Human rights under threat


Many politicians lining up to weaken rights

September 2025

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

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

Chicken nuggets debacle

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

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

Few friends

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

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

Previous posts

Tensions around asylum and immigration


The events around the hotel in Epping show deep tensions around asylum

August 2025

It is tempting to say that, in respect of immigration and asylum, little has changed over the past century or so. The arrival of thousands of Polish and Russian Jews fleeing from the pogroms at the end of the 19th Century, was the start of protests and antipathy towards what were then called ‘aliens’. The Aliens Act was passed in 1905 as a response to growing concerns. In subsequent eras there have been other outbreaks particularly with the arrival of Commonwealth citizens in the ’60s as Britain gave up its empire.

The current anger centred on the Bell Hotel in Epping which is one of many hotels used by the Home Office to house the immigrants awaiting assessment as to whether their asylum claims are valid or not. Recent tensions have been heightened by the increasing numbers of people arriving by boat over the English Channel. Large, angry crowds have assembled outside the hotel stimulated by claims that one of the inhabitants had molested a 14 year old British girl, an allegation he denies. In common with other disturbances – the Southport riots for example – social media has had a role to play in circulating rumours and speculation. The tensions have been an opportunity for politicians of various ilks to promote their views. Nigel Farage of Reform has made statements and Robert Jenrick of the Conservatives has also been voluble. He claimed in an article in the Daily Mail that he feared for the safety of his 3 daughters because of the ‘medieval attitude to women’ of men arriving by boat. The article refers to a ‘spate’ of crimes [alleged] to be committed by asylum seekers.

History

Historically, the fears follow a similar pattern. There is the fear of a loss of jobs by immigrants undercutting local labour. This is not altogether logical since those in these hotels are prohibited from working. Safety fears often surface such as those voiced by Jenrick. Taking up housing is another common reason and it will be galling for people spending years on a waiting list seeing immigrants being housed although the standard of accommodation is not always of the highest. In any event, this is about a hotel being used not houses occupied. A threat to our culture and our way of life is frequently expressed. We can see some of these themes in the Britain First website (described as a far right and fascist organisation by some). The pages contain words such as Britain being ‘overrun’ with mass immigration; the danger of ‘losing our country’ for ever; of our culture and heritage being ‘diluted’ and the risk of ‘erasing our identity’. Words like ‘hoards’ and ‘invasion’ often appear.

“We are not happy with these men in this hotel [Epping] because we fear for our children” A woman interviewed by the BBC

Common to the previous and historical outbreaks of this kind of angst concerning immigrants is a country experiencing stress. Added to that is the great mass of the population who do not feel they are being listened to and certainly not by politicians. Politicians have sometimes praised the contribution that immigrants have brought to our society – and rightly so – since large parts of our economy would grind to a halt without their input. But, they have not given that much attention to the social impacts and providing the resources to integrate people into society.

The problem is that people wishing to seek asylum in this country from places like Afghanistan, Sudan, Eritrea or Iran for example, have almost no legal means to do so. As routes have been closed off and entering on lorries now almost impossible, crossing the Channel is about the only means left. Once here, matters have been made worse by an inept Home Office. Considering how long this issue of immigration and asylum has been a political hot potato, it is astonishing that systems have not been geared up sufficiently to tackle it. Painfully slow assessments and inadequate accommodation have provided fuel to the fire of anger, hostility and a golden opportunity for populist politicians to jump in.

In a statement, Amnesty has said: Thousands of refugees are being refused asylum under flawed criteria that were introduced but not applied by the previous government – criteria this administration has irresponsibly chosen to maintain and enforce. This is a shocking abandonment of people fleeing war, torture and persecution and simply pushes backlogs and costs elsewhere – including into the appeals system.

In interviews, various politicians and others have argued that we should leave the European Convention to enable harsher measures to be introduced. We seem to have arrived at a place where fear and prejudice are defining forces, where media and social media amplify those prejudices, where politicians are too fearful to stand up against them and other politicians see them as an opportunity. Moral and humanitarian arguments are only occasionally heard. It is a great pity that the passions on show outside hotels and mosques could not be directed at some of the causes of the problem. Where is the anger at arms companies who profit and help foment the civil wars? Where are the protests outside City firms who handle the vast fortunes from those arms deals? Instead, anger is directed towards those who fled this unrest to seek sanctuary here.

Previous posts:

Have you thought of becoming a subscriber?

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑