Cameron insults us all with his response to UKIP.
This is what happens when you have a Prime Minister advised by a ‘Lord Chancellor’ – now downgraded to ‘Justice Secretary’ – who isn’t a lawyer.
UKIP are campaigning to see Britain withdrawing from the European Union – and the Prime Minister responds by saying he will repeal the Human Rights Act; this appears to have confused the Conservative Party who thinks that Human Rights Law has something – anything – to do with the European Union. It doesn’t.
The EU isn’t even a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). True, they are ‘committed’ to signing by the Lisbon Treaty, but 5 years later – their pen is still hovering over the dotted line, and they have yet to make a decision! Mustn’t rush them.
You would think that Chris Grayling, if not a lawyer, but at least a history graduate, might have pointed out to the Prime Minister, that it was David Maxwell-Fyfe, a British lawyer and one of the Prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials, who oversaw the drafting of the ECHR.
The UKs Human Rights Act, which Cameron now wants to repeal, was drafted with the intention of avoiding British citizens having to traipse to Strasbourg to take advantage of the protections offered by the ECHR. Repealing it won’t have any effect whatsoever on the rights enjoyed by British citizens – beyond making them return to the long traipse to Strasbourg.
The only thing that would lessen British rights to the ECHR would be withdrawing from the Council of Europe. Not even UKIP is suggesting that we withdraw from an International Law Treaty signed by 47 countries. Even Russia is a signatory.
Our very own History Graduate, Chris Grayling has said: “repealing the Act will ensure that Parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority” possibly a worthy contender for the non sequitur of the year award – will nobody point out to him that if Parliament wasn’t already the ‘ultimate source’ of legal authority – they wouldn’t be able to repeal the Act?
He also complains that British judges have their ‘hands tied’ by the Strasbourg court. How exactly? Sure, the Strasbourg court can criticise Britain and say that decisions do not accord with their thinking – but then what? Empty criticism. France has been ‘ruled against’ by the ECtHR in 849 cases – it blithely ignores the result – and what has happened to France? Nothing, that is what has happened. Precisely nothing. Strasbourg doesn’t have any enforcement agents, it doesn’t send in the fighter jets, it just criticises. As a matter of interest, Britain has one of the lowest number of decisions against it of all 47 countries.
Cameron is pandering to the same forces that he railed against during the Scottish referendum. The idea that if there is anything wrong in your life it must be the fault of those damn foreigners. In this case it is against the chocolate soldiers of the European Court of Human Rights. In trying to appease potential UKIP voters, he is subtly being more racist than they would ever be allowed to get away with being. He’s also making himself look a complete plonker to even first year law students.
Sadly, to a populace that has largely been educated on European Law by the Daily Mail and it’s endless stories of how the ‘European Union’ is stopping you having tomato sauce on your bangers and mash or buying eggs in packs of six, he is getting away with it.
Meanwhile Cameron lauds upholds ‘Human Rights’ as a reason for bombing ISIS. You couldn’t make it up.
Discuss.
- me3
October 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm -
In which case why worry about us withdrawing?
I think you’re right though, it would be good to put explicitly into law that the UK should ignore Strasbourg rulings.
- Duncan Disorderly
October 9, 2014 at 12:26 pm -
“Sadly, to a populace that has largely been educated on European Law by the Daily Mail and it’s endless stories of how the ‘European Union’ is stopping you having tomato sauce on your bangers and mash or buying eggs in packs of six, he is getting away with it.”
Bingo. If you are correct that people will still have the right to appeal to the ECHR regardless of whether the Human Rights Act is repealed or not, what is the point of the legislation? No doubt the Conservatives will have been given advise to that effect by lawyers – but it is irrelevant, because this is a placebo proposal designed to appeal to Daily Mail readers.
- The Slog
October 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm -
The reason why Tsarina Annastasia Raccoon-Hatte is The Business is writ large above for all to see.
How much did you already know about this subject? For myself, 3/5ths of nowt – but I know a lot more now.
An outstanding piece of tellingly informative journalism for which she deserves every gong on offer. Eat your heart out Harold Evans.
- English Pensioner
October 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm -
One objection to the present Human Rights legislation is that it only seems to deal with an individual who is seeking his rights and the court never looks at the possible effect on others if his rights are granted. Others are the abuse of “rights”; the “right to family life” has been severely abused by those trying to prevent themselves being deported. Managing to have an illegitimate child in this country does not make a family!
The other problems are that the court procedures take far too long. How many years did it take us to get rid of “Hookey” and the other Islamists? In my view, once a decision has been made by our courts, it should be implemented. Any appeals to the court in Strasbourg can be made by the appellant after our court’s decision has been implemented, from a prison cell in the States or Jordan as appropriate.- woodsy42
October 9, 2014 at 2:16 pm -
You are spot on EP. If the court had to balance the right of the individual against the collective rights of those affected by the individual’s behaviour we would probably get sensible outcomes. In almost all cases taken to court one person’s right is always at he cost of other peoples’ rights and freedoms, it should almost never be considered as an absolute.
- AdrianS
October 9, 2014 at 10:22 pm -
All will be sorted out when we convert to Sharia law, so don’t worry too much
- AdrianS
- woodsy42
- Den
October 9, 2014 at 1:00 pm -
I am interested by the “Hate” against Daily Mail readers. If I am centre right what do correspondents suggest that I read? I prefer Breitbart, RT and Der Speigle to the Marxist BBC and like to pop in here occasionally. I glance at the Mail, Express, Telegraph, Guido and Hitchens. I try to reach a balanced view from different sources. Where do other non-Marxists get news in terms of MSM?
- me3
October 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm -
As you are obviously a waaaayciiiissst!, you should read Das Kapital until you come to your senses, or convert to Islam so the rest of us who are GOOD and FAIR can treat you with respect.
- Den
October 9, 2014 at 1:12 pm -
Good on yer me3.
- AdrianS
October 9, 2014 at 10:25 pm -
Wot about The Sun ?
- AdrianS
- Den
- me3
- Robert the Biker
October 9, 2014 at 1:43 pm -
Rightly or wrongly, there is at least the perception that the ECHR is an EU construct, they do after all have the same flag on notepaper and above the offices etc. and I personally believe this is deliberate; after all, can’t have the peasants thinking they could go to someone not totally in thrall to Brussels could we! I wonder what percentage of dictats from the court are routinely ignored by various countries? I would guess that with us, it runs near zero and with les Frogs it is near total. I think a better idea would be for the ruling to be judged on whether it benefits Britain, so no ‘family life’ for Somali rapists nor votes for unrepentant axe murderers, but not all their ideas are unsound of necessity.
Hooky and that other turd (Quardawi?) would get the bums rush, but genuine people like my sisters mixed race Canadian daughter would get a fair shake.- AdrianS
October 9, 2014 at 10:31 pm -
Better still allow Sharia law to sort it all out, swift justice, effective decision making, visible punishments, no lengthy draw out appeals process, divorces are cheap, trimmed down judicial which always makes the correct ruling. Woz not to like?
- Robert the Biker
October 10, 2014 at 8:22 am -
Plus, you’re aloud to have as many birds as you want and they can’t moan about it!
- Robert the Biker
- Peter Raite
October 10, 2014 at 1:04 pm -
The 12-starred Flag of Europe was created in 1950 and pre-dates both the EU and the ECHR. The EU didn’t actually start using it until 1986.
- AdrianS
- Moor Larkin
October 9, 2014 at 1:56 pm -
* France has been ‘ruled against’ by the ECtHR in 849 cases – it blithely ignores the result – and what has happened to France? Nothing, that is what has happened. Precisely nothing. Strasbourg doesn’t have any enforcement agents, it doesn’t send in the fighter jets, it just criticises. *
This is at the heart of Britain’s problem with Europe. Because our society did not evolve in the “European” way, we have an ethos that “the law must be obeyed”. We are seeing this writ large recently where absolute public faith is invested in whatever “the law” decrees. Someone remarked to me recently that when laws are decreed in Europe, Europeans first seek as to how they can avoid the law noticing them and how best to get around that law locally, for their own purposes. In Britain we immediately seek the innumerable ways in which we can obey that law, even when the folk who passed the law never dreamt our interpretations would be placed upon it. A minor, but telling example was illustrated to me years ago when “H&S law” was discussed. There was a current fracas over “Hand Washing” at the time. In Birmingham a food exhibition was being hamstrung by the requirement that every single stall selling food needed to have hot and cold running water and drainage. The local enforcement led to miles of piping being required and the costs were becoming prohibitive. Protests were made. “The law is the law” was the answer. A French Inspector applying the same laws in la Belle was consulted, he shook his head baffled at le Ros Bif, “Sacre bleu!” he remarked, “the law wasn’t meant that way. We would never insist on such things in France”.
- Backwoodsman
October 9, 2014 at 6:01 pm -
That is symptomatic of the “gold plating” of EU regs, so dearly beloved by our civil servants. You have to look at MAFF / Defra, for the most criminal examples.
- Backwoodsman
- me3
October 9, 2014 at 2:24 pm -
If instead of saying no court may “without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law”, the UK HRA said no court may “fail to give consideration to Strasbourg case law” we might end up , in practical terms, with the equivalent situation that France has.
- Ed P
October 9, 2014 at 2:54 pm -
Are there even lawyers in the ECHR? I thought it was filled with political placemen, all friends of Barroso or some other EU dodgy character.
- GildasTheMonk
October 9, 2014 at 3:58 pm -
As you rightly point out, the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU as such. As a standard of values, created in the aftermath of WW2 and the Holocaust, it had much to commend it. The problem comes hen – like ‘Elf and Safety nonsense, it is applied in ways which were never intended and which are contrary to Good Old British Common Sense; very often by British judges.
- Observer of Reality
October 9, 2014 at 8:22 pm -
Actually, out of the 47 countries, we are on a par with Switzerland at 12th-13th on the list with 13 judgements against us. Per capita, Switzerland is MUCH worse than us for their c. 8million pop. No 1 offender is Russia Federation, but they are much more numerous, but not 10 times so, and they have 129 judgements against them. Countries about the same size of pop. as us include France (36 judgements) and Italy (39). Turkey, slightly bigger than us is appalling (124 for 76 million). Germany, on the other hand, does rather well (6) but then we aren’t counting 1939-45 or various periods before that. Even Ireland’s 2 looks crappy given their population is only 4.6million.
So, probably, the UK on a per capita basis looks like being the second best (after Germany), and we would be on the number 1 spot if Germany wasn’t acting with all the prudery and zeal of the reformed whore.
- Engineer
October 9, 2014 at 9:45 pm -
I thought (possibly entirely wrongly) that the ECHR came about to give the somewhat disparate, and in some cases rather shambolic, legal systems of Europe a taste of what we in Britain had been quietly evolving for about a millenium with the Common Law (which isn’t at all common, being confined – sadly – to very few countries, mostly the English speaking ones). The problem arises when the disparate and shambolic systems come to the fore and over-ride the generally common sense view inherent in the Common Law, which it has done on several occasions (eg, votes for convicted felons, rights to a family life if you’re an illegal immigrant who murders someone and then adopts a cat). The problem is that the UK Common Law tradition is usually nearer to a common sense answer than the ECHR, so in the minds of many Britons, we’d be better off sticking with our very own Common Law rather than being dictated to a bunch of johnny foreigners – however misplaced that impression might be.
If a politician sees a wheeze to buy a few votes, especially if it’s at the expense of a bitter rival, said politician will grab it with both hands (some politicians are very good at grabbing, as we all know). However, when the votes are in the bag, said politician will quietly forget about it, and if questioned, will have a range of good excuses (preliminary work on legislation is ongoing, higher priorities, etc).
In the longer term, I wouldn’t bother about it too much, Anna. It’s just political p*ss and wind.
- Frankie
October 9, 2014 at 9:52 pm -
You are right on target again, Anna!
I think the understandable frustration that members of the public express – when apparently contradictory aspects of the Human Rights Act result in apparently bizarre rulings from the UK courts – does not mean that the principles are good and, as you rightly point out, its repeal will not reduce the rights of citizens to appeal to Strasbourg one iota…
- Dick Puddlecote
October 9, 2014 at 11:05 pm -
Very well put, Anna. It seems incomprehensible to Cameron and his type that there is a great way of enjoying EU membership and not being tied down by its excesses … simply do what the rest of Europe does and ignore most of it.
Those who work in the EU – from all other 27 nations – have dubbed EU law “British Law”, because we are the only saps to follow every directive not only to the letter, but to add to it. This is a clear example of the same bovine mindset. Didn’t we gain massive respect and worldwide admiration for standing up against European excesses in the past? I’m sure I could think of at least a couple of cases.
- zippgun
October 9, 2014 at 11:50 pm -
The right to privacy, family life etc are not absolute rights under the ECHR or the HRA (which nailed the Convention into domestic law). All domestic legislation enacted by parliament is meant to conform to the HRA – but, the fact of certain rights like privacy, family life etc being conditional, means that governments can effectively ignore all kinds of “rights” such as privacy , freedom of speech, etc to supposedly “keep the country secure”, the “public safe”, even to “guard public morals” (for crissake!), when enacting legislation . So, as far as protecting us from a police state, the HRA comes into the chocolate fireguard category. If governments wish to take away virtually any of our freedoms, they can, despite the HRA. But, those conditional “get outs” mean that your rampaging Somalian serial offender who’s got some British doxy pregnant and claims being sent back to his homeland infringes his right to family life, actually could be sent home despite the HRA’s supposed protection of his “right” to”family life”, as this “right” should be being balanced against how much of a threat his continued presence here constitutes to the rest of us. However, judges often seem to be ignoring this part of the legislation, appearing to regard family life as an absolute right – it isn’t – and if the government were being honest (ha !), it’s over this they should be getting medieval on the judiciary’s collective asses. But the Tory politicians try to give the impression the act itself is to blame – it’s not – it’s the way it’s being interpreted by the judges.
However, coming back to combatting the police state – mass surveillance, banstibating, invasions of privacy, authoritarian laws etc – here is where the country needs real protections – the HRA, as stated earlier, hardly provides much against dedicated big statists like Straw, Blunkett and May in office. Are we likely ever to get such basic solid guarantees we all should have in a supposedly free society, from this from the current Weasel political class? Of course not. One awaits call me Dave’s charter of rights (and …er “responsibilities”) with breath unbated!
- AdrianS
October 10, 2014 at 6:12 pm -
HRA is a lawyers invention and dream money spinner. Before it most citizens in this country weren’t in a perpetual state of fear, we were a great country. The HRA is a classic example of trying to fix something that wasn’t broken- thanks Tony & Cherie Blair.
Your right the problem is with the judges
- AdrianS
- Dioclese
October 10, 2014 at 12:43 am -
I agree with you that Cameron is dealing badly with the challenge from UKIP, but I have to disagree with your summation re the Strasbourg court. There have been many cases where the UK courts have been overruled by Europe and I find this unacceptable.
- Peter Raite
October 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm -
You seem to be basing that on the premise that the UK courts were always “right” in every single one of those cases.
- Peter Raite
- Moor Larkin
October 10, 2014 at 10:34 am -
Clacton Beach Secured!
Now for the Breakout!!- AdrianS
October 10, 2014 at 6:17 pm -
Should stop the Conservatives wandering around like a group of dogs sniffing each other’s arses. As for Millband he’ll be sat there like a monkey picking fleas of his nether regions ( assuming he has some) and might get him moving a bit. No more bacon sandwich eating for Milliband however I’m still getting over the trauma of the last pictures
- AdrianS
- Michael
October 11, 2014 at 12:19 am -
Caught a bit of Any Questions on the radio as I was ferrying the kids about earlier. The UKIP chap stated that we shouldn’t have uncontrolled EU immigration. The Labour woman countered that we needed to be part of the EU because then we’d have the European arrest warrant. Seemed to me to be a bit of a circular argument really, A de-facto European State probably does need a European arrest warrant.
On a separate point, the problem for UKIP is the caricature which is being painted of them as thick, backward fear-mongering isolationists. It should be possible to create a positive, intelligent, moral case for a democratically governed nation with low taxes, light regulations, small government and a degree of controlled immigration.
- Moor Larkin
October 13, 2014 at 10:16 am -
In the context of the thoughts about British v European Law, this old Post seems somewhat moot.
https://annaraccoon.com/2011/03/19/hyper-injunctions-the-secret-misery/
It does seem that the “principled separation” of Courts/Parliament can lead inevitably to it’s own tyranny.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }