UK getting out of human rights - the world celebrates

I'd love to comment but fear any criticism of this proposal may get me branded a non violent extremist.

crushing dissenters

So the papers are turning this into outrage and sensationalism, by implying that Britain will spiral into human rights abuses comparable to the worst in North Korea, Burma etc. Judging by some of the responses, people are falling for this ploy.

I see this as quite sensible in bringing in some checks and balances and sovereign control over the types of laws passed by Strasbourg. The principles of Human Rights are sound and just, however the blanket implementation without regard to the negative problems they cause at a local level is the issue.

This is aimed at bringing clarity and protecting human rights for the majority, but also allowing our judiciary to curb the ability to evade justice and harm caused to others and society by people like Abu Qatada, Anjem Choudhary, etc.or the dissonance caused by allowing paedophiles, murderers and rapists the right to suffrage in prison - the very people who exploit human rights and sometimes succeed in making a mockery of our legal system.

Taking account of Strasbourg rulings, the system needs to balance the rights of a few individuals against the rights of the great majority. I am sure that Strasbourg pass laws in the interests of the great majority at the global and pan-European level. However, some of the laws have a great negative impact at a far more localised level and are exploited by a few at the expense of the rights and safety of the majority.

The Grayling paper sets out the framework for our judiciary to review the Strasbourg rulings and then treat them as adopted or as advisory when deciding how the laws should be interpreted within UK law. Nothing more.

This is entirely different to the sensationalist headlines that we will somehow bring back slavery, kangaroo courts, torture and crushing dissenters mercilessly.

So the papers are turning this into outrage and sensationalism, by implying that Britain will spiral into human rights abuses comparable to the worst in North Korea, Burma etc. Judging by some of the responses, people are falling for this ploy.

I see this as quite sensible in bringing in some checks and balances and sovereign control over the types of laws passed by Strasbourg. The principles of Human Rights are sound and just, however the blanket implementation without regard to the negative problems they cause at a local level is the issue.

This is aimed at bringing clarity and protecting human rights for the majority, but also allowing our judiciary to curb the ability to evade justice and harm caused to others and society by people like Abu Qatada, Anjem Choudhary, etc.or the dissonance caused by allowing paedophiles, murderers and rapists the right to suffrage in prison - the very people who exploit human rights and sometimes succeed in making a mockery of our legal system.

Taking account of Strasbourg rulings, the system needs to balance the rights of a few individuals against the rights of the great majority. I am sure that Strasbourg pass laws in the interests of the great majority at the global and pan-European level. However, some of the laws have a great negative impact at a far more localised level and are exploited by a few at the expense of the rights and safety of the majority.

The Grayling paper sets out the framework for our judiciary to review the Strasbourg rulings and then treat them as adopted or as advisory when deciding how the laws should be interpreted within UK law. Nothing more.

It's to do with the message it sends. People around the world won't generally catch the nuances about specific prisoner rights, they will just hear that the UK is withdrawing from the most important human rights agenda in the world. Depressing stuff.

Anyway, that point about prisoner voting rights is just a piece of issue capturing justification by the right wing media. What this is really about is that Teresa May and several previous Home Secretaries got frustrated about the legal blockages to expelling Abu Qatada (and one or two similar cases), yet nearly all of that was upheld by the UK Supreme Court and had little to do except peripherally with the European Court.

This is a total example of dishonest and pathetically disinterested Ministers/politicians cringing to the Daily Mail rag and its cynical, secretive agendas.

It is now government policy to abandon the postwar consensus on human rights in Europe. . .

Quite a feat, that the EU and it's judicial organs managed to convince the world it was one and the same as the universal concept of human rights.

I'm not a Tory I don't vote Tory so take this seriously: The Tories aren't suggesting the UK abandon human rights whatsoever, the UK is still party to the UN Human Rights charter like every other member, and the UK being of of the most progressive and liberal societies on Earth doesn't stop because we decide to have our own constitutional protections, rather than take our cue from outside.

It's understandable why continental Europe takes so readily to uncompromising dictation from on high, they're used to paternalistic totalitarian interpretations of 'liberty' but Britain is not. Independence of will extends from the individual right up to sovereign state rights.

The Tories aren't proposing this because they hate freedom or whatever, they're proposing it because the UK national psyche baulks at outside foreign authority dictating terms over domestic matters, no matter how well intentioned.

One problem here is that this is an example of what might be described as the Salmond fallacy; that the UK (in this case) can do what it wishes but can also compel other independent actors, the ECtHR, the Council of Europe and other sovereign states and their judiciaries to behave to us as we direct them to do.

Very shortly the UK will be seeking the extradition of a Latvian suspect in a very nasty murder case. If I was that suspect's Latvian lawyer, I know what my first argument to oppose extradition would be. That man should not be extradited to the UK because the largest political party in the country is threatening to withdraw from the ECHR; my client's human rights are no longer safe because they will depend on the whim of British politicians and he ought not to be sent back to the UK. I think that argument might stand a good chance of success and if it doesn't win in Vilnius, I would give it a try in Strasbourg.

And if that argument wins, that win will mean that a murder suspect never stands trial.