Downing Street will today set out sweeping plans to override the power of Europe’s human rights court just days after a judge in Strasbourg blocked the deportation of asylum seekers from Britain to Rwanda. The Guardian has more – although its report is a tad one-sided.
The abolition of the Human Rights Act (HRA), including reducing the influence of the European court of human rights (ECHR), will be introduced before parliament in what the government described as a restatement of Britain’s sovereignty.
But campaigners and leading lawyers decried the historic move, saying the government was systematically eroding people’s rights in an attempt to make itself “untouchable” by the courts.
The new British bill of rights will not have the same protections, they fear.
Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said: “The [Strasbourg] court’s intervention in the Rwanda deportation last week was an example of it enacting its fundamental role in ensuring basic human rights aren’t violated, stating nothing more than that the UK should pause removals to Rwanda pending the outcome of our own domestic judicial review process.
“It’s very troubling that the UK government is prepared to damage respect for the authority of the European court of human rights because of a single decision that it doesn’t like.
“This is not about tinkering with rights, it’s about removing them.
“From the Hillsborough disaster, to the right to a proper Covid inquiry, to the right to challenge the way police investigate endemic violence against women, the Human Rights Act is the cornerstone of people power in this country. It’s no coincidence that the very politicians it holds to account want to see it fatally weakened.”
A senior government source admitted last week’s Rwanda ruling, which humiliated ministers, had been a factor.
“Some of the problems or the challenges we’ve had (with respect to Rwanda) reinforced and strengthened the case for what we’re doing,” the source said.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It makes sense for us to not have any human rights. I for one think it is a great idea for us to let the government destroy any protections we once had just so they can deport forinerz back to where they came from.
What could possibly go wrong with us letting the government solve a problem that they created by destroying any rights we once had?
Only a domestic terrorist would disagree – YOU’RE NOT A DOMESTIC TERRORIST ARE YOU?
Well then shut up and praise the government for keeping us all safe. With rights come responsibilities (like the responsibility to stop your government destroying your rights) – they’re such a drag. It takes so much effort. Best not to bother and to let our betters do what they do best.
After Rwanda fiasco, Britain must be ready to repeal human rights law
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/after-rwanda-fiasco-britain-must-be-ready-to-repeal-human-rights-law/
Alp Mehmet
Stand for freedom & make friends with our Yellow Boards By The Road
Thursday 23rd June 4pm to 5pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Yorktown Road/Marshall Rd
Sandhurst GU47 0RT
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Henley
Mills Meadows (bandstand) RG9 1DS
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
I fully expect this to be about as effective as Brexit in empowering ordinary people. Before we were ruled by a coalition of Brussels and Whitehall bureaucrats, now we’re ruled just by Whitehall bureaucrats. I expect a similar effect regarding European and UK judges.
To me the far more interesting (and highly amusing) side of this story is the complete lack of self-awareness by the people who are campaigning for the “human rights” of these refugees. If the deal was to send them to Switzerland or Norway instead of Rwanda, I bet they wouldn’t say a peep. It’s because it’s Rwanda that they think it’s a violation of human rights.
It reveals that in reality the biggest racists and bigots are all the lefty do-gooders. Their entire worldview is founded on the premise that the people who need their help are too feeble and incapable to sort themselves out. And they need protection from dreadful countries, like Rwanda.
Actually now that I think about it, Brexit did have an impact on ordinary people. It allowed us to get covid jabs before the EU..
We can vote out the Tories but had no say in the appointment of Brussels bureaucrats. That’s the difference. If we don’t like the laws our government bring in, then we elect people who will fix it.
Unless both parties agree on keeping it and the establishment agrees and so they deploy all their machinery and power to convince the general public that its an important and necessary law and so you are left out on an island, so to speak, with a minority left wondering what the hell happened.
Like with the Coronavirus Act and associated measures where every court in our country agreed all the violations of civil liberties were in fact.completely lawful.
You don’t have any say in the appointment of whitehall bureaucrats, either. The EU is a confederation of states and not a federal state. Because of this, it doesn’t have a government and all decisions ultimatively rests with national governments or their representatives.
A lot of things people been told about the EU are exactly as truthful as a lot of things people have been told about COVID. Eg, a well-known urban legend/ propaganda untruth is that Brussels bureaucrats would have prohibited the sale of wonky vegetables in the EU (and hence, in the UK). Attached is an image of a parsley root I bought in a Polish supermarket today and I’ve seen (and bought) stranger looking ones. You won’t find this in English supermarkets, not because of the evil, overreaching EU but because English supermarket chains won’t buy stuff like this as they believe they will not be able to sell it to English people.
There will be no salvation via the ballot box.
I have never been a fan of the ECHR but this measure is simply a prelude to a further tightening of the screws. Watch for a flood of draconian laws.
The abolition of the Human Rights Act (HRA)?
Here’s a thought.
Why not abolish all legislation since 1990?
Just about all of it has made this country a far worse place to live in.
Forgive me if I’m lacking nuance here, but to me, the choice between being judged by British tyrants and non-British tyrants is quite an easy one (to a point, it doesn’t matter exactly how tyrannical either ones are). At least the former are rather more within pitchfork range, and hold some kind of accountability to British interests.
Who was the Azerbaijani (or was it Russian?) ECHR judge who ruled on the Rwanda flights, I wonder?
And where was Amnesty International during March 2020 – Jan 2021?
To give credit where credit is due:
‘Via its Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the government in mid-March adopted a policy, executed by NHS England and NHS Improvement, that led to 25,000 patients, including those infected or possibly infected with COVID-19 who had not been tested, being discharged from hospital into care homes between 17 March and 15 April—exponentially increasing the risk of transmission to the very population most at risk of severe illness and death from the disease. With no access to testing, severe shortages of PPE, insufficient staff, and limited guidance, care homes were overwhelmed. Although care home deaths were not even being counted in daily official figures of COVID-19 deaths until 29 April, some 4,300 care home deaths were reported in a single fortnight during this period.’
‘Between 2 March and 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes in England died with COVID-19, including 18,168 people aged 65 and over, representing almost 40% of all deaths involving COVID-19 in England during this period.2 Of these deaths, 13,844 (76%) happened in care homes themselves; nearly all of the remainder occurred in a hospital.3 During the same period, 28,186 “excess deaths” were recorded in care homes in England, representing a 46% increase compared with the same period in previous years.4 These excess deaths likely include undiagnosed COVID-19 deaths, and underscore the broader impact of the pandemic on older people in care homes.’
‘…a number of decisions and policies adopted by authorities at the national and local level in England increased care home residents’ risk of exposure to the virus—violating their rights to life, to health, and to non-discrimination. These include, notably:
• Mass discharges from hospital into care homes of patients infected or possibly infected with COVID19 and advice that “[n]egative tests are not required prior to transfers / admissions into the care home”.
• Advice to care homes that “no personal protective equipment (PPE) is required if the worker and the resident are not symptomatic,” and a failure to ensure adequate provisions of PPE to care homes.
• A failure to assess care homes’ capability to cope with and isolate infected or possibly infected patients discharged from hospitals, and failure to put in place adequate emergency mechanisms to help care homes respond to additional needs and diminished resources.
• A failure to ensure regular testing of care home workers and residents. • Imposition of blanket Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders on residents of many care homes around the country and restrictions on residents’ access to hospital. • Suspension of regular oversight procedures for care homes by the statutory regulating body, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.’
Amnesty International Report ‘As If Expendable’ 2020
“And where was Amnesty International during March 2020 – Jan 2021?”
On Furlough or Working from Home at a guess. It amounts to the same thing.
The discredited Amnesty International.
I think these are key. Note the weasel words in the second part of each one, in particular the mention of public safety:
Article 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or
in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such
limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or
morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
Freedom of expression
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom
to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without
interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall
not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or
cinema enterprises.
2.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities,
may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of
the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the
judiciary.
Article 11
Freedom of assembly and association
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of
association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for
the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such
as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for
the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on
the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of
the administration of the State.
Contrast this with the equivalent part of the US Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Weasel words indeed. Zooming out, totalitarian systems of control being implemented right across the world. With the euphemistic concept of ‘health’ as a central theme.
I still think this is about preparing the plebs for the economic transition to come, which the parasites in charge know will be extremely turbulent and will put them, as well as us, in danger. What other reason could there be for these seemingly coordinated actions in all developed economies? I think they’re strengthening their systems of control to brace for trouble.
They’ll override the good bit and keep the bad bits.
Stand for freedom & make friends with our
Yellow Boards By The Road
Thursday 23rd June 4pm to 5pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Yorktown Road/Marshall Rd
Sandhurst GU47 0RT
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Henley
Mills Meadows (bandstand) RG9 1DS
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell