Monday, February 7, 2011

European Court of Human Rights review urged by Policy Exchange, they want human rights replaced by ‘privileges’ bestowed by politicians

Dear All

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that prisoners should be giving the right to vote in elections.

I agree with the Court, they are right in their judgement.

However, Policy Exchange director Neil O'Brien takes a different view.

He and the right wing think tank's he works for are calling for the government to cut ties with the European Court of Human Rights.

They don’t like the decision.

It boils down to a simple issue, should people be treated equally?

It seems that the political class don’t think so.

Their take on events is that human rights should only be granted if they approve.

That is not how human rights work.

Policy Exchange director Neil O'Brien then comes out with a bizarre statement when he literally mocks the judges of what he implies are lesser countries of the European Union like Andorra and San Remo.

Liberal Democrat peer Alex Carlile, who has advised the Government on terror legislation says there is need for reform.

However, Carlile doesn’t cover himself in glory.

Take the time to listen to this video; it flags up why there is a need for The European Court of Human Rights.

You can have your human rights provided that the political class approve, they want to take rights away and replace them with ‘privileges’ bestowed by them.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

1 comment:

frankbcz said...

It is quite pitiful when seemingly educated people like Lord Carlisle fail to understand why the ECHR (Convention) is the unchangeable document it is. The American Bill of Rights and the reasons for its drafting show the evolution of thought of hundreds, if not thousands of years of philosophical thought on human rights.

Above all colonial Americans understood the duplicity of the British Regime and that they had to prevent America from falling under such rule ever again.

Clearly, the Convention is meant to be a Bill of Rights for Europe. It tries to cover all basic human rights and needs - and succeeds rather well. It avoids the seduction of elaborating on the basic rights.

The suggestions by Niel O'Brien of the ultra right-wing "Policy Exchange" and Lord Carlisle that we live in different times to those when the Convention was drafted and it therefore needs amending is quite offensive. To imply that the advent of the internet or other societal changes require a basic reassessment of the concept of human rights is insidious.

I hate to say it, but, after the shameful vote by Parliamentarians against prisoner's rights to vote, it looks like it is once again a battle of the seekers of "Liberty, Equality and Justice for All" against an autocratic British Regime (albeit now a bit of a "pip-squeak" empire).