’t we control our borders and remove those who need to go? All these

questions boil down to who should make the laws that govern the United Kingdom? Conservatives, believe it should be our sovereign Parliament, accountable to the British people. The reality today, is that this is simply not the case.

“This use of litigation as a political weapon is what I call lawfare. Well-meaning treaties and statutes – like the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Action against Trafficking drafted with the best of intentions in generations gone by, and more recent additions like the Modern Slavery Act, are now being used in ways never intended by their original authors.

“What should be shields to protect the vulnerable, have instead become swords to attack democratic decisions and frustrate common sense. It is that whole system which we need to reform. And the place to start is the European Convention on Human Rights.

Five tests that a country has to pass to be truly sovereign.

First, can we deport foreign criminals and those who are here illegally?

Second, can we stop our veterans being harassed through the courts?

Third, can we put British citizens first for social housing and public services?

Fourth, can we make sure protests do not intimidate people or stop them living their lives?

And fifth, can we stop endless red tape and legal challenges choking off economic growth?

[Lord Wolfson was commissioned to study the ECHR and our membership of it and produced a report the key conclusion was]

“When it comes to control of our sovereign borders, preventing our military veterans from being pursued indefinitely, ensuring prison sentences are applied rigorously for serious crimes, stopping disruptive protests, or placing blanket restrictions on foreign nationals in terms of social housing and benefits, the only way such positions are feasible would be to leave the ECHR.’

Commitment to leave

[Badenoch] “We must leave the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act. Conference, I want you to know that the next Conservative manifesto will contain our commitment to leave (our emphasis). Leaving the Convention is a necessary step, but not enough on its own to achieve our goals. If there are other treaties and laws, we need to revise or revisit then we will do so. And we will do so in the same calm and responsible way, working out the detail before we rush to announce.

“The rights we enjoy did not come from the ECHR. They were there for hundreds of years in our common law. Parliament has legislated over centuries to reflect and protect our freedoms. Human Rights in the United Kingdom did not start in 1998 with the Human Rights Act, and will not end with it. As we work through our detailed plan, we are clear that leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act will not mean that we lose any of the rights we cherish”. […]

Comment

The statement by the Conservative leader is clear and unequivocal. Even allowing that it is a speech a long way from an election and designed to encourage a party currently scoring badly in the polls, it is part of a worrying trend with more and more voices calling for us to leave the ECHR.

The big claim towards the end of her speech quoted above that ‘Human Rights in the United Kingdom did not start in 1998 with the Human Rights Act, and will not end with it‘.’ Many did start, and some will end if it is repealed. If there will be no difference, then why the desire to end it? She seems to have forgotten that the HRA was introduced because people had to go to Strasbourg to get the justice denied them in the British courts. It is nonsense to claim that the HRA has added nothing of benefit to the rights of the ordinary person.

There are likely to be many who will disagree with Lord Wolfson’s benign conclusion that the proposed departure from the ECHR would be fully compliant with the Belfast Agreement.

Leaving the ECHR will be a retrograde step and have repercussions for our international relations. It is likely to make trade between us and Europe more difficult. We will join Russia and Belarus as the only nations outside its remit. Repealing the HRA – which has been promised several times before by Conservative leaders but never carried out – will seriously damage our rights as citizens. Combined with recent legislation to limit protests for example, it will be a retrograde step.

An Amnesty petition can be accessed here.

Speech accessed from the Conservative website [8 October]

2

Human rights under threat


Many politicians lining up to weaken rights

September 2025

We have posted over the years of this site’s existence the near constant attacks on human rights, the act itself and more recently, the European Convention (ECHR) which is generating a lot of anger at present. Many of the attacks came from news outlets who were concerned about privacy issues in the light of their various hacking* activities. The attacks have morphed in recent years with greater emphasis on the ECHR and a widespread desire among politicians to leave it. The impetus for this latest surge follows the attempt to deport immigrants to Rwanda which was stopped at the last minute by the European Court from flying from an airfield a mile or two from where this is being typed. The policy was abandoned by Labour when it came into power.

This post draws heavily on an article in the Observer (14 September) by Rachel Sylvester entitled: Misinformation and myth: the UK’s phoney war on human rights. The article begins with the well worn disinformation stories the latest being the chicken nugget debacle. Immigration, asylum seekers, hotels and the boat crossings are making the political waves at present and a wide range of politicians are seizing on the unrest to make political hay. They include Nigel Farage (Reform), Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch (Conservative). Locally, Danny Kruger MP for East Wiltshire, is a vocal opponent [Kruger switched from Conservative to Reform while this post was being written].

Chicken nuggets debacle

Chicken nuggets? The story was that an Albanian criminal could not be deported because his son disliked eating chicken nuggets. There was no such ruling. A senior judge made it abundantly clear that an aversion to chicken nuggets could never be enough to avoid deportation. The false story was latched onto by the politicians mentioned above. Since two are members of their political parties and one wants to become one, it is disappointing to observe that they keen to perpetuate myths.

The fury over the boat crossings has led to many politicians wanting to leave the ECHR despite the fact, the article notes, Strasbourg has only ruled against the UK three times in 45 years. In all the invective against the ECHR, its positive effects are seldom reported: Hillsborough being a prime example [Correction: 20 September. It was the HRA which was significant with this inquiry]. But in areas of the country where immigration is a particular problem, leaving the ECHR is a ‘test of ideological purity’ (ibid). It is also part of the Brexit story since many believed that when we left the EU we would leave the European Court as well.

Few friends

The court seems to have few friends however. Politicians who should know better, such as Richard Hermer the Attorney General, are talking in terms of ‘reform’. Reform might be all right but when reform = weaken it’s not all right. There seems to be a lack of stout defence of the act by politicians. Such is the ascendancy of Nigel Farage that it appears politicians of all stripes are desperate to ape his remarks or even try and outdo him. The Human Rights Act has made a significant difference to people’s lives in way many may not be aware of. It would be a huge loss to the country if as a result of hysteria over immigration, we were to lose some important rights.

*There is an ITV drama on this to air shortly.

Previous posts

0

Why Labour Leaders Are Pushing for ECHR Revisions: A Political Analysis


Alarming stories that Labour leaders are wanting to reform the European Convention

June 2025

Alarming reports have emerged over the past few days that the current government is considering some kind of revision to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Figures such as the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Attorney General Lord Hermer have made speeches suggesting disquiet concerning aspects of the Convention. In particular it is article 3: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and article 8: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

This story has history and the statements by politicians are more than usually disingenuous. To understand the story and the reasons for this recent slew of statements it is necessary to look at causes and why there is a clamour among politicians, some of the public and the media for change.

Stage 1 – the media

Much of the pressure has come from sections of the media so it is necessary to look at what is going on there. Newspaper readership has declined precipitately. Between 2000 and 2010, the decline was 65% and in the following decade up to 2020 a further 55%. Add in rising costs and declining advertising, and there is something of a crisis in the newsrooms. In this climate, it is cheaper to break into the emails, phones, bank accounts and even houses of the rich and famous, politicians and footballers to achieve a juicy front page, than to carry on the normal business of journalism.

Then came the hacking exposures and the Leveson enquiry which exposed the depth and extent of the hacking and criminal activity. It included senior police officers in the Metropolitan police in particular who sold information to the newspapers. This changed the dynamic of the industry and the notion of privacy was an anathema to their business models.

Over the last two decades there have been hundreds of stories alleging that criminals were not getting their just deserts because of their human rights either because of the ECHR or the domestic Human Rights Act. It was a ‘criminal’s charter’ they alleged. Photos of wanted criminals could not be circulated because of their human rights (they can), police could not evict an armed man until they provided him with a McDonalds hamburger because of his human rights (they could but it was normal practice to accede to requests to cool the situation). Abu Qatada was seriously misreported in the tussle over his deportation to Jordan.

Sadly, positive stories about the acts were almost entirely missing. The Daily Mail used the act to defend its journalist’s rights to protects their sources but strangely forgot to mention this to its readers.

Stage 2 – the politicians

Then the politicians began to join in perhaps sensing from the newspaper coverage that they were onto a popular winner. After all, if the voters were reading a never ending litany of stories about the evils of the human rights laws and Europe meddling in our affairs, it was a gift. It soon became part of the Conservative manifestos to abolish the act or later reform it. It became tangled up with the Brexit crusade and it is possible that many thought that coming out of Europe would mean that the ECHR would also be history. There was the famous cat story by Theresa May which was almost complete nonsense.

There was meant to be a Leveson part II to look at the unlawful conduct between the media and police but there were allegations that in return for a softer ride from the press, Keir Starmer agreed not to set it up. These allegations are denied. There are no plans for a part II.

Stage 3 – the boat people

As the means to arrive into the UK as a refugee or an asylum seeker diminished so the numbers who took to the boats to cross the Channel rose. This became a matter of massive political importance and the Reform party made huge progress with its promises to stop it. Media stories of asylum seekers being installed in hotels are constant. Despite boat crossings being only a small part of those coming to the UK, they loom large in the public imagination and politicians on the right have taken note of this.

The problem is that the government has obligations under the ECHR and other agreements, to treat asylum seekers in a proper way. Demands to simply ‘send them back’ are difficult to do particularly as ‘back’ can mean a county riven by war or where they can face dire consequences. But in simplistic terms human rights are standing in the way, as Mahmood says: ‘voters say international law stop them achieving the changes they want to see.‘

Stage 4 – the Reform party

Along came Reform and quickly began to made inroads into the political landscape. The overturning of a massive Labour majority of 14,700 in Runcorn and Helsby by Reform has shaken them badly. Reform has simple answers to matters like immigration which appeal to many and which has defeated both the Conservatives and now Labour. They would pick up boats in the Channel and return them to France. Asylum seekers would be processed off shore. These and other policies quick fix policies appeal to many and saying that they are difficult or impossible to do because of our international obligations carry little weight with many voters. They are even inflammatory particularly with those who have a deep distaste for anything European.

Stage 5 – today

So the Labour government is feeling under pressure. It has not ‘solved’ the Channel crossings problem. It has lost popularity for a variety of reasons quite apart from the discussion here. Reform is making great strides and even ahead in some polls with suggestions that Nigel Farage becoming a future prime minister was not the joke it might once have been. The Home Office remains dysfunctional and would take years to reform even under competent leadership. The party is becoming desperate to be able to counter the tide of dissatisfaction present in large parts of the kingdom particularly in the red wall seats.

So this brings into where we started and speeches about trying to reform elements of ECHR. The sadness is that they cannot. It would take years to carry through any reform in Strasbourg with little likelihood of success. If the government were to resile from either or both articles 3 and 8 would it solve its problems? Again sadly, no. The opposition to human rights laws and agreements have little to do with the people at the bottom of society so to speak. Almost no part of their speeches are about the victims of injustice which human rights are about.

As we have argued, it is sections of the media who have over decades created myths and disinformation about the workings of the laws. It is their business models which are under threat not the fate of asylum seekers. Why else would the Murdoch press spend over £1 billion in keeping the facts of its intrusion and criminality out of the courts? It is an irony – almost a supreme irony – that the much prized sovereignty that people apparently so desperately want is not in fact available to them. The Judiciary are all too happy to allow these hugely expensive legal actions to go ahead and thus subvert justice and free speech. There is no justice in any meaningful sense of the word. The rich and powerful can ‘buy’ silence by paying large sums into court that no one can afford to match.

These speeches appear to be preparing the ground at present in an attempt to match the rhetoric of Reform politicians. Instead of a proper concern for justice, establishing a Leveson II enquiry into the criminality of some of the media and their friends in the police, or tackling the rampant injustice of the defamation laws which serve to protect the rich from proper enquiry, our politicians seek to curry favour and favourable headlines in those very media outlets which have distorted the public’s attitudes to the laws which in truth protect them. The sadness is that the three politicians saying this stuff are experienced human rights lawyers who know it to be a distortion of the truth. A truly bizarre state of affairs.

1

Report critical of human rights


Report published by Policy Exchange claiming the HRA has curtailed the rights of Parliament

November 2024

Slightly amended 13 November

An article appeared in the Daily Mail on 11 November under the headline ‘Rights Act ‘curtailed power of Parliament ”. It said ’eminent lawyers have compiled a dossier of 25 cases where the Human Rights Act was applied and have shown how its use removed power from Parliament’. It continued that ‘power once held in Westminster is increasingly being transferred to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg’ and quotes the example of the government’s wish to deport ‘illegal’ immigrants to Rwanda which was frustrated at the last minute by the Court.

The Mail did not tell its readers however, who produced this report and a reference does not appear in the online version either. It was in fact written by the Policy Exchange and published on 11th. The organisation promotes itself ‘as an educational charity [and] our mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy‘.

The problem is that the Exchange is an opaque organisation and does not reveal who funds it, does not reveal funding on its website nor tells us the amounts given by funders. Open Democracy is very critical about the secretiveness of this organisation, its ‘dark money’ and its influence in government both with the Conservatives and now, it alleges, Labour.

It was revealed by Rishi Sunak who admitted that Policy Exchange received funding from US oil giant ExxonMobil who helped the government write its draconian anti-protest laws. It serves as confirmation by the then prime minister of Open Democracy’s revelations that last year’s controversial policing bill, which became the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Act, may have originated in a briefing from Policy Exchange. The organisation has form therefore in being hostile to rights and protests. It is curious that the Daily Mail, in the vanguard in promoting parliamentary sovereignty and a powerful force in the Brexit debate, failed to mention the influence of American money believed to be behind several of this and other think tanks. Quite where is this ‘sovereignty’ they are keen on?

The limited information provided to Daily Mail readers meant they are unaware of who funds these reports or the motives of the assumed funders (if indeed ExxonMobil are one of the funders). The report’s arguments are thin and present the reader with the notion that human rights were amply protected by our common law and there is no need for this ‘foreign’ court. Were that so and the victims of Hillsborough for example might disagree having been let down by the courts, the police and elements of the media in their search for justice. They finally achieved justice partly with the aid of the Human Rights Act so despised by the Mail. There are many victims of injustice who have found our institutions to be less than favourable to their interests – the Post Office scandal anyone?

1

Shamima Begum


Court of Appeal turns down Shamima Begum appeal to challenge citizenship ruling.

August 2024

Shamima Begum’s appeal to overturn the government’s decision to remove her British citizenship was turned down by the Court of Appeal on 7 August. They said her appeal ‘[did] not raise an arguable point of law’. She fled the country in 2015 with two others – now believed to be dead – in order to join ISIS then in the process of trying to establish an Islamic caliphate. ISIS committed a number of horrific crimes, including beheadings, and large numbers of people died during their violent reign.

Begum was 15 when she fled and once there, she became a bride, had three children all of whom died young. She is now 24 and is living in al-Roij camp in Syria. A great deal of rage settled on her and various commentators have tried to understand this – why her? Partly it seems to be a mixture of misogyny and the fact she did not conform to the standard narrative of someone who had done what she did and now sought forgiveness. She became a kind of figurehead for the rage people felt about the terrible actions of ISIS. It also seems to have been forgotten that she was a child of 15 when she left.

Removing someone’s citizenship is a severe retribution however and seems to have been done by the then home secretary Said Javid in response to tabloid rage. The argument that she was a ‘threat to national security’ is absurd and in what way was never explained. It has never been claimed that she committed any atrocity. How she would be a threat if she returned to the UK is also not explained. The government tried to argue that she could become a Bangladeshi citizen, an argument Lord Sumption described as a ‘legal fiction’.

Amnesty has issued a press release on this topic.

“It’s deeply concerning that the Supreme Court has concluded there’s no point of law to be considered on such a serious matter as stripping a British person of her citizenship – particularly when that was done on the back of her being exploited as a 15-year-old child.

“Stripping Shamima Begum’s nationality was profoundly wrong – she is and has always been British.

“Begum is now exiled in dangerous and inhuman conditions, along with thousands of other people, including women and children, in north-east Syria”.

“The UK should follow others by taking responsibility for nationals stranded in Syria – including by assisting in their safe return to the UK, whether or not that means facing possible criminal investigation or prosecution on their return.”

It is interesting to note that in an article in the Daily Mail on line, they report that the residents of Bethnal Green (where Shamima Begum used to live) would ‘welcome her back’.

There is now likely to be an appeal to the European Court of Human rights.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑