Robert Jenrick, Immigration Minister, (and all-round lovely gentleman who ordered murals of cartoons be covered up to make sure immigration centres are less welcoming to terrified children), recently told Radio Times that he wouldn’t rule out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, saying that the government would do ‘whatever it takes to continue with its Rwanda policy’.

 

This comes after Suella Braverman, Home Secretary, last year stated that to get her abhorrent Rwanda policy through, we’d have to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

What is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)?

The European Convention on Human Rights was set up after the atrocities of the Second World War and the Holocaust, and was put in place to protect people from the state. The convention guaranteed fundamental human rights – such as the right to life, for the first time in history.

 

In fact, although Braverman, Jenrick and various other MPs are desperate to leave, the UK had a hand in bringing it to life, with Winston Churchill a key voice in its creation.

 

The convention has protected us from things like torture, slavery, killing and invasion of privacy since we signed it in 1951, and anyone who feels these rights have been violated, can take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Based in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights interprets the ECHR and hears applications accusing a state of violating any rights stated in the Convention.

​

The court has played a big role in UK cases and acts as a rigid safety net for us if our rights are violated by the state. However, thankfully, with The Human Rights Act in place since 2000 in the UK, we’ve seen less cases brought to Strasbourg. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t still work as a backup plan in case the state doesn’t agree that our human rights have been violated.

 

Isn’t it unlikely we need it with the Human Rights Act in place?

It should be, but with the likes of Dominic Raab et al. wanting to remove The Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights (which has been shelved - for now), we’ll desperately need the ECHR to protect us.

 

Doesn't the new Bill of Rights protect us?

The new proposed Bill of Rights makes it harder for people to challenge abuse of their rights and allows the government to explicitly decide who has rights and who doesn’t – including ripping away the rights of people challenging deportation, as well as British soldiers serving abroad if they’re treated badly by the Ministry of Defence. It also gives public authorities, such as the Government, local councils and the police permission to ignore people’s rights.

 

It was the current Human Rights Act that enabled a second inquest into Hillsborough, and forced the Met to properly investigate John Worboys. However, the new Bill of Rights will not enforce such processes since an individual will need to prove they’ve suffered a ‘significant disadvantage’ before being considered.   

 

How has the ECHR helped people?

​

Jeff Dudgeon v United Kingdom

 

In 1967, the Sexual Offenses Act, legalised homosexuality in England and Wales. It was not, however, extended to Northern Ireland. So, although in London, you were free, in Northern Ireland, you could still be sent to prison for life for being homosexual.

​

So, when Jeff Dudgeon’s home was raided and he was interrogated by police about his sexual life for four and a half hours, he took the issue to the ECHR.

​

He successfully challenged Northern Ireland’s laws which criminalised consensual sexual acts between men in private. The European court ruled that by criminalising homosexuality, Northern Ireland had violated people’s right to a private life.

​

Since then, Northern Ireland has changed its criminal laws to legalise homosexual acts between consenting male adults. This then led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in many European countries.

 

Talpis v Italy

 

Elisaveta Talpis suffered years of domestic violence at the hands of her alcoholic husband. However, when reporting him to the authorities several times and lodging a formal complaint to protect her and her children, the police did nothing for months. After fearing for her life,  she reported him once more. The police did pick him up, but allowed him to go back home due to his drunken state. He then stabbed their son and Elisaveta several times. Their son later died.

 

The ECtHR ruled that authorities had failed to take action to protect Elisaveta and her son, and failed to investigate her complaints for an excessively long time. By underestimating the seriousness of the domestic violence, the court ruled these failings as discriminatory, since they were linked to the fact that the violence was against a woman.

 

After this case, a law established emergency provisions against gender violence which then brought into force the Istanbul Convention.

 

These are just two examples of how the ECHR has stood up for the rights of people while also changing the world for the better. There have been many more cases since it was established, and it continues to act as a staunch ally in our fight for basic human rights. 

​

All of our rights will be at risk if we withdraw from the ECHR

With immigration used as a pawn in the game of power, endangering almost everyone in the pursuit of winning a populist vote, our place in the ECHR will remain vulnerable.

 

If we leave, we’ll gain membership to an exclusive club that includes both Belarus and Russia. It’ll also dilute any credibility the UK has when we criticise human rights abuses elsewhere in the world. And even scarier, this exclusive club could become a more attractive prospect in the eyes of other countries after potentially setting a dangerous  precedent.

​

With the tent pins holding down our Human Rights Act increasingly shifting upwards, while a gang of vultures plays Jenga with our democracy, we’ll seriously need the ECHR to protect us when it all comes tumbling down. But with talks of a referendum where they’ll deliberately misinform and confuse - instilling fear into those who don’t know about the convention, and with certain tabloid newspapers referring to it as a 'bold move to protect our borders' (vom), it’s not completely bonkers to feel rather concerned that our basic human rights are hanging by a thread.

​