Dear Editor,
Over the past few weeks, we have heard a number of politicians stating that the UK should leave the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR.
I find these statements alarming and thought that I might show why this retrograde step would not be desirable.
To put things in the correct historical context: at the end of WW2, the horrors perpetrated by Nazi Germany became all too horrifically apparent, and the British government, led by Winston Churchill, decided that there should never, ever be a repeat.
Senior legal experts - many of them British - and top constitutional lawyers helped create a new Europe-wide charter to protect basic human freedoms, and provide a mechanism for individuals to obtain redress when the state fails them.
This became the European Convention on Human Rights.
It protects against racism, discrimination, torture, and the abuse of power by the state.
It has delivered justice for victims of domestic violence, safeguarded children in care, and upheld the rights of minorities to be recognised and simply live normal lives.
The legislation also protects freedom of the press and the right of people to speak out.
Here in the UK, it has helped groups such as the Hillsborough families seek truth and accountability.
Occasionally, there will be issues arising from ECHR cases that seem wrong to the layman, but in reality, they seldom happen, and most of those repeatedly quoted by certain politicians and others are misleading or factually incorrect.
For example, we regularly hear certain politicians complain that the ECHR prevents us from deporting people.
It's worth noting that the total number of such cases since 1980 is just 13.
Quite simply, I would not trust anyone who argued for the UK to no longer be a signatory to the ECHR.
There can be only one real ulterior motive for anyone to do so; it’s so that they can do the things that the convention so importantly protects us all against.
Regards,
Tony Sutcliffe
Share