UKH

So the UK is now to join Belarus as the only European state not in the convention on human rights

https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1304885664350187523?s=19

No doubt the resident populist right wingers will celebrate their new found ability to beat up brown people, gays etc with impunity.

In reply to MG:

No surprise, they wanted to leave it for ages.
 

It has more to do with giving themselves more full powers to screw foreign nationals, in particular, preventing them from contesting wrongful immigration decisions through the court. There are other reasons but this is the main one.

It's not about screwing any particular race or gender orientation (although they may well be caught in it somehow). It's about removing the last stumbling block in the constitution of their little apartheid state, and overall, making sure the executive stays always above the law.
 

Main issue is, most of the population doesn't care : https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1304857281440477185

In reply to MG:

I'm a strong believer in human rights, but Johnson has waived his.

In reply to Alyson30:

I think it is more powers to screw anyone outside of their class/financial brackets. They are willing to prostitute themselves to anyone who pays enough regardless of nationality.

In reply to mondite:

I'm not convinced.  I think what interests them above all is unfettered power and everything that is the in the way (the EU, international law, human rights) has to go, piece by piece. The further they go of course the more the excuse for it are ridiculous and absurd.

I think it is perfectly fair to characterise the UK's form of government as authoritarian - and already pretty far along the way to honest.

In reply to Alyson30:

I think these are the terms we need to start thinking in. They've been playing every populist authoritarian trope since the referendum.

How can we fight back?

In reply to Trevers:

History suggests that it is pretty difficult.

Ideologies of this nature are a powerful thing. Usually it takes disaster and utter, total national humiliation to make it go away.

My best advice is to run whilst you can.

In reply to MG:

I'm not clear which set of human rights this refers to? Is it the 1998 European human rights act? 

If so, I think we'd remain under the IHRC (which I think is more comprehensive) and others though, so it wouldn't make much difference apart from how our legal system interacts with Europe's. 

opting out of an agreement won't make it any easier to beat up any brown, black, gay, white, black or otherwise distinct groups. We still have laws and they're still relevant, they're just not laws which are created by a collection of states. 

As an aside I always find it somewhat sad that people say things along the line of "I know my rights" having clearly never investigated them

In reply to Alyson30:

On that basis one might choose to stick it out since disaster in the form of the pandemic (and response) is already manifest and humiliation in the form of a capitulation in the Brexit negotiation seems imminent, not to mention the substitute humiliation of the UK’s break-up consequent upon the alternative of no-deal.

In reply to MG:

You should look for the positive, maybe the UK can finally get rid of Assange. 

In reply to BnB:

I doubt this will be anywhere near sufficient. Covid is in fact the perfect opportunity to grab extensive executive powers.

I also doubt the U.K. will break up any time soon, I’ve said this many times to people like Tom in Edinburgh, it is far more likely that instead the devolved Parliaments will be neutered, and devolution rolled back.
 

To expect that a government who doesn’t care about international law would give any consideration to demands of self determination is really just magical thinking.

In reply to chris687:

I assume its the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights & its court in Strabourg. If the UK withdraws it'll join Bylerussia as the only European countries who are not parties to the convention. Not part of the EU although I think membership is a prerequisite for EU membership (not checked).

In reply to MG:

There have been a number of cases of convicted criminals who have successfully challenged deportation to their country of origin as they would be at risk of "not having a family life" or similar claim. This is despite the crimes committed being extremely serious and/ or violent, if I remember correctly Abu Hamza claimed his rights were being abused despite preaching hatred of western culture.

I have no sympathy for such people yet the cases are a lightening rod for the right wing press as to why we should diminish the entire ECHR oversight. 

The phrases "unintended consequences" and "careful what you wish for" spring to mind.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

 

Yes, the problem is that the right to family life grounds is the only recourse for appeal for tens of thousands of people who have committed zero crime whatsoever and are simply victim of home office errors or unlawful decisions.
 

I can give you the example of a Taiwanese friend of mine, marketing representative for a U.K. university, denied her ILR and told to leave the country within 14 days after 6 years of working in the U.K. She would have had to leave her husband and daughter behind. Why ? Because of one missing monthly payslip in her application (over 6 years)

The only reason she is still in the U.K. with her family is because she was able to appeal in the courts on human rights ground using the right to family life. 

If it wasn’t for that guarantee - that currently exists only because if ECHR - she would have had zero judicial recourse.

You’d think it would be completely unacceptable in a democracy for individual to have no recourse in the courts against unlawful administrative decisions.

Unfortunately that is already the case for a large number of people, and leaving the ECHR is about extending that to those who were still covered by it.

It certainly isn’t about not being to deport a few criminals, that’s just a pretext, it’s only about making the home office even more exempt from judicial scrutiny.

In reply to MG:

What IL Duce says goes!  And of course that goes for his little Mekon controlling things from his little closet

Unless someone can do something to remove him, preferably with extreme prejudice

In reply to Alyson30:

Thanks for the example, I'm glad it worked out well for your friend. Human rights is not something I've ever looked at in detail but always assumed the ECHR is clearly there for very good reasons.

I fear it'll all be swept aside in a joyous celebration of cutting red tape and supported by ignorant calls of "get them out" by much of the tabloid press. 

In reply to Alyson30:

The British public decided to leave the EU and this was further clarified by the last general election in many ways. The Human Rights Act 1998 is remaining as I understand it and it’s the European element that’s changing which would make sense if we are leaving the EU?
 

If anyone is to blame then surly it’s the people who voted to leave the EU and voted in the government. 

In reply to gezebo:

The public decided to leave the EU. It said nothing about leaving the ECHR nor amending the Humans Rights Act.

In reply to Alyson30:

Why can't we have our own Human Rights Act? 

The UK Human Rights Act. 

In fact similar rights probably do exist in UK law, just not under the European Umbrella. 

In reply to ClimberEd:

 

We have one. It’s called the Human Rights Act... That’s the one they want to neuter.

The reason it will require to leave the ECHR is because the change they want to make to the HRA will be incompatible with the baseline Human rights enshrined in the ECHR.

In particular, as mentioned, the right to private family life which is preventing them in many cases from denying immigrants access to the justice system in case the Home Office makes unlawful decisions.

Once that is gone, the home office will be able to virtually detain and deport any foreign national they want without any scrutiny or fear of having the decision overturned in a court of law. 
That’s already the case for a large number, but that’s about going after the remainder.

When you put that in perspective with their total refusal against all common sense to give physical proof of legal right to residence to the 3 million EU citizens in the U.K., you start to get the picture of what is going to happen.

In reply to Alyson30:

My girlfriend is from Mexico. My feeling is now that if we want to have a comfortable and secure life together, it'll have to be outside the UK. My family consistently vote Tory. It's incredibly depressing feeling that my family are voting me into exile.

In reply to Trevers: A friend has an Argentinean partner who feels rather perturbed by how things have gone since she came over, like the safe and welcoming country which was reasonable about things such as being able to stay unless there was a decent reason has faded away. It's a horror show. I suggested that friends could club together to pay for her UK citizenship test, but at the time she was against it on principle, that it wasn't 'just' for such a step to be needed, given the humanness of us all and the UK she came to originally.

Edit: Being able to afford a tour van for her band, and working since she's arrive, she's paid more tax than I have into the UK given my history of mental health and taking benefits (though that will stop from next week once I start university), she's hardly a sponging immigrant.

In reply to ClimberEd:

We can and we will and our repulsive excuse for a government that has time and again proven itself malign and untrustworthy will pick and choose who that act protects and who it doesn't, human becomes qualified. Good luck, you'll probably be OK if you're a well off, straight, white, British born male of retirement age and no family connections outside the UK.

Everyone else... 

Jk

In reply to jkarran & Alyson

Having just read the chapter on human rights in the latest book by the Secret Barrister I'm not sure I agree with your sentiment.

Like many of these things, people on both sides of the political spectrum perpetually scaremonger with inaccuracies and show sweeping cognitive and confirmation bias.

I will reserve judgement until the outcome. 

In reply to Timmd:

I didn't dislike your post, but I will give a reply to your reply.

As much as the sentiment is positive, being an Argentinean in this country and 'not doing the citizenship test because you are against it on principle as we are all human' is somewhere between cutting off your nose to spite your face, shooting yourself in the foot and terribly naive. It's not a robust argument.

In reply to ClimberEd: I deleted my rant in the end. In the Life In the UK test, which I've just done, it asks things like who invented radar, and what character Charlie Chaplin played, and what kind of writing is in the Canterbury Tails, and when the last battle between England and France was, and who supported Charles the 1st, and when women were given the vote, not knowing these things wouldn't make any difference to how well somebody lives in the UK, they're rather spurious, I think. I got ones about votes for women and the last battle with France wrong, and the Canterbury tails one too, hope I engage okay with people when I go to the shops.

Potentially she has changed her mind, since she expressed those sentiments you have a dim view of, but I wouldn't think they have any effect on her being a plus to the UK, in making people happier with her band from the fans who go, and paying taxes, and generating revenue through gig goers, compared to some of the bitter people a couple of decades older who blame their life outcomes on immigrants and 'others', it can be hard not to wonder who benefits the UK more. I may have a word about the test.

In reply to Timmd:

It's not just me I'm afraid. I don't think there is anywhere in the world that allows people to live there on the basis that 'we're all human'.

But feel free to prove me wrong, there may be a random pacific island or similar   

In reply to ClimberEd: I fear you may be focussing upon that point to the exclusion of broader changes which have happened in the UK over time. I wouldn't want to derail the thread. I'll talk to her partner about her taking the test and how everybody has one, see if she can persuade her.

In reply to Timmd:

‘Kin hell I wouldn’t have known any of those except for radar, and I’ve a suspicion the idiots who wrote the test have a nationalistic stick up their arse so big they didn’t correctly acknowledge the German Heinrich Hertz...

I’m guessing they’re not looking for Adenoid Hykel, as relevant as that remains 80 years later. 

In reply to ClimberEd:

As others have noted, we have one. The ECHR is just a collectively agreed set of rights that form the basis for a tolerable society. What is it you object to in the ECHR? What do you want to be able to do that is currently only legal within Belurus at the moment?

In reply to MG:

If we all club together and agree not to vote for any of them, then that fixes it. 

Plainly, if you think you should be In Charge you should be instantly barred from being in charge.

If you think you should be in charge of the country, you're weird mate. 

In reply to MG:

Basically turn society in to “The Purge”, coronavirus edition.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/the_pub/what_is_the_virus_endgame-724738?...

I suspect it couldn’t be done tomorrow because turning the whole of society lethal to the elderly and otherwise vulnerable, whilst leaving them to hide away “as best they can”, is a gross violation of their human rights.

In reply to MG:

Is the proposal to withdraw from ECHR or to repeal all or some of the '98 act? 

In reply to rogerwebb:

It's not specific yet but the strong implication is the ECHR, in line with previous comments by Johnson.

In reply to wintertree:

I wondered about German know how too, that there must have been a German genius as well as a British one. What I love about the British story is that the British boffin was so excited with the first results, that he left his 4 year old son behind in the field when they drove off from where they'd done the first test  and he had to rush back for him.

In reply to MG:

As I wrote earlier,  I am reserving judgement. I think, currently, reactions on both sides are likely bias and inaccurate to the facts.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Would you support leaving the ECHR if that were the proposal?

In reply to MG:

I just said I am reserving judgement. It would depend what we would be leaving 'for'. What human rights would we enshrine in UK law. etc. We don't have those answers to derive an opinion from.

In reply to ClimberEd:

So you can envisage circumstances where you would support it. Why?

In reply to MG:

If there is, to all intents and purposes, no change to the reality of law, then quite frankly I couldn't care less.

If there is then I will evaluate as such. 

I suspect, but will wait and see, that it will be much closer to the former than the latter. 

There was a similar fan fare and multi year back and forth over changes to the rights that people have to protect themselves in self defence. The final realty, despite much pomp over a theoretical change of wording and crowing by the Tory press, was no change.

In reply to rogerwebb:

It’s not clear but it is quite predictable that they will want to do at least three things.

- the ability of judges to issue « declaration of incompatibility » if ministers try to introduce a law that breaches human rights (these were never enforceable anyway but overall used to be respected)

- a severe reduction of the « right to private family life »

- removal of the mention that UK judges can « take into account » ECtHR rulings into their own rulings.

Obviously such changes would make our position in the ECHR untenable.

In reply to ClimberEd:

You didn’t even seem to know we had a Humans Rights Act... how can you even have an opinion on this.

Our HRA is basically pretty much a copy paste of the ECHR.

If there wasn’t any change to the HRA then there would be no problem but there would be no point leaving the ECHR. So clearly the intention is to make significant changes, and we have a pretty good ideas of what they will be.

In reply to MG:

Leaving ECHR, especially given its history, would be seismic. Repealing the '98 act less so as we would still be subject to the European Court of Human Rights.

You would, if I remember correctly (how soon we forget how to do things), have to exhaust domestic law before being able to argue convention rights.

States are allowed to derogate from some aspects of the convention in times of war or national emergency as France did after the Paris terrorist attacks or a number of states have done because of Covid-19. 

It will be interesting to see what is actually proposed rather than ambiguously reported. 

In reply to ClimberEd:

You don't seem to understand the problem as this isn't about that at all.
It is about making sure that people who are in the country legally aren't wrongly detained or denied legal rights, and live as sub-citizens in an apartheid state, as we already have seen happens way to often. Leaving the ECHR will make things far, far worse as they already are.
 

In reply to Alyson30:

Yawn.

I have an opinion that lots of people are getting very worked up based on their political bias ,about what may turn out to be nothing

In reply to Alyson30:

You haven't understood the context of my reply. 

In reply to ClimberEd:

Given that you didn't even know we had a Human Rights Act, I would suggest you do some reading to get a basic understanding of what it is and the context.
I've been following the debate around ECHR for almost a decade so I've got a pretty good idea of what this section of the Torys have been wanting to change in the HRA and so do most educated observers.

Sure, we will need to see the details, but so far what has come out confirms what we expected.

In reply to Alyson30:

I've done my reading from a source I implicitly trust. Now get back in your box.

In reply to Trevers:

You need to be human for human rights to apply. Johnson is just a meat puppet without a soul, morals or empathy. 

In reply to ClimberEd:

The creation of the 'hostile environment' policy, and what happened to the Windrush generation, don't quite serve as things to give one hope, though. Nurses who have served the NHS since their 20's when they arrived in the 50's and 60's being deported should be enough to make anybody pause and wonder what might come next once certain human right have been rescinded?

On a broader point, the whole point of human rights protections is that we keep them in place because of what's been observed to happen before they existed, we don't need to weaken our human rights protections to learn that bad things can happen, because we already know that. The constant which is the darkness in humanity, and the awful mixture of that and political admin oversights, are things we already know, that's partly why they've evolved to the present point.

Edit: I think that we imagine humans have progressed and start to relax at our peril. People of the far left, the far right, and people in the middle have all been party to bad things occurring. Lefties making a noise on here doesn't change the universal nature of human rights.

In reply to Alyson30:

If we’re not in Europe then why should we remain part or ECHR when we have our own Human Rights Act in place? 
 

Acts are also amended and altered all the time, have you any links (away from twitter and tabloids) about what is being proposed at being altered? 

In reply to Timmd:

what is the required answer for Radar?

Obviously i knew about Watson Watt when I was a kid and my father who lived through the war thought the Germans hadn't had it.

Thr truth is far more complicated and uncertain and I am very unsure whether Britain could claim it any more.  German radar sets were technically far superior but used in far less effective ways than the integrated air defence organisation that was definitely British genius.

In reply to ClimberEd:

We don't have to like or live in the world our predecessors built. 

Jk

In reply to gezebo:

The ECHR is not related to the EU and has a wider membership than the EU although EU members have all subscribed to it. 

ECHR grew out of WW2 and was an attempt to have universal standards across Europe. The UK was one of the founders of ECHR and has participated since its inception in 1953. Until 1998 the ECHR was not incorporated into domestic law and to invoke it having exhausted domestic remedies you had to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (not at all the same thing as the European Court of Justice which is an EU Court). Since 2000 when the 1998 HRA came into force the ECHR has effectively been made part of the law across the United Kingdom. The situation was slightly different in Scotland as a result of the Scotland Act which in some ways anticipated the HRA.

Leaving the ECHR would be a very big step indeed. 

(There may be some errors in that summary. Since I took a step back at work it is not a subject that I deal with  often) 

In reply to gezebo:

see my previous post, the ECHR isn't part of the EU, although all members of the EU, along with all other European countries other than Bylerussia, are parties to the convention. Great company we'll be keeping.

edit - I see Roger wrote a longer reply while I was typing.

In reply to wercat:

I don't actually know/can't remember to be honest, I just clicked what seemed like the least implausible answer. All I can really remember is that the boffin was so excited he left his 4 year old son behind at where they tested the concept. 

In reply to gezebo:

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. This was created by Britain, before the EU even existed.

We have our own human rights in place since 1998, but unless you want to remove / rescind there is no point whatsoever in leaving the ECHR since they are the same.

The big problem we have also is that because of the lack of proper constitution, it’s very easy for any parliamentary majority to override / remove human rights whenever they want with a simple majority.

If it’s bound by international law it acts as sort of brake. At the very least removing or reducing existing human rights can’t really be done without very publicly leaving the convention, and the associated consequences in terms of international standing and relationship, as we are seeing.

So in fact we are seeing the benefit of it right now.

The telegraph article hints at what they want to change but anybody who’s been following knows what’s coming.

In reply to rogerwebb:

The consequences would be also terrible for devolution as Scotland will be forced to accept reduced human rights protection, which means the Scotland Act will have to be breached by the U.K. government (again, will it be the third time or fourth time ? I lost count).

In reply to ClimberEd:

Daily Mail?

In reply to Blanche DuBois:

That was rather trite.

I tend to read The Secret Barrister (blog/tweets/books). You should try it.

I also discuss with lawyer mates, but that is secondary.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Interesting blog/twitter. Seems highly critical of the government. Makes for scary reading actually. I’ve learned that the government is now passing criminal law at a stroke of a pen (yes, they can do that without parliament now....) without even publishing it. Interesting concept.

But teaches you nothing about how the ECHR and HRA works, their history and purpose.

Maybe start with a high school textbook.

In reply to ClimberEd:

You read SB but disagree?

https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1305259434126516226?s=19