Cameron and the ECHR

A human rights case that deserved a hearing

David Cameron has very good reasons for wanting to reform the European Court of Human Rights.

David Cameron wants British courts to have the last word

David Cameron’s speech in Strasbourg yesterday, outlining proposals for reforming the European Court of Human Rights, has been met with a predictably hostile reaction from those who see no reason to fix this flawed institution. Yet what is he proposing that is so controversial? The Prime Minister’s most far-reaching suggestion is that rulings by Parliament, and by British courts, should not be superseded by the ECHR. He wants to apply the principle of subsidiarity – that final decisions should be made nationally, not by what he called “a court of fourth instance”.

This might be problematic if British judges were in the habit of handing down rulings that harm human rights. But they aren’t. Indeed, the principal architects of the European Convention on Human Rights, 60 years ago, were British jurists drawing on precedents enshrined in common law and statute over many centuries. As Mr Cameron said, the rule of law is a golden thread that runs through our history, and drove the struggle against tyranny in two world wars.

Unlike many of the 47 members of the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, the UK has no need to apologise for its human rights record. And yet to raise legitimate questions about the way the Court interprets the Convention is to risk being cast as an opponent of basic liberties. This is absurd. Some reforms of the Court’s procedures to filter out trivial claims are essential to reduce its workload and the backlog of cases. But the key issue is whether perfectly reasonable decisions taken by the British courts are to be blocked, as with the attempted deportation to Jordan of the Islamist preacher Abu Qatada. Even though he is deemed a threat to national security, and the UK’s highest court has approved his deportation, the ECHR says he cannot be removed, despite Jordanian guarantees that he will not be ill treated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9038540/A-human-rights-case-that-deserved-a-hearing.html

The problems have come about, but never in the USA, because successive British Governments have allowed the interfering farts in Europe to think they have sovereign right over our heritage, laws and traditions.  In the USA they would never sign to any document that diluted their own constitution.  The same ought to be here where thousands of years of Common Law are being put aside by the ignorance and culpability of inept politicians.  Instead of defending our history and institutions, the pathetically weak and feeble minded socialist intelligentsia have decreed that we should loose everything some of us fought fiercely to preserve.  Now they are saying we have to house, feed and clothe terrorists and their supporters whilst ignoring veterans rights, as in the case of the late Andy Miller.