European Court of Human Rights

[Squaredy]

The ECHR was established soon after the Second World War.  Its aim was to stop the type of massive human rights abuses that occurred in WW2.  Clearly it has failed in this objective.  Funnily enough despotic regimes simply ignore it.  Turkey are still signatories, and even Russia used to be until 2022.

 

Therefore does it achieve anything?  Of course it removes the ability of the countries that are signed up to it to govern themselves to a degree; by giving this power to unelected judges.

 

I am sure we have all heard about the ridiculous cases like the man who couldn’t be deported last month because his son didn’t like continental chicken nuggets (I am not making this up).  It also gave some UK prisoners the right to vote against our governments wishes.
 

But does it ever achieve anything good?    And why did we in 1998 incorporate it into uk law, so that any law now can be challenged by the ECHR?  For instance if the assisted dying bill becomes law no doubt someone with an unusual condition will claim they are being discriminated against, and the original purpose of the bill will be amended.

[AHPP]

It's only incorporated in that courts here have to consider it. If they want to, they can go against it.

[GarethM]

1 minute ago, AHPP said:

It's only incorporated in that courts here have to consider it. If they want to, they can go against it.

When do they ?, asking for a friend.

[monkeybusiness]

1 hour ago, AHPP said:

It's only incorporated in that courts here have to consider it. If they want to, they can go against it.

Can’t their judgements subsequently be overturned by the ECHR though?

[AHPP]

No. The European Court of Human Rights can say the UK has done something that breaches a person's convention right(s). The UK can shrug its shoulders or declare incompatibility between the convention right and its national law (Human Rights Act 1998, s 4).

Edited Sunday at 23:38 by AHPP

[Steven P]

and if there is a UK that contradicts the ECHR then the UK law takes precedence (or whichever European country you are currently in, their laws.)

 

 

 

Personal opinion that the ECHR is an easy scapegoat. 'Daily Mail' readers are baited with it to increase anger than anything with the word European in is a bad thing. While there are some obscure and rare rulings (which make the press, and guess which paper...) the majority of its work is good. Often these headline making cases are not ruled on by the ECHR but are an interpretation of the rules and a careful argument by a lawyer (perhaps can be equated to the odd case in the UK where drivers are not banned despite racking up 30+ points in 3 years... a clever lawyer... but we are not advocating that driving laws should be scrapped, clever arguments and persuasions)

[Steven P]

Now as for the chicken nuggets. The Albanian in question - the case hasn't be finalised and is under reviews at the moment with doubts to the claim. More than likely that he will be deported (the man spent 2 1/2 years in jail, stripped of UK nationality) once the review process is complete. Weirdly the online news sources for this are: The Daily Mail, The Express, The Telegraph, LBC interview with (that moderate) Farage, The Mirror... so a balanced press out there! As above, clever (or not) arguments to prolong the process but the ultimate will be him deported and I would be willing to bet that little will be said in the papers above when he is!

[AHPP]

Similarly, while we’re demystifying things, European convention rights can be either absolute or qualified. Most are qualified. Like you have a right to life, unless you challenge an armed copper to a gun fight. Or you have a right to free speech, unless it incites violence. The only supposedly absolute right that springs to mind is the prohibition of slavery, which is still arguably breached by forcing prisoners to work. There’s a very good film about that in the states, 13, named after the 13th amendment to the constitution, which prohibits slavery, except if you’re a criminal. So they made drugs illegal, knowing people would keep using them so they had a ready supply of criminals to work in prisons. Victoria’s Secret lingerie was famously made with this slave labour. The UK does it too, less bigly. 

Edited Sunday at 20:50 by AHPP

[Mark Bolam]

I voted to leave Europe, so luckily none of this bullshit applies to me.

[Squaredy]

I suppose the fundamental question is why are we still allowing our laws to be partly made abroad?

 

Remember the Al Quaeda cleric  Abu Qatada whom the government finally managed to deport after 13 years of trying, directly blocked by the ECHR.  This one case alone cost the UK taxpayer an estimated £1.7 million.

Don’t pretend the ECHR has no power!