Category: “Human rights”

Rise in authoritarianism


Worrying increase in authoritarianism both sides of the Atlantic. Talk at the Exeter conference

March 2026

Our rights are hard won. Britain still has elements of its feudal past. We think of ourselves as a democracy and great fuss is made of elections and polls but in many respects power is not with the majority or the people. Governments have steadily attempted to reduce the ability to protest and have passed legislation to make demonstrations harder and harder. At the Exeter conference there were two presentations on the rise in authoritarianism on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US, President Trump has carried out a large number of attacks on the press, the judiciary, universities, opposition politicians and more or less anyone who disagrees with him.

What happens in America quickly crosses the pond and so it is with the rise of authoritarianism in the UK. The form may be different and it is less raucous but the erosion of rights continues steadily. The presentation gave some examples. A report by US Amnesty goes into a lot more detail.

Legislation is passed which is vague and allows for considerable interpretation by the police and others. There is an increased reliance on secondary legislation. This means important measures are placed in statutory instruments not in the acts themselves thus permitting unscrutinised measures to become law. Surveillance powers have increased. This has included the use of facial recognition technology now being introduced more widely. Failure to properly fund agencies meant to control corporations. An extreme example is the almost complete failure to control the water companies which have neglected to invest in infrastructure, have extracted billions in dividends which were offshored and have allowed rivers to become seriously polluted and open sewers.

Anti-protest

Governments do not like protest and never have throughout our history. Reforms have seldom come from the power holders but wrested from them by protest. Witness enfranchisement which has had a long and troubled history. One of the more fearful examples was the 1819 Peterloo massacre in Manchester at which 14 were killed and hundreds injured when they were attacked. There has been a succession of Reform Acts – in 1832, 1867 and 1884 for example – after long periods of unrest, marches and mass protests. Each reform gave more people the vote. After decades of campaigning and violent protest, women achieved the vote in the late 1920s.

In modern times the growth of the ‘think tanks’ has become a major issue. Millions are spent by them on lobbying ministers and MPs. David Cameron recognised this was a growing problem when he was prime minister. He subsequently became ensnared in a lobbying scandal. Often opaquely financed they are able to suggest legislation and argue against better climate legislation for example. The biggest and best funded of the lobby organisations are the Friends of Israel groupings to ensure Israel’s position is powerfully put.

Key to the rise in authoritarianism is the need to denigrate and stigmatise those who question it or government policies. They are called ‘woke’, ‘lefty lawyers’, ‘disruptors’ or ‘extremists’ and large parts of the media are happy to promote these assaults.

Control of information is key and the secretive company Palantir was mentioned which is almost by the day, increasing its reach into the British state with few effective controls. We shall be commenting on this dangerous organisation in a subsequent post. UPDATE, 24 March. Warnings about Palantir and a contract with the Financial Conduct Authority. Later post on Palantir.

What can done?

Such is the power and reach of the various organisations, from government down through well-funded lobby organisations, American platforms including AI, and large elements of the media, that opposition is difficult. Even raising awareness is a challenge. Another problem is apathy. Many are simply unaware of the creeping authoritarianism around them. Some approve of curbs on protests. A number of people at Exeter had never heard of Palantir for example. The emotional power of the right wing is not to be overlooked.

As we learned from the Brexit campaign, simple slogans and emotional appeals are what cut through not factual presentations. Creeping authoritarianism and the steady loss of power will need to make emotional connections with people, to point out in simple language and images, the steady risks of allowing these powerful organisations, most of whom are based in America, to gain more and more influence and control over our organisations such as the NHS.

Recent posts:

Thought of subscribing? It’s free.

0

Amnesty conference in Exeter


Well attended conference with a wide range of human rights issues discussed

March 2026

The Exeter group of Amnesty puts together a conference every year and those attending this year were able to listen to a range of speakers on some of the current problems with human rights around the world. Each topic will need its own space so we shall be putting up a range of posts over the coming week or so to give them justice. For now, this is just a brief summary as a kind of ‘taster’. All credit to the Exeter group for organising this event. Six members from the Salisbury group attended and all found it worthwhile.

Tapestry

The tapestry was on display after many years absence. It was displayed in Salisbury Cathedral several years ago.

Malawi

We do not hear enough from Africa although the war in Sudan occasionally makes the news. Malawi is one of a number of countries in Africa which have anti-gay legislation. Eric Sambisa spoke of his campaign and actions to get the law on LGBTQ+ legislation changed in his country. Those laws derive from colonial times and change is proving slow.

Authoritarianism

We had two speakers on authoritarianism, first in America and second in the UK. Trump and his supporters are carrying out a range of such measures and worryingly, UK governments are quietly following suit with more laws and increased police powers designed to reduce protests. The firm Palentir was raised more than once and they represent a serious risk to our personal security.

Purchasing

A forthcoming Amnesty campaign will focus on what we buy and the human rights stories behind our purchases. Much of what we buy comes from overseas and is produced in sweat shops in the far east where – mostly women – work in terrible conditions with few if any rights. There are no trade unions. The surprising, nay shocking thing, is that big name British retailers are involved, the likes of M&S, Tesco, Next and others. Firms who’s policies have the familiar words about human rights being our ‘first priority’. The supply chains are long and as you go down them the opportunities for abuse increases.

There was discussion of Early Day Motion 1266 concerning banning goods coming from the illegal Israeli settlements. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time to discuss the large number of MPs, from all parties, who are members of the powerful Friends of Israel lobby groups. Their power means the motion is unlikely to succeed.

Palestine

The situation in Palestine was a topic as you might expect and we had a presentation from an academic at Exeter University. Part of the discussion focused on the prospects for a two state solution. There are none was the stark conclusion. Israel has systematically removed people and built settlements which make the creation of a viable Palestinian state impossible. Recent announcements of the creation of 19 new settlements cements this fact, referred to as ‘settler colonialism’. The speaker did focus on the Apartheid regime in place in Israel and the West Bank. Attacking that, much as happened in South Africa which saw that regime come to an end, was the way forward he said.

Amnesty International

There were some speakers who discussed issues surrounding Amnesty itself. In common with all charities at present and the drop in funding to the sector of £1.4bn in a year, Amnesty is having to reduce its expenditure. It has a new Chief Executive. It is facing ‘significant financial challenges’.

Photo

The photo is the traditional picture where delegates assemble in front of the cathedral.

Once again, thanks to the Exeter group for organising this excellent event. Thought of becoming a subscriber?

Recent posts:

0

Review of 2025


… and things do not look much better for 2026

December 2025

We have published 192 posts so far this year on a wide variety of subjects concerned with human rights. A key feature of the year has been the continuation of our vigils. We have held over 109 since the current conflict started and although there is some kind of cessation of hostilities, peaceful reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians seems a far away dream. Some food aid is getting in but Israel has seized almost all the cultivable land leaving those in Gaza hemmed into an even smaller part of their territory. We have commented on the poor reporting of events there and the unsatisfactory nature of so many interviews.

Arms sales

A feature of this conflict and other conflicts around the world is the role of the arms trade. It appears that this trade seems to determine British policy: truly the tail wagging the dog. The government frequently trots out that it has a ‘robust policy’ whilst granting licences – and in particular open licenses – to almost all who come. The effects on people at the receiving end of these weapons sales does not seem to worry the Foreign Office or government ministers. Recent government’s policies have focused on growth and if growth means selling arms to Israel and to the UAE so be it. There is considerable evidence that the latter are supplying the RSF in Sudan who are alleged to commit many atrocities.

At the height of the Yemen war we highlighted the role of British arms firms and their weapons sales to the Saudis. RAF personnel were involved just short of being labelled ‘mercenaries’.

Sport

Sport has featured in several of our posts and the ever increasing use by states with abysmal human rights records to use sport to burnish their images. Virtually all sports are involved, but especially football, boxing, motor sport, golf, tennis and cycling. The driver is money. China and the Gulf states are among those with almost unlimited resources to pour into sporting events with seemingly no difficulty in attracting sportsmen and women to compete in their countries with no moral qualms. They also invest in our football clubs again with no concerns about how tainted the money is.

It has become so part of the furniture now that it engenders little comment. Whereas some years ago a nation which executes significant numbers of its citizens – often after confessions extracted under torture – which imprisons or ‘disappears’ human rights defenders and journalists and treats its women as second class citizens denying them many rights, would raise eyebrows when seeking to sponsor or host a sporting event. Not today.

Refugees

And it is not just sport where issues of human rights have seemed to take a back seat. People entering this country by various means have generated a massive amount of political controversy here in the UK. It is probably true to say that immigration in one form or another is one of the dominant political forces at work. It is deciding elections. A number of politicians are using the ‘crisis’ to their political advantage (they hope). Egged on by sections of our media, they have created the impression that there is a crisis particularly around the numbers arriving in small boats across the Channel. Any concern for those in the boats and why they are risking their lives to get here does not seem to feature. The impression is sometimes created that if we could deport the migrants (however defined) our problems would be over. The connection between our arms sales and the instability of the countries they have fled from does not seem to enter their thinking.

The contribution by immigrants (again however defined) is scarcely recognised. That large sections of our economy (horticulture and the food industry for example), the health service, hospitality and transport, would cease to function without them seldom seems to enter the consciousness of our senior politicians. We have commented on the strange fact that many of our senior politicians, including Rishi Sunak, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Shabana Mahmood, Kwasi Kwarteng and Danny Kruger are all descended from recent immigrants but are among the most aggressive about deporting those coming after them. We can offer no explanation.

Rights at home

Which brings us to another theme concerning the government and its own attachment to UK human rights. It was once hoped that the arrival of Sir Keir Starmer – an ex human rights lawyer and past Director of Public Prosecutions – would see an improvement in the human rights climate. Sadly, it has not come to pass. Laws against protests introduced by the Conservatives to clamp down on protestors, have not been modified or repealed and have even been added to. A more humane policy towards immigrants and refugees has not happened. Arrests have continued and as this is being written, those arrested on pro-Palestine marches are close to death on hunger strike. His continuing support for Israel has been shaming. He has issued critical comments but they have not been backed up by action, cutting arms supplies for example. No believable explanation for the hundreds of RAF flights over Gaza has been forthcoming. His most disgraceful comment that ‘Israel was right to withhold power and water from Gaza’ was widely condemned.

This year we have introduced a new regular feature reviewing the human right situation in the UK itself. This is probably something we would never have contemplated doing say, twenty years ago but a combination of poor leadership, aggressive home secretaries and many MPs with little interest in protecting human rights, has led to this move. Both Danny Kruger (MP for East Wiltshire) and John Glen (MP for Salisbury) are listed on They Work For You as generally voting against human rights is another factor. Mr Glen, who is listed as a member of the well-funded lobby group Conservative Friends of Israel has never once visited the Saturday peace vigil nor mentioned it in his weekly column in the Salisbury Journal.

Ukraine, Sudan, China, Palestine …

The world situation does not seem to get any better. The situation in Ukraine is critical and not just for the Ukrainians. We have one member of the Security Council, Russia gratuitously attacking an independent nation while another member, the US seems indifferent to their plight. The warm greeting by President Trump of President Putin on the tarmac in Alaska must be one of the more grizzly images of the past year. European nations have become almost powerless, in part because of their collective failure to invest in defence (defense) but also because they have become kind of vassal states to the US.

We must not forget that human rights in Russia are poor. There is no opposition and a leader who was a threat to Putin, Navalny, was probably murdered in Siberia. Others have been arrested or murdered along with many journalists. Children have been abducted from Ukraine. Ukrainian prisoners have been tortured.

We could devote a whole page to China. A million Uyghurs are persecuted and are forced to work while their culture is systematically destroyed by the Communist Party. Some call it genocide. Tibet has had a similar treatment and its culture largely eliminated. They are believed to execute more of its citizens than all the rest of the world combined. Freedom has been snuffed out in Hong Kong. Chinese nationals are intimidated overseas.

The future

The future is unpromising. The ‘New World Order’ created after the war is well and truly dead. Powerful interests act at will. Despotic leaders act in their own interests not in the interests of ordinary people. Europe is too feeble to act. It looks as though things will continue as they are. There is no hint that the current conflicts will end equitably but based on the whims of a handful of profoundly flawed men.

A large number of MPs of all parties are members of the Friends of Israel group and many also receive money from them. How can they be expected to act honestly, with integrity and in the best interests of the country (to be clear, the UK whose residents voted them in not a foreign state) if they are members of a powerful and well funded lobby group? Arms companies continue to sell their wares with few controls so desperate is the government for growth. The BBC has been cowed into silence on important topics.

In June of last year, the Institute for Government, recognising the serious loss of trust in the government, published its 7 steps to restore trust. One was the publication of an independent ministerial code. Another was to ensure lobbying was built on a clear coherent and transparent system. It has not happened. There is no rigorous or proper system of controlling the ‘revolving door’ which is a passport for corruption by ministers, ex-civil servants and military people retiring into lucrative appointments with arms companies.

Hope

The weekly vigils and the many hundreds of protests around the country for an end to the killing and genocide in Gaza is a heartening sign. It shows a significant number of people who care about what is happening, care that is not reflected by the government nor by chunks of the media. Despite their numbers, reporting is thin with a media all too keen gleefully to report flag waving disturbances outside hotels or army camps. If hope is to be found it lies with ordinary people who simply say ‘this isn’t right, this is not what I believe in’. Rutger Bregman in his Reith Lectures (2025) argues just this: that small committed groups can make a difference. However, whether they can achieve this at the international level is debatable. We can cite climate which will be having harmful effects on more and more of the world’s population and where progress if anything is going backwards.

We shall continue to campaign and we always welcome new members to the team.

Best wishes for the New Year to our small band of readers!

0

China successfully threatens university


China forces a British university to stop Uyghur research

November 2025

UPDATE 4 November. Police reported to be investigating to see if the University was assisting a foreign power.

There is considerable evidence that around one million Uyghurs in China are subject to forced labour and people trafficking on a massive scale. It is thought that around one fifth of all textiles are now the product of coercive practices. Garment firms show little inclination to check sources beyond what is called the ‘first tier’ even though they could do so easily. Australian research shows that approximately 100 major consumer brands are sourcing their materials from this region. There are some 380 camps surrounded by razor wire and armed guards. The treatment of such large numbers of people in ways almost amounting to slavery is a matter of major concern. The complicity of many Western garment firms in these crimes is a disgrace.

One of the centres producing the research is based in Sheffield Hallam under prof. Laura Murphy. She has produced many reports and her work has been widely cited. The University congratulated her on this work and her research. Until that is the Chinese complained when everything changed. Her website was taken down and it decided not to publish her latest research. It amounted to a flagrant example of a breach of academic freedom. University staff based in China received threatening visits from security services.

The university said they stopped publication because they could not gain the indemnity insurance for her work mindful of possible lawsuits. Documents released under freedom of information laws showed that the University ‘had negotiated directly with a foreign intelligence service to trade [her] academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market‘. The point being that universities are so cash-strapped these days they have to recruit foreign students to balance their books. In other words, we (China) will not allow our students to come to your University unless you stop publishing material about the Uyghurs. China denies all claims but will not allow foreign observers into the region.

Clearly embarrassed the University has apologised and restored her work.

The story reveals how easy it is for China to intimidate those it dislikes or who comment negatively on their various activities. It also reveals how quickly and tamely a British University agreed to censor an academic’s work. Troubling is that this is an example of something which has come to light. Which other universities are quietly agreeing not to rock the boat and not even allow researches to get underway for fear of losing a contingent of Chinese students? The last two weeks have seen the government tie itself in knots over two alleged Chinese spies and whether or not to prosecute them. China’s increasing power is more and more troubling. Meanwhile, a million or so Uyghurs are virtual slaves.

Detailed work produced by Prof Murphy can be accessed here. It will be interesting to see if China’s heavy-handed efforts to threaten a British University will backfire.

Sources: BBC, China Star, Guardian, Sheffield Hallam University.

Photo: satellite picture of one of the Uyghur camps.

1

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

Brian Oosthuysen


October 2025

We were sad to note the death this summer of Brian Oosthuysen who was 87. Brian was an active member of the Stroud Amnesty group and, with other members of that group, took part in the campaign we ran on North Korea. Brian was born in South Africa during the Apartheid era. The picture below shows him holding the banner on one of his trips to Salisbury. There is an obituary in the Guardian which describes his many activities including being a County Councillor, helping at a food bank as well as his Amnesty work. We sent Our condolences go to Carole and family.

Members of Salisbury and Stroud Amnesty groups (Brian is 6th from right) in Queen Elizabeth Gardens.

0

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

Further restrictions planned on protests


Home Secretary will aim to increase curbs on repeated protests

October 2025

Governments throughout history have disliked protests and demonstrations. Thousands of people marching through the streets of London loudly, or even peacefully, stating their grievance or demanding a right denied to them, has long been part of our national life. Indeed, Sir Ian Gilmour in his book Riot, Risings and Revolution* describes the very many such events which took place in eighteenth-century Britain. Such was the violence that parliament was sometimes unable to sit for fear of MPs being dragged from their carriages. It is important to remind ourselves of this because the impression is sometimes created by present day politicians and some media commentators that this is some kind of new phenomenon. They are disliked because they disturb the current order. They give voice to injustice.

As we have noted before, the current home secretary, Shabana Mahmoud, is a woman as were previous home secretaries viz. Yvette Cooper, Suella Braverman, Amber Rudd, Theresa May and Priti Patel. All have the vote, all were/are MPs and are, or were, in parliament. That this is so is as a result of prolonged protest over many decades. They became violent as a (male) parliament refused to allow female enfranchisement. We could list other protests: to allow non property owners get the vote, for safety in the factories, to stop impressment and many other causes. All have the same or similar causes: people who feel that a government is more interested in satisfying or appeasing the powerful and are not listening to the powerless. Arms companies for example, have no need to spend a Saturday marching through London streets risking arrest and blistered feet, they – or their lobbyists – have direct access to ministers and senior civil servants all too happy to accommodate their wishes.

Frequency the problem

Mahmoud wants to get legislation passed to amend the Public Order Acts to clamp down on frequent protests. ‘Frequency of particular protests in particular places‘ she says ‘is in and of itself a reason for the police to be able to restrict and place conditions’. As a variety of civil rights organisations have pointed out, it is frequency which is the point. A single march or demonstration is unlikely to achieve anything much – the million or so who protested against the calamitous war in Iraq is an example.

She also claims, ludicrously, that they were ‘un-British’ and ‘dishonourable’. Clearly a minister who has only a slender grasp of British history.

There are a number of factors which seem to be at play here. The current ministerial statement came after the dreadful attack on a Synagogue in Greater Manchester. Marches were planned two days later on the Saturday in support of Palestine. There were many calls for the marches to be postponed. The organisers would not and went ahead with 488 arrested in Trafalgar Square. We can get a sense of the tensions at play in a Daily Telegraph article on 2 October Israel blames Starmer after synagogue terror attack which quoted without evidence, an Israeli source claiming the attack may have been ‘directed by Hamas’. Raphi Bloom is quoted in the Jewish Chronicle ‘that the community “will not forget the betrayal” over the UK recognising a Palestinian state, saying: “When you fail to act on constant calls to globalise the intifada, the results are that intifada came to our Manchester Jewish community with horrific consequences”.

It is clear that many people are upset and angry about the continued and wholly disproportionate killing and starvation which is taking place in Gaza. They are angry at the government continuing to allow Israel to be supplied with arms and the covert support by the RAF with their hundreds of overflights of Gaza. UK sales of arms to Israel reached a record high in June this year. They do not accept that there is a connection between the killing in Greater Manchester and Israel’s activities in Gaza and the West Bank. It can be argued that the Israeli government has perpetually conflated criticisms of its actions in Gaza and inaction in the West Bank as ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘hatred of Israel’ and more recently as being ‘pro Hamas’.

The Home secretary’s plans to add to the legislation passed by the Conservatives is unnecessary and to quote an Amnesty director ‘ludicrous’. They may be part of a plan by government to look tough in the face of the increasing popularity of Reform and Nigel Farage. They represent a further step in increased authoritarian government and a desire to restrict protests generally.

*Pimlico (pub) 1992

Sources: Daily Telegraph, Jewish Chronicle, BBC (factcheck service), Sky News, Guardian, Wikipedia,

0

Will we withdraw from the European Convention?


Increasing number of politicians wanting the UK to leave the human rights convention

October 2025

There is almost a chorus now of politicians saying we must leave the European Convention of Human Rights. The latest politician is Robert Jenrick MP (pictured) who in a speech ahead of the Conservative party conference next week, is proposing that all prospective candidates must promise to support leaving the ECHR as a condition of their candidacy. He claims ‘the party will die’ if they do not leave. He claims that the Convention has ‘stymied the removal of dozens of terrorists’. The party leader, Kemi Badenoch does not agree with this policy. However, while preparing this post Kemi Badenoch announced that her party will aim to leave.

Policy Exchange a prominent think tank claims that ‘ECHR distorts parliamentary democracy, disables good government, and departs from the ideal of the rule of law’. PX is regarded as the least transparent of the think tanks and its funding is obscure. It has pursued a programme over many years to weaken the judiciary.

The desire to leave the ECHR has come to the fore recently because of the small boats crossings which still represent a crisis for the government with record crossings. The former justice minister Lord Faulkner is quoted as saying it is ‘inhibiting government’s freedom to what is regarded by many as the emergency of illegal migration’.

Recently, Nigel Farage the leader of Reform has said we must leave ‘no ifs, not buts’.

So leaving the ECHR is essential according to these politicians if we want to solve the small boats ’emergency’. The questions are therefore will it, and what will be its effects on our rights more generally?

The debate around the European Convention is replete with exaggerations and misinformation. The chicken nugget story – widely repeated by many politicians and elements of the press is the latest. A boy could not be deported because of his aversion to chicken nuggets it was claimed. Except it never happened. There was no ruling that the foreign offender should be allowed to stay in Britain because his child could not eat these nuggets. An immigration tribunal did initially decide that it would be “unduly harsh” for the boy to be sent to Albania because of his special educational needs, but this judgment was later overturned. A more senior judge rejected the man’s appeal and made absolutely clear that an aversion to chicken nuggets should never be enough to prevent deportation.

Implications
  1. We would not just be able to leave as it would require a decision in parliament. This could take some months and the House of Lords would object to many of the details.
  2. The ECHR is not the only relevant piece of legislation: the Refugee convention also has implications for the UK.
  3. It will create problems with international relations. Since the UK was a prime mover under Sir Winston Churchill and the UK drafted a lot of the text, if we left it could lead to others deciding to do the same. We would join Belarus and Russia outside the Convention – hardly a good advertisement for the UK. It would seriously weaken the ‘voice’ the nation has on the subject of human rights.
  4. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU could be threatened.
  5. There would be immense problems with the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland.

The focus of the current debate has been on immigration and the boat crossings. This is a side show and a distraction. The ECHR is much more than that and involves fundamental issues concerning our rights as citizens and our relationships with state power. It is no accident that right-wing tanks like the Policy Exchange, and others based in Tufton Street, want us to leave because it inhibits the power and influence of their corporate backers. Human rights are nuisance for them and using the boat crossings is a useful cover to get us to leave. It is small wonder that they do not reveal who funds them.

Our parliament is little better. Recent legislation introduced by the Conservatives has seriously impeded the right to protest and there is little sign of the Labour government repealing those acts. Sir Keir Starmer drew a distinction between someone being deported where there was a risk of execution and sending them to a country with a different level of healthcare or prison conditions. Although he did not mention in his speech the ECHR it was clear that was what he was referring to. It was a less than full throated support.

We thus have sections of the media and political parties, the first pushing exaggerated or even made up stories about the harm the HRA does and second, an increasing number of politicians falling over themselves – in a kind of game of leapfrog – claiming they will leave or amend the ECHR. They claim or infer that by leaving the ECHR, it will enable them to solve the problem of the crossings. They dishonestly do not explain to the public the problems, risks and harms to UK’s interests with their proposed actions.

The HRA, which celebrates its 25th anniversary today, has brought immense benefits to many people in this country. Yet few politicians seem willing or brave enough sing its praises. Courting popularity, they have joined the siren voices of the secretive think tanks and oligarchs who own most of our media, in calling for its abolition (or review without ever spelling out what that means exactly).

Sources: Daily Express, Sky News, The Guardian, BBC, Euro news

0

25th Anniversary of HRA


Today marks the 25th Anniversary of the Human Rights Act

October 2025

Twenty five years ago this act was signed and ended the need to go to Strasbourg to get justice. It fundamentally changed the law by giving fundamental rights to citizens. It is currently under threat and it, and the European Convention which predates it, are disliked by many of the political and media class. In the next post we shall discuss this in more detail.

But today (2nd) we celebrate.

Recent posts:

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑