The ECHR was drawn up to to prevent the human rights violations which had occurred during the Second World War from happening again. When the world is heading frighteningly in that direction again, when the UK itself is sleepwalking into electing a fascist government, we need the ECHR enacted in the UK through the HRA even more.
This is an interesting discussion of Shabana Mahmood’s wish (and that of others) for reform of Article 8 and perhaps Article 3. But the key here is reform not leaving the ECHR altogether. That would make the UK outliers aligned only with Russia - and who wants that apart from a party whose leader admires Putin and may well be a Russian asset. And now we have the Tories jumping on the bandwagon in their desperation for votes from people who won’t understand the potentially dangerous implications for 70 million people.
publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/06/18/justice-secretary-shabana-mahmood-on-human-rights-reform-in-the-uk-and-in-europe/
Extract:
In the wake of the leaders’ letter, Alain Berset, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe under whose auspices the ECHR exists, initially took a robust stance, arguing that ‘[a]s we face today’s complex challenges, our task is _not to weaken the Convention, but to keep it strong and relevant_’. However, he later said that he accepts the ECHR ‘must adapt’ in the light of the concerns raised by the nine leaders.
If and when discussions proceed at the European level, the choice that will need to be made will be a difficult and potentially era-defining one — particularly if the outcome signals that human rights are to respected only when it is convenient to do so, such that the rights of (for example) immigrants fall to be diluted or removed when the scale of immigration makes upholding such rights politically inexpedient. That does not imply that no reform in this area can be countenanced consistently with a commitment to the universality of fundamental human rights or the rule of law. But it does serve to underline that the forthcoming UK legislation and any wider proposals at the European level will deserve the closest scrutiny.
It has been pointed out upthread that the number of people avoiding deportation under Articles 8 or 3 has been tiny.
I want to focus on the words ...
… when the scale of immigration makes upholding such rights politically inexpedient.
The phrase scale of … is one we need to be very careful of. It’s already used frequently in other political debates. In other words there are too many of a certain demographic and so we must change the rules.
What about:
The scale of people claiming disability benefits?
The scale of children with SEND?
The scale of old people needing complex health and care provision?
The scale of old people claiming state pension.
I have said this before but I will say it agan. When a government starts using scale to deny people their human rights to safety, to care and financial care, to education, to life … we are on a very slippery slope.
