Der EGMR sei jetzt „notwendiger und relevanter“, sagt der scheidende britische Richter
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ecthr-more-necessary-and-relevant-now-says-outgoing-uk-judge/5124728.article
Von trevstan1
Der EGMR sei jetzt „notwendiger und relevanter“, sagt der scheidende britische Richter
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ecthr-more-necessary-and-relevant-now-says-outgoing-uk-judge/5124728.article
Von trevstan1
9 Kommentare
I think the only important part of this whole discussion is to look at countries like Denmark. They’re held up by the right as a good example of immigration and asylum done well. Have they done that by leaving the ECHR? No. So clearly the ECHR is not the problem. QED end of discussion. Lets not let this one drag out to be a big 5 year Culture War as well please…
Judge is part of the problem. ECtHR is ok. But activists judge should be taken care of.
If the ECHR actually did anything positive for us, we’d never be allowed to have it
Reading the document independently and drawing own conclusions is also important: [European Convention on Human Rights](https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG)
Over a five-year period to June 2021, the number of successful human rights-based deportation appeals represented about 3.5% of the total number of deportations – and around 2.5% when looking at appeals based solely on private and family life grounds. These figures may be overestimates as they do not account for cases subsequently overturned by the Upper Tribunal.
Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in only 13 removal cases, and just four of those concerned family life. In relation to immigration rules more broadly, the Court has only three times ruled that the UK’s immigration rules violate the ECHR in the past 45 years
The ECHR is not perfect but leaving it without a plan for its replacement in place is foolish. We saw it happen with Brexit and I would hope we would have learnt from that. I know that is wrong but I live in hope.
Can we at least rename it, please? European Court of Human Rights. European Convention of Human Rights. Equality and Human Rights Commission.
All it takes is a single spelling mistake or somebody not clarifying whether they’re talking court or convention to make discussing literally anything related really difficult.
Britain had human rights laws before the ECHR. Habeas Corpus, Somerset v Stewart etc. Different in the details sure, but those doctrines were longer standing and more flexible – and even more importantly – they were honest. ECHR insists of the fallacy of judges applying a preordained code as opposed to making moral value judgments in each case, which is the reality of what happens.
We really need to withdraw our membership in the ECHR. It feels like the whole world knows of our suicidal empathy and out ineffectiveness in deporting ppl .