Following the government’s proposal to replace the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with a new Bill of Rights, a European organization has accused the UK of regressing on fundamental human rights.
The Council of Europe issued a statement after Dunja Mijatovi, the commissioner for human rights, spent five days in the UK, expressing concern that any new human rights legislation will provide UK residents with fewer legal protections than they already have.
Additionally, the group made an explicit connection between the matter and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, asserting that the modifications could jeopardize the peace there.
One of the pillars of the Good Friday Agreement’s peace deal in Northern Ireland is the effective safeguarding of ECHR rights.
The planned improvements for human rights must not jeopardize this foundation, according to Mijatovi.
The Council of Europe is a pan-European organization that was established to uphold human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in post-World War II Europe. It includes nations outside the European Union, including despotic, corrupt regimes like Azerbaijan.
The European Court of Human Rights, which upholds the European Convention on Human Rights, is located there. Last month, judges from this court, who sit in Strasbourg, grounded Priti Patel’s flights to Rwanda to seek asylum.
The Commissioner declared at the conclusion of her visit to the UK that legal amendments “should not impair human rights protections in the United Kingdom.”
If approved, the Human Rights Act would be repealed and replaced with a Bill of Rights, which would have an impact on everyone’s human rights in the UK.
The newly proposed Bill will establish a “permissions stage” in the legal system, requiring anybody wishing to file a human rights claim to demonstrate that they have been “significantly disadvantaged” before doing so.
Mijatovi views the move as a barrier that will ‘weaken human rights protections’ in the UK despite the fact that it is intended to reduce court time and save taxpayer money.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) can now be effectively enforced through the UK courts, thanks to important modifications made by the Bill.
“At this critical juncture for the UK, it is concerning that the proposed legal amendments would erode human rights protections, and it sends the incorrect signal outside of the country at a time when human rights are under pressure throughout Europe.”
One of the Governance’s 2019 manifesto commitments was to update the Human Rights Act “to ensure there is a suitable balance between the rights of individuals, our important national security, and functional government.”
One of the main drivers of the reform, it is believed, is to get out from under the control of foreign-based judges who can oversee government policy efforts.
The publishing of the Bill follows the European Court of Human Rights’ decision to halt the flight of a first planeload of migrants from the United Kingdom to Rwanda.
The government’s new £120 million asylum scheme, which will send refugees to East Africa to have their asylum claims evaluated, was stopped in its tracks by the court’s last-minute intervention.
The Rwanda plan has been hailed by ministers as a measure of preventing migrants from risky Channel crossings to Britain.
In its consultation on the new bill, the Government stated, “We will reverse the mission creep that has resulted in human rights law being applied for more and more objectives, and frequently with little regard for the rights of wider community.”
The draft to replace Labour’s Human Rights Act was announced in June by Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister.
According to the proposed legislation, British courts are not necessarily have to abide with Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights rulings.
Additionally, it stipulates that the Supreme Court of London makes the final call on matters pertaining to human rights.
The Bill, Mr. Raab assured lawmakers, would “return a healthy dose of common sense” to the legal system.
Mr. Raab promised the House of Commons that the UK will not abandon the European Convention on Human Rights despite his efforts to restrict the Strasbourg court’s authority.
The Bill of Rights also attempts to cut down on fraudulent human rights claims made by foreign criminals to evade deportation and privacy rules modelled after those in Europe.
“Our Bills of Rights will deepen our strong legacy of freedom,” Mr. Raab told the lawmakers. “They’ll define a clearer separation of authorities.”
It would assure greater respect for our democratic institutions, better safeguard the public, and restore the justice system’s need for common sense, which is crucial for winning over the public’s trust.
In the end, it will increase our freedom and contribute to keeping our streets secure.
The Deputy Prime Minister also promised that the Bill of Rights will improve border security.
In a democracy, he continued, you “command, you rule, you govern by consent.”
We risk losing the public’s trust in our immigration controls if we are unable to implement the reasonable steps they anticipate.
If we don’t bring back a healthy dose of common sense, we also run the risk of losing the support of the general public for human rights.
A “very dark day for victims of crime, for women, for people in care,” as well as “for everyone in this country who depends on the state to protect them from harm,” was how Labour described the introduction of legislation to update the 1998 Human Rights Act.
Ellie Reeves, a shadow justice minister, said: “It’s really quite something for members of the Churchill party, who inspired the European Convention of Human Rights, to want to do away with it completely.”
I believe Mr. Raab is opposed to leaving the European Convention, not least because he is aware that doing so would seriously jeopardize the Good Friday Agreement and the peace in Northern Ireland.
Before the Bill was released, Mr. Raab praised his actions as a “significant increase of free expression” that would prevent the courts from sneakily enacting European-style privacy rules.
In accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to a private and family life, he claimed that the Bill would “sift out spurious claims” made by foreign criminals and others.
Numerous foreign criminals have used Article 8 to evade deportation, therefore one of the main components of the new package is to limit its usage.
The Daily Mail revealed last month how a number of murderers, robbers, and sex offenders were able to maintain their immigration status in the UK by asserting their right to a private or family life.
According to Mr. Raab’s proposals, offenders hoping to avoid deportation would have to meet a higher standard than is currently required by law by demonstrating that a child or another dependent would suffer “overwhelming, unavoidable harm” if they were separated.