Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Is the European court of Human rights corrupting and undermining British justice and law?
    Should the UK leave the ECHR and maintain human rights at a national level, or create a British bill of rights?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    If the UK left the ECHR, our 'human rights' would be at the mercy of our state government. As a result, your rights could increase or decrease after every change in government, whereas the ECHR is an all-encompassing and permanent indication of what your rights are. The idea that the current Conservative government could dictate my human rights actually repulses me, and unfortunately since 2001 even the Labour Party have attempted to abandon key concepts of liberty and freedom in the name of 'ensuring national security'. Incidentally, the ECtHR regularly has to strike down actions of State Governments because they've banned/indirectly prevented key rights such as the right to assembly, expression, not to be tortured etc. I would hate to imagine what any government could get away with through a little propaganda and a generous use of misleading 'facts'.

    The Abu Qatada issue is NOT indicative of why human rights are bad the way they are, but how you can clearly solve these sort of conflicts diplomatically between nations. People were calling for us to scrap human rights because we couldn't remove one person, and we eventually did regardless. Bottom line, we should not be sending people to places where it is pretty likely they will be tried with evidence obtained under torture, regardless of who it is or what they have been claimed to have done. It's a sad indication of modern society that the public do not understand how essential the ECHR is to their lives; moreso because if you asked people what their rights were, I'm sure you'd get a lot of blank expressions in return.

    The ECHR should remain a cornerstone of our modern legal system. So to answer your questions: NO, NO AND NO.

    EDIT: I'm aware of our International Human Rights under the ICCPR/ICESCR etc, but as there is no court of system to enforce those under properly I would be quick to suggest they aren't a legitimate form of protection or compensation for those affected by human rights violations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting that of all the country's in Europe we're one of only a few that haven't embraced fascism, communism, military dictators or welcomed the invaders. I get the neeed for the ECHR with many of our neighbours, but the UK has only ever embraced democracy and has led the way in modern times with that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Interesting that of all the country's in Europe we're one of only a few that haven't embraced fascism, communism, military dictators or welcomed the invaders. I get the neeed for the ECHR with many of our neighbours, but the UK has only ever embraced democracy and has led the way in modern times with that.
    The UK certainly didn't have anything approaching democracy until 1867. Female suffrage wasn't granted until 1918. So given we haven't even had proper democracy for one hundred years yet, it's very questionable to claim the UK will always lead the way and tend towards moderate and democratic politics. It's simply too early to say.

    Our involvement in the ECHR and other supranational ideals may not seem crucially important or relevant right now, but in 20 or 50 or 100 years it could be a genuine bulwark in resisting political extremism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andyrobbo1994)
    Is the European court of Human rights corrupting and undermining British justice and law?
    Should the UK leave the ECHR and maintain human rights at a national level, or create a British bill of rights?
    Which parts of the ECHR would you say corrupt or undermine British law and justice? For me, there's nothing in there that seems fundamentally incompatible with our national legal system.

    In fact, if we were to create a British Bill of Rights, I'd wager it would look remarkably similar to the ECHR. So the question is, why bother?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The British Bill of Rights - at least as it is being conceived by the Conservatives at the moment - is a silly idea. As I understand it, they basically want to copy the ECHR into a document with hardly any changes and call that the "British Bill of Rights". Its a smoke-and-mirror exercise with no real legal significance. We would still have all the same "problems" people associate with human rights law.

    Legally, it doesn't matter whether a right comes from the ECHR or from English law. The advantage of having rights at ECHR level is that the government can't just change the goalposts whenever it feels like it. For example, there is absolutely no protection for privacy under common law and no problem passing broad legislation completely shielding public bodies from legal liability for pretty much anything.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    When's your homework due?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the danger is to domestic British rights, but to British credibility abroad. The ECHR has immense force in restraining less savoury countries like Turkey, Russia or the Stans from committing more abhorrent abuses by the example of the UK. It may sound like overstatement, but it's true; Britain's membership of, and high standards pertaining to the ECHR are a club to beat the dictators with, and there's a real concern that both Britain's credibility and that of the ECHR's would be severely undermined by a divorce.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I don't think the danger is to domestic British rights, but to British credibility abroad. The ECHR has immense force in restraining less savoury countries like Turkey, Russia or the Stans from committing more abhorrent abuses by the example of the UK. It may sound like overstatement, but it's true; Britain's membership of, and high standards pertaining to the ECHR are a club to beat the dictators with, and there's a real concern that both Britain's credibility and that of the ECHR's would be severely undermined by a divorce.

    None of your examples are in Europe.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The British Bill of Rights - at least as it is being conceived by the Conservatives at the moment - is a silly idea. As I understand it, they basically want to copy the ECHR into a document with hardly any changes and call that the "British Bill of Rights". Its a smoke-and-mirror exercise with no real legal significance. We would still have all the same "problems" people associate with human rights law.

    Legally, it doesn't matter whether a right comes from the ECHR or from English law. The advantage of having rights at ECHR level is that the government can't just change the goalposts whenever it feels like it. For example, there is absolutely no protection for privacy under common law and no problem passing broad legislation completely shielding public bodies from legal liability for pretty much anything.
    It would make a difference because our Judges would rule closer to the ideas of those who put the ECHR together, European judges abuse the system to impose their socialist dream.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    None of your examples are in Europe.
    Russia is? And Turkey certainly wants to be, at least!
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andyrobbo1994)
    Is the European court of Human rights corrupting and undermining British justice and law?
    Should the UK leave the ECHR and maintain human rights at a national level, or create a British bill of rights?
    You can't just 'leave' an international human rights treaty. That is illegal.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The British Bill of Rights - at least as it is being conceived by the Conservatives at the moment - is a silly idea. As I understand it, they basically want to copy the ECHR into a document with hardly any changes and call that the "British Bill of Rights". Its a smoke-and-mirror exercise with no real legal significance. We would still have all the same "problems" people associate with human rights law.
    Indeed we would. Because a great many people, despite not saying it, disagree with the concept of rights in any form.

    But you misunderstand one of the areas of legal significance here. The Human Rights Act simply incorporates the Convention rights into UK law. If there was a differing UK human rights standard, it would be afforded a different margin of appreciation by the European Court. In essence, we would have a limited but extra ability to diverge from existing standards.

    We would still have to enforce the central tenets of the ECHR, but we would have greater freedom to do so in our own way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andyrobbo1994)
    Is the European court of Human rights corrupting and undermining British justice and law?
    Should the UK leave the ECHR and maintain human rights at a national level, or create a British bill of rights?
    Yes, we can't even deport Terrorists. Although no word from Dianne Abbott, which is strange. No word from Miss piggy on the Woolwich Murder either, strange. Wonder why.

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with deporting that Abu Hamza bloke came from the fact Jordan didn't follow the human rights code. When dealing with countries that do there's no problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    You can't just 'leave' an international human rights treaty. That is illegal.
    So what do you think/propose we do then? Because we cannot go on without reform of the ECHR just look at the Abu Qutada case etc, its not fair that lots of other people were put in potential danger because he couldn't be deported.
    (i am aware he's gone now but it took them a while)
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andyrobbo1994)
    So what do you think/propose we do then? Because we cannot go on without reform of the ECHR
    Yes we can. Indeed, we should be thinking about adding to the ECHR, not taking away parts of it.

    just look at the Abu Qutada case etc, its not fair that lots of other people were put in potential danger because he couldn't be deported.
    (i am aware he's gone now but it took them a while)
    Yes, look at that. Somehow it wasn't illegal to deport him after all. Meanwhile the principle - which is an extremely sound one - that the UK does not deport or extradite people where it is reasonably likely they could be killed, tortured or have torture evidence used - is upheld.

    The government did not hold back in accusing Qatada of commiting crimes here in Britain, yet he was never convicted of anything and prosecutions were not pursued. Why? One of two reasons spring to mind: that there was no reasonable evidence that he was in any way dangerous to anyone here, or that he was being used as a pawn in a diplomatic game.

    The suggestion that he was any sort of danger to anyone is nonsense anyway. His bail conditions from 2012 meant that he was electronically tagged, could only leave his home for two hours a day (never more than an hour at a time), couldn't use communications equipment and that his home could be searched whenever the police fancied.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yes we can. Indeed, we should be thinking about adding to the ECHR, not taking away parts of it.



    Yes, look at that. Somehow it wasn't illegal to deport him after all. Meanwhile the principle - which is an extremely sound one - that the UK does not deport or extradite people where it is reasonably likely they could be killed, tortured or have torture evidence used - is upheld.

    The government did not hold back in accusing Qatada of commiting crimes here in Britain, yet he was never convicted of anything and prosecutions were not pursued. Why? One of two reasons spring to mind: that there was no reasonable evidence that he was in any way dangerous to anyone here, or that he was being used as a pawn in a diplomatic game.

    The suggestion that he was any sort of danger to anyone is nonsense anyway. His bail conditions from 2012 meant that he was electronically tagged, could only leave his home for two hours a day (never more than an hour at a time), couldn't use communications equipment and that his home could be searched whenever the police fancied.

    Fair do's but i still wouldn't want a suspected terrorist being in the UK anyway + the costs to the tax payer no matter how little it is, is still unfair
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andyrobbo1994)
    Fair do's but i still wouldn't want a suspected terrorist being in the UK anyway
    What about a suspected murderer, rapist, torturer, arsonist or whatever else?

    Then what happens if I suspect you, however inaccurately, of any of these crimes?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    What about a suspected murderer, rapist, torturer, arsonist or whatever else?

    Then what happens if I suspect you, however inaccurately, of any of these crimes?

    There was evidence to suggest he was linked to Al Queda
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.