Tag: HRA

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

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

Nigel Farage and immigration


The leader of the Reform party sets out his policy for handling immigrants and asylum seekers

August 2025

Nigel Farage made a speech yesterday (26th) setting out his ideas for handling the rising numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers many of whom arrived in boats across the Channel. Often termed ‘illegal’ immigrants although it is not illegal to come via this method if asylum is claimed. The whole issue of asylum seekers, boat crossings and hotels has become headline news in recent months and there have been protests outside some of them most notably in Epping. A case started today (26 August) concerning an Ethiopian man alleged to have sexually assaulted a 14 year old girl and this has added to the widespread sense of outrage.

Mr Farage in his speech promised to fix the problem in quick order if he became prime minister. His speech has made headlines because of his poll lead which if maintained, could conceivably mean he will be a prime minister after the next election. Some polls show a 15 point lead over Labour. He promised to launch ‘Operation Restoring Justice‘ which would involve leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (joining Russia and Belarus), repealing the Human Rights Act and disapplying the Refugee Convention. This is to enable the UK to detain every migrant arriving illegally. Countries will be persuaded by a mixture of ‘carrot and stick’ to take them back. These will include countries with poor human rights records such as Iran, Afghanistan and Sudan where the risk of torture or death is extremely likely. The detentions will include women and children he made clear. They ‘will never be allowed to stay’ he said.

Critical issues arose in the press conference and included the cost and where they will be housed while deportations are arranged. He was not able to answer these questions. By amending or abolishing the legislations and coming out of the ECHR etc, it will frustrate the ability of lawyers to prevent deportations largely because the majority do have asylum claims which are legitimate. Over the coming days, other criticisms will appear. For example, existing English law, upon which the ECHR was largely founded after the war, provides protections despite membership of the Convention. Will foreign countries be willing to accept the large numbers involved?

Human rights

The concern here though is the desire to rid us of the ECHR and to repeal the Human Rights Act. This has popped up as a policy in several Conservative manifestos but has never actually come to pass. Local MP Danny Kruger is an advocate of this policy. Mr Farage’s ideas gained favourable coverage in some of the newspapers with the Daily Mail saying in a headline ‘Finally a politician who gets it’ [26 August, accessed 27 August]. His indifference to those he proposes returning to countries where torture is routine was particularly noteworthy. It is interesting however, looking at the comments from readers many of which were not supportive of his comments despite the uncritical nature of the article. The extent to which Mr Farage and Reform are making the waves was clear from the responses from the two main parties. Kemi Badenoch complaining that Reform had stolen their policies and a No 10 statement merely saying that Labour could not rule out leaving the ECHR. There was strong condemnation from the Liberal Democrats.

Mr Farage couched his speech in terms of a public mood of ‘total despair and rising anger’. It is disappointing to note the feeble and pusillanimous nature of the responses in particular from No 10. Britain was in the lead in promoting a new world order after the war following the Atlantic Conference. The ECHR was based a lot on British principles of justice. We would join only Russia and Belarus if we left – neither country a ringing endorsement of rights and human dignity. It is also disappointing to see newspapers like the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph (How Farage would kick 600,000 migrants out of Britain) seemingly to endorse Mr Farage with little sign of critical analysis. The Telegraph even had a story headed ‘We’re ready to work with Farage on migration says Taliban‘. The human rights situation in Afghanistan is abysmal.

How have we come to a situation where prejudice and a lack of critical reporting about the almost unworkable and hugely expensive proposals put forward by Reform are treated in this way? Instead of a robust response and clear statements of how to tackle problems, the two main parties seem to be falling over themselves to ape Reform policies. Partly it is because they confuse some newspaper reporting as reflective of the wider public’s feelings about immigration which are a lot less black and white. It may also be a reflection of years of negative articles by some newspapers about human rights – and by extension the Human Rights Act – claiming it is a criminal’s charter. It is perhaps not surprising that part of Mr Farage’s speech was about the HRA and he spoke of ‘removing the tools from our judiciary’ to prevent successful asylum claims.

A point he referred to several times was around ‘whose side are you on?’ This was in answer to a question from the BBC concerning the risk of returnees being tortured. His answer was ‘are you on the side of the safety of our women and children on our streets, or on the side of outdated treaties backed up by dubious courts’. Another quote was defending our borders and keeping our people safe. There is no evidence of women and children rendered unsafe on our streets disproportionately by immigrants (illegal or otherwise). The torture question was asked more than once.

The tone of the presentation was that immigrants are a threat to our society. That women and girls are unsafe despite the fact that many asylum seekers and others are in secured accommodation. By extension, many of our problems would be removed in short order if he became prime minister. The HRA and other laws and treaties are part of the problem he claims.

Reflections

Mr Farage, despite being a member of a party with only 4 MPs, is able to command a big audience from a speech and to be the lead item on many news channels.

He enjoys wide and largely uncritical support in chunks of the media.

Mr Farage himself (!) noted an interesting point, namely most of the press questions were about process. There was little of a moral or principled point of view.

A large part of his speech was based on dubious claims and unsubstantiated facts. There are problems surrounding immigration and he is correct that both parties have been ham-fisted in trying to deal with them and failing. But solutions are complex and the nation cannot simply step away from international treaties and agreements.

He does not discuss the reactions from other nations from his set of unilateral proposals to deport all illegal migrants. The question is – what if all countries decided to do the same? He spoke of return agreements and an expert from the Migration Observatory said in an interview that such agreements had a mixed history.

He speaks as though the UK is uniquely affected by these problems. The reality is that the scale of displaced people around the world is massive. There are 36.8m refugees worldwide and 123m displaced people according to UNHCR. The UK’s problems in comparison are miniscule. We are also a rich country better able than most to tackle the problem with capable leadership. Many of the millions are in, or adjacent to, countries which are among the world’s poorest. No part of his speech discussed what could be done to tackle the worldwide problem.

So whose side are we on to pose Mr Farage’s question? Not his.

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

The European Court


Seminar asking ‘what’s at stake?’ with the threat to leave the European Court

May 2024

Following the last minute reprieve last year by the European Court for the asylum seekers on their way to be deported to Rwanda, many politicians and a large section of the media are campaigning for Britain to leave the jurisdiction of the Court and resign from the European Council. The MP for Devizes, Danny Kruger, is a prominent member of this group. It has become a political issue, one likely to crop up in the current election. This webinar by the European Movement UK discussed the history of the court and the institution and what some of the implications might be if we did leave.

The Court has been subject to much abuse and is generally and disparagingly referred to as a ‘foreign court’ and together with Strasbourg, has almost become a term of abuse. Although nothing to do with the EU which Britain has left, it is confused with that entity and it is possible that many people thought that when we left the EU we had left all things European including the Court.

The webinar started with some history including the key fact that it was Britain and in particular Winston Churchill, who were instrumental in getting the European Council established at the Treaty of London after the war. The UK was the first country to ratify the treaty. It is an irony that it was Conservatives who led the way in the post-war years yet it is members of the same party who are now keen to see us depart.

From the rhetoric and press reporting one might gain the impression that the Court is a regular thorn in the exercise of law in this country and frequently interfering in the exercise of justice. The reality is quite the opposite. The UK has the lowest number of applications and out of 38,000 applications from member states in 2023, only 176 relate to the UK. There have been 3 judgements and one violation. There are issues still outstanding concerning Northern Ireland however. The main point being made was that on the whole, the UK has a reasonable judicial system and most matters are resolved within the country without need to go to Strasbourg.

As far as being a ‘foreign court’, only France has more nationals working there and the British presence is strong and influential.

False promise

Another speaker referred to the main reason for the current desire to leave is the Rwanda issue. The promise of leaving the jurisdiction of the Court overlooks other conventions we have signed up to including the Refugee Convention. The consequences of us leaving were discussed and these included the negative effects on human rights in the UK if the ultimate backstop was removed. There will be consequences for the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. It will undermine UK’s standing in the world as a country which stands by its international agreements. It will reduce our influence, which, as already mentioned, is considerable.

Dominic Grieve, the final speaker, said it ‘has been the best example of soft-power exercised by the UK since the second world war’. He repeated that the UK was hardly ever in violation. The Court had brought about positive change for example by overturning the decision by a local authority to house an elderly couple in separate care homes brought about by the family life provision in the Convention. He noted that the obsession by some politicians was not reflected by the public at large.

Success

The success of the Court in the post war world should be a matter of celebration rather than the subject of 15 years of denigration. Recent government legislation to inhibit demonstrations and the actions of judges in preventing protestors explaining why they were protesting are examples of how fragile our rights are. The combination of government laws, increased police powers, media disinformation around human rights and demonising protestors as ‘rioters’ and ‘eco-zealots,’ has cast a chilling effect over attempts to bring concerns to public attention via protests. It is forgotten that a huge range of social reforms have almost always resulted from protest. It will be interesting to see what appears in the parties’ election manifestos on this subject.

0

75th anniversary


Today – 10 December – is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

December 2023

Today marks the 75th anniversary of one of the world’s most ground-breaking global pledges: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This landmark document enshrines the inalienable rights that everyone is entitled to as a human being – regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

In one sense, we should be celebrating what was a great event. Yet surveying the world today, one wonders to what extent its aspirations are being followed. In many parts of the world, people are denied rights because of colour, race, religion or social status. Millions have been displaced and live in camps with only limited facilities. A war rages in Gaza. In China, around a million Uyghurs suffer persecution because of their faith.

Here in the UK, instead of celebration, we await a vote this week to see if parliament will agree to disapplying parts of the Human Rights Act – a child of the Declaration – and some within the Conservative party wish to see us leave the European Convention. Parts of the media carry out a regular assault on the act blaming it for many of our ills and allegedly providing a safety net for terrorists and criminals. There are many in positions of power who would like to see the act abolished or at least seriously curtailed. A sad commentary after three quarters of a century.

Today (10th) we shall be in the Cathedral for our annual Christmas signing for prisoners of conscience. From 10:00 till noon.

0

Write for Rights


This Sunday, 10 December at the Cathedral

December 2023

Past event

Members of the Salisbury Group will be at the Cathedral cloisters from around 10 o’clock on Sunday for our annual Write for Rights and people in Salisbury are invited to come and sign. We must not forget that many people are in prison or at risk of execution often for no more than disagreeing with the powers that be in their country. They have committed no crime but have may said something disobliging or critical of a president, king or other leader and frequently without trial, can end up in prison for many years. Human Rights defenders, lawyers or journalists are all caught up in this activity.

United Kingdom

The situation in the UK is fast approaching a kind of crisis concerning the issue of deporting people to Rwanda. The government will be tabling a bill next week to disapply sections of the Human Rights Act to enable the deportation of immigrants to Rwanda. Previous plans were blocked by the Supreme Court because the human rights situation in Rwanda is unsatisfactory. Refugees sent there were at risk of refoulement that is being sent back to a country where they would be at risk of bad treatment of some kind. A plan last June to despatch a plane load from Boscombe Down, an airfield a mile or so from where this is being written, was halted by the European Court.

The issue of the ‘boat people’ has become a major issue for the government being one of the Prime Minister’s 5 objectives. Although only a small part of the overall level of immigration, it has assumed huge significance to the point where there might be a confidence vote next week if the bill is not passed. Ostensibly, it is partly due to anger around the gangs involved in organising the crossings. The hope is that if the Rwanda deportations can get underway, this will act as a disincentive to people wishing to cross the Channel. There are many who view this as wishful thinking.

Critics, including Conservative politicians, point out that the bill – even if it becomes law – will not prevent claimants appealing to Strasbourg thus delaying the deportation process until way beyond the likely date of the General Election. This is leading some politicians to demand that we leave the European Court as well.

A leading proponent of this is Danny Kruger the MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, who is co-founder of the ‘New Conservatives’ whose ten point plan is built around immigration matters.

The whole matter has reached almost absurd levels. The Supreme Court looked carefully at the evidence and concluded that Rwanda is not a safe country. Critics and journalists are frequently detained and tortured in detention. Opposition is effectively banned. There are disappearances. A new treaty has been signed between the UK and Rwanda a few days ago which claims to overcome these human rights problems identified by the Supreme Court and clear the way for deportations to take place.

It is almost an example of national hysteria combined with false promises coming home to roost. It was claimed that Brexit would enable the UK to regain its sovereignty a benefit of which was to stop boat crossings and reduce immigration generally. Yet recent figures show immigration at a record 745,000. The vast majority are here legitimately and are needed in a range of sectors such as health, horticulture and care homes. These organisations would find operating without them almost impossible. Yet hysteria has been ratcheted up by the media with its focus on the boat crossings. New proposals will prevent family members joining those already here which will cause great anguish in many, many cases.

We have now arrived at a situation where the government wished to disapply parts of the Human Rights Act and even contemplate departing from the European Convention to join Russia which was ejected in 2022. The statements around this matter by local MP Danny Kruger are to be regretted.

1

Attacks on UK human rights


Human Rights Watch warn of risk of authoritarianism in the UK

November 2023

The latest Daily Brief from HRW warns of a deteriorating situation with regard to human rights in the UK which they say is ‘worsening’. The right to protest peacefully is under threat as we saw recently with the Palestinian march which the then Home Secretary was keen to ban. She attempted to force the police to ban the march which they declined to do.

They say that we are beginning to move towards a place where the government feels it can undermine the integrity of the judiciary, undermine or scrap human rights laws that don’t serve the current political agenda and to create new laws that do. It is ‘beginning to look very much like authoritarianism’.

A lot of this activity has been driven by two forces: the arrival of the ‘boat people’ across the Channel and the activities of climate protestors. The Palestine marches have recently reinforced this. In all cases, there has been a major outcry from the right wing media joined recently by Talk TV and GB News and this may have led the government to respond the way they have. There is an inherent dislike of protest and the publicity it is able to generate. Despite the march being largely peaceful, it did not stop them being described as ‘hate marchers’ by some. Members of the governing party, including the deputy chair, and soon Boris Johnson, have their own programmes on these channels to promote their views.

Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes in Wiltshire, is joint leader of the ‘New’ Conservatives pressing for the abolition of the HRA and for our departure from the European Convention.

0

Plan to block HRA


Plan to disapply the Human Rights Act reported

November 2023

A report in the Guardian suggests the government proposes to disapply the HRA and block its use to enable the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda. This follows the Supreme Court’s decision last week that Rwanda is not a safe country and individuals sent there would be at risk of refoulement. The government is under considerable pressure from the right of the party and in particular the ‘New’ Conservatives jointly led by Danny Kruger MP who is the member for Devizes in Wiltshire.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/19/rishi-sunak-could-block-key-human-rights-law-force-through-rwanda-asylum-plan

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑