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

Latest death penalty report


October 2025

We are pleased to attach the latest death penalty report for the period mid-September to mid-October thanks to group member Lesley for the work in compiling it. There has been a lot of activity in America but we must point out as always that China is believed to execute more of its citizens than the rest of the world combined but details are a state secret.

Report (Word)Download
1

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

Latest vigil: No 96


Vigil took place at a difficult moment

October 2025

The vigil took place two days after the killing of two Jewish men and the injury of three others at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue at Crumpsell, Greater Manchester. The terrorist act was carried out by Jihad Al-Shamie. The attack shocked the nation and the Prime Minister had to fly back from a security conference in Copenhagen to attend a COBRA* meeting. It has brought to light the degree of anti-Semitism that Jews are experiencing with many receiving threats and abuse. It later emerged that one of the dead was shot by a police marksman when a bullet went through the door of the synagogue. Synagogues have to have considerable security to protect people attending. The levels of abuse have increased since the October 7th attack in Israel.

Here is a video of the vigil.

The attack sparked a debate concerning events such as this vigil and the national demonstration planned in London in support of Palestine and an end to the war in Gaza. There were many who argued that such events should be postponed in view of the Manchester killing. Others argued that the war continues in Gaza and over 50 more were killed on the day of the Manchester attack.

The other key event was a proposed peace plan agreed between Presidents Trump and Netanyahu following the latter’s trip to Washington last week. The plan has 20 points but it was not discussed with any Palestinian present. Hamas are reported to be considering the plan and indirect talks are planned on Sunday 5th in Cairo to discuss it. The plan made no mention of a Palestinian state.

Haaretz reports the death toll in Gaza has reached 67,000. More have died of starvation. Over 30 attended the vigil.

* A COBRA meeting is a gathering of senior government officials and other key figures to discuss and respond to a national emergency.  These meetings are convened when there is a situation that requires immediate and coordinated action from multiple government departments and agencies. It stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A and refers to the location where the meetings are held.

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

Ninety fifth vigil


95th vigil well attended. Nearly 66,000 dead in Gaza

Video added 28th.

Over 45 came to the 95th vigil and a number of passers-by stopped to ask what it was about or take photos. It has been a momentous week with speeches in the UN General Assembly. Mahmoud Abbas was not allowed to attend in person because the US would not give him a visa. President Trump berated the UN in all manner of ways. Perhaps the most surprising event was the almost complete walk out by delegates when Benjamin Netanyahu arrived to speak. The UK and the US did not leave.

A video of the vigil can be seen here thanks to Peter Gloyns for producing it.

Netanyahu condemned the recent decision by Britain and others to recognise a Palestinian state as ‘sheer madness, it’s insane and we won’t do it’ adding that recognition by several other countries is “disgraceful. The speech was transmitted to residents of Gaza through massive loudspeakers.

An Istanbul news outlet reports that at least 65,926 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s genocidal war on the Gaza Strip since October 2023, the Health Ministry said on Saturday. A ministry statement said that 77 bodies were brought to hospitals in the last 24 hours, while 265 people were injured, taking the number of injuries to 167,783 in the Israeli onslaught. “Many victims are still trapped under the rubble and on the roads as rescuers are unable to reach them,” it added.

The BBC has reported that the Allenby Bridge between the West Bank and Jordan has been closed with no reason given. It is the only crossing which leaves Palestinians stranded.

Journalists banned from Gaza.

Israel does not want the world to report on the events in Gaza and has banned international journalists from going there. Only Palestinian journalists can report and more of them have been killed or murdered there than in any other conflict. Three news organisations [BBC, Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France Presse] have produced a short video, narrated by David Dimbleby, arguing for access by the world’s press. Israel is wont to claim that footage and reporting of their activities and claims of genocide and starvation are ‘Hamas lies’ and similar remarks. Allowing journalists to report would allow the world to see for themselves. This 2 minute video is recommended.

No sign of the local MP, Mr John Glen nor any mention in his weekly column in the Salisbury Journal of the previous 94 vigils held in his constituency. He is reported to be a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel group, thought to be the largest lobby group in Parliament.

Recent posts:

0

Recognising Palestine: Britain’s responsibility


Britain finally recognises its historic responsibility

September 2025

Last week, Sir Keir Starmer finally agreed to the UK recognising the state of Palestine a decision which has angered Israel itself and the USA or at least President Trump. In all the debates, panel discussions, broadcast interviews and statements by politicians, the historic role played by Britain, when it was a world power, has barely been mentioned. It is almost a though there is a blanket of embarrassment which is placed over the events in the region similar in many ways to the silence around the atrocities of slavery and the acquisition, and subsequent attempts to retain, our Empire. All sides refer to the events of October 7th, which, terrible though they were, were just one act in a drama that goes back to the Great War.

In an article in the New Statesman: Britain has a historic responsibility to aid the establishment of a Palestinian state by William Dalrymple in the ‘Another Voice’ column (19 – 25 September) he discusses our grim historic role which has had direct and lasting effects today. Most are familiar with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which supported the national home for Jewish people in Palestine. How the existing population was to be treated was left vague. The British then disarmed the indigenous people and arrested their leaders and sent them to prison camps in the Seychelles and Cyprus. He recounts how the infamous black and tans were brought into quell the local population.

Considerable violence was inflicted on the Palestinian people with thousands of houses destroyed and thousands interned in concentration camps enduring violent interrogation and torture. Those between the ages of seven and 16 were flogged he says. Over 30 Arabs were executed. Such was the damage done to the Palestinian leadership that when the British pulled out in 1948, they were in no position to cope with the next phase of their misery when the Jews arrived who unleashed further violence in the Nakba.

The British have a special responsibility he argues to see the establishment of a Palestinian state who have suffered as a direct result of our actions over a century ago. Yet this violent history and mistreatment, murder and displacement of hundreds of thousands seem to be of no consequence in the reporting and interviews in our media. Instead, there is a relentless focus on the massacre on October 7th almost as though it came out of the blue.

Today (25 September) the American Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee was interviewed on Channel 4 news. It was not made clear to viewers that Huckabee is a Christian Zionist and says that on religious principle that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people and frequently guiding Christian pilgrimages to Israel since the 1980s. Neither was it explained that he has denied the existence of a Palestinian people and supports settlement activity on the West Bank and Gaza strip. On his organised trips he avoided Bethlehem as it was mostly occupied by Palestinians. He focused all his comments on the violence committed by Hamas. He had no answer to Matt Frei’s options for the Palestinians of either displacement, genocide or apartheid living as second class citizens in Israel. He repeated the canard that bombing was targeted on terrorists and that Hamas were using human shields.

Dalrymple ends his piece: ‘We must continue to believe in freedom and justice and dignity and decency and human rights. To dream of a world where Palestinians are not burned alive in their tents or herded like cattle from refugee camp to refugee camp to their final slaughter. We must dream of a Palestinian state alongside Israel where Palestinians can live in safety and without fear. And we must work to make sure that our dreams of an actual Palestine will one day soon become a reality’.

Over 65,400 have died in Gaza since hostilities started.

0

Palestinian state recognised


UK recognises the state of Palestine

September 2025

Today, 21 September, the UK government announces that it is to recognise the state of Palestine. It has joined the majority of countries around the world and joins Canada and Australia who did the same today. The decision has come after months of hesitation and was delayed until after the visit to the UK by President Trump who does not agree with it. To an extent, the government’s hand was forced. The disproportionate response to the horrific attack by Hamas on October 7th with the destruction of huge parts of Gaza, a death toll now over 65,000 many or whom are women and children and the deliberate introduction of siege conditions leading to more deaths by starvation, has left the government little option but to take action. Public opinion has also been a factor and the images of emaciated children have horrified many.

Britain’s decision is more than symbolic since the 1917 Balfour Declaration was instrumental in the creation of the state of Israel. The declaration was vague however since although it recognised that Arabs and Palestinians already lived there and said ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine‘ it made no provision for protecting their claims or rights.

Some argue this is symbolic since with American support and ever increasing violence by settlers in the West Bank, the prospects of an actual state on the ground are receding. Some suggest that this means the conditions for statehood as set out in the 1933 Montevideo convention are not achievable. The Israeli government has rejected the decision saying ‘it categorically rejects the one-sided declaration of a Palestinian state by the UK and some other countries.’ It claims the decision does not promote peace. A spokesman for the British Board of Deputies interviewed on the BBC was critical of the decision and said it would cause deep dismay across the Jewish community in the UK. It says it is a reward for Hamas violence.

Implications

What are the implications? It will take some while for the implications to percolate through the claims and counter claims of the various political interests. It will enable the Palestinians to open an Embassy in the UK which will improve their status. It will enjoy diplomatic rights which will be significant. Up until recently, the Israelis have enjoyed almost uncritical support from governments but its continued violence in the West Bank and Gaza is seeing that support melt away.

It is unlikely to bring a peace deal any closer. Wars end because a kind of exhaustion sets in and the population goes weary of war-time restrictions and the loss of soldiers. This shows no sign of applying in Israel. Seemingly limitless weapons supplies from America and a huge military advantage in weapons and materiel mean any exhaustion is a long way off. IDF deaths are modest 464 [Jewish News Syndicate, 18 September]. The far right members of the Knesset such as Bezalel Smotrich see Gaza as a ‘property bonanza’ and claim the ‘demolition phase is over’.

Recognition will make it harder for the UK government to continue its support of Israel – open and covert – with RAF overflights for example, and ignore the plight of the Palestinians. It may even see some more robust reporting from the BBC whose lamentable performance has slowly begun to change.

Amnesty has said it is a ‘hollow gesture’ and without meaningful action to end the genocide, end violence in the West Bank and ending the Apartheid system against the Palestinian people. Real action needs to be taken to end arms sales and divest from companies which continue to sell arms to Israel. A report by CAAT sets out the details of arms export to Israel.

0

94th vigil


Ninety fourth vigil in Salisbury

September 2025

The latest vigil attracted around 25 attendees, lower than recently but passer-by interest was encouraging. Only one person in a car blasting his horn and made a disobliging gesture. Over 65,200 are now dead as a result of IDF bombing but the recently launched ground offensive in Gaza City is likely to see a rise in that number.

Tomorrow (Sunday) may see the British government come out with its long awaited support for a Palestinian state the subject of discussion with President Trump at his recent 2 day visit to the UK last week. We may amend this post tomorrow in the light of that.

Al Jazeera report that starvation deaths are now at 440 including 147 children.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑