1. It’s not part of the EU, the ECHR is an entirely separate entity.
2. You can pretty much ignore the ECHR judgments if you want to (I mean Russia is in there), because the ECHR doesn’t have any real power. Its entire goal is to allow a country who wants to make sure it doesn’t fuck up to always have a lighthouse to warn it when it fucks up. If you ignore it, then fine, your wish. But if you want it, it’s there.
It had a secondary goal of smoothing out relations/dispute regarding those rights, eg “France ask Germany to solve X that the ECHR condemns them off” was a lot smoother than “France ask Germany to solve X because France own tribunals decided that was wrong”, but with the EU that need has waned a lot.
3. As such, there are only two reasons to leave:
– if you want to stiffle human rights, but can’t handle having someone telling you “dude, what you’re doing is wrong”
– if you want to limit what is considered human rights compared to the ECHR minimum, but still want to follow rule of law (and as such cannot be a ECHR member AND ignore its judgments).
You don’t leave it to improve your human rights, because the ECHR never says “nope, this right cannot be granted”, it can’t even if it wanted to. All it can say is “no, you can’t abuse that right or pretend it doesn’t exists”.
3. The ECHR rules and rights were pretty much written by the UK. So it’s the UK wanting to reneg on the rights it itself defined.
Here are the countries who are part of the ECHR, in bold those not in the EU: **Iceland** and Germany (1950), Austria (1956), Cyprus (1961), **Switzerland** (1963), Malta (1965), Portugal (1976), Spain (1977), **Liechtenstein** (1978), **San Marino** (1988), Finland (1989), Hungary (1990), Poland (1991), Bulgaria (1992), Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania (1993), **Andorra** (1994), Latvia, **Albania**, **Moldova**, **Ukraine**, **North Macedonia** (1995), **Russian Federation** and Croatia (1996), **Georgia** (1999), **Armenia** and **Azerbaijan** (2001), **Bosnia and Herzegovina** (2002), **Serbia** (2003), **Monaco** (2004), **Montenegro** (2007).
Additionnaly, Belarus had a special guest status but it has been suspended, and there are 5 observer countries: the Holy See, the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico.
Personally, I don’t think the UK and/or it’s gov are doing it specifically with the idea to limit the rights of their citizens, and I understand there is some terrorism cases mixed in there that bother them, but I think no matter the short term reason you should always think long and hard before allowing someone to redefine what are your society “inviolable human rights”.
NB: the ECHR is the entity that ultimately made France change its “garde à vue” rules. Until a decade and a half ago, you could be taken to interrogation by the police for 48h without your lawyer presents (gross oversimplification), and repeat conviction by the ECHR on the “the lawyer must be allowed to be present since the first second” made us change our laws.
Did our politician claims that it would stiffle crime fighting and our fight against terrorism ? Yep. Did it ? Well, it probably made some cases against actual bad persons harder to build. Was it still worth it to protect that human right ? I absolutely believe so, and if I’m ever charged of something I’m definitely better off this way than being unfairly accused and attacked by cops for two days straight until I admit whatever or mispeak or whatever.
Know what you’re accepting to lose before throwing away your basic rights because someone tells you “don’t worry, we will protect them for you”.
4 comments
(previous thread was removed by the mods, I re-submitted from the telegraph but [here is the yahoo link that was posted](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/parliament-overrule-european-judges-human-185747733.html?))
1. It’s not part of the EU, the ECHR is an entirely separate entity.
2. You can pretty much ignore the ECHR judgments if you want to (I mean Russia is in there), because the ECHR doesn’t have any real power. Its entire goal is to allow a country who wants to make sure it doesn’t fuck up to always have a lighthouse to warn it when it fucks up. If you ignore it, then fine, your wish. But if you want it, it’s there.
It had a secondary goal of smoothing out relations/dispute regarding those rights, eg “France ask Germany to solve X that the ECHR condemns them off” was a lot smoother than “France ask Germany to solve X because France own tribunals decided that was wrong”, but with the EU that need has waned a lot.
3. As such, there are only two reasons to leave:
– if you want to stiffle human rights, but can’t handle having someone telling you “dude, what you’re doing is wrong”
– if you want to limit what is considered human rights compared to the ECHR minimum, but still want to follow rule of law (and as such cannot be a ECHR member AND ignore its judgments).
You don’t leave it to improve your human rights, because the ECHR never says “nope, this right cannot be granted”, it can’t even if it wanted to. All it can say is “no, you can’t abuse that right or pretend it doesn’t exists”.
3. The ECHR rules and rights were pretty much written by the UK. So it’s the UK wanting to reneg on the rights it itself defined.
Here are the countries who are part of the ECHR, in bold those not in the EU: **Iceland** and Germany (1950), Austria (1956), Cyprus (1961), **Switzerland** (1963), Malta (1965), Portugal (1976), Spain (1977), **Liechtenstein** (1978), **San Marino** (1988), Finland (1989), Hungary (1990), Poland (1991), Bulgaria (1992), Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania (1993), **Andorra** (1994), Latvia, **Albania**, **Moldova**, **Ukraine**, **North Macedonia** (1995), **Russian Federation** and Croatia (1996), **Georgia** (1999), **Armenia** and **Azerbaijan** (2001), **Bosnia and Herzegovina** (2002), **Serbia** (2003), **Monaco** (2004), **Montenegro** (2007).
Additionnaly, Belarus had a special guest status but it has been suspended, and there are 5 observer countries: the Holy See, the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico.
Personally, I don’t think the UK and/or it’s gov are doing it specifically with the idea to limit the rights of their citizens, and I understand there is some terrorism cases mixed in there that bother them, but I think no matter the short term reason you should always think long and hard before allowing someone to redefine what are your society “inviolable human rights”.
NB: the ECHR is the entity that ultimately made France change its “garde à vue” rules. Until a decade and a half ago, you could be taken to interrogation by the police for 48h without your lawyer presents (gross oversimplification), and repeat conviction by the ECHR on the “the lawyer must be allowed to be present since the first second” made us change our laws.
Did our politician claims that it would stiffle crime fighting and our fight against terrorism ? Yep. Did it ? Well, it probably made some cases against actual bad persons harder to build. Was it still worth it to protect that human right ? I absolutely believe so, and if I’m ever charged of something I’m definitely better off this way than being unfairly accused and attacked by cops for two days straight until I admit whatever or mispeak or whatever.
Know what you’re accepting to lose before throwing away your basic rights because someone tells you “don’t worry, we will protect them for you”.
The ECHR is a joke
https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA
What has the ECHR ever done for us?
(C) Patrick Stewart
Not surprising given this government is introducing increasingly authoritarian changes to law and taking away people’s right to protest