David Cameron Urged Not To Block Human Rights Convention

Cameron European Court Reform

PA/The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 25/01/2012 16:10 Updated: 25/01/2012 17:44

David Cameron has hit out at the European Court of Human Rights saying it should not "undermine its own reputation" by intervening in UK decisions.

The prime minister is seeking to change the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) so that it no longer serves as an automatic last resort for criminals, including foreigners awaiting deportation. The proposal has been attacked by Labour who believe the prime minister may be paving the way to "walk away" from the court.

But just before he spoke to the European Council the prime minister was urged not to block the EU as a bloc signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The EU accession process - a legal obligation for the EU under the Lisbon Treaty - has run into objections from London and Paris.

"We cannot risk this process being derailed, as failure to fully incorporate the EU could serve to weaken the existing European system for human rights protection which has been put in place by the Council of Europe over the last 60 years and is envied worldwide,"said Swedish Liberal Democrat MEP Kerstin Lundgren in a statement.

Cameron will use Britain's presidency of the Council of Europe to attempt to make changes to the court. However Downing Street has admitted that getting agreement on how to speed up the Court's operation will be an enormous challenge.

The ECHR's remit covers 800 million people in 47 countries and now has a backlog of more than 150,00 cases.

In a speech in Strasbourg on Wednesday the prime minister said the court should be free to deal with the "most serious violations" of human rights and should not be "swamped" with an endless backlog.

"The court should ensure that the right to individual petition counts; it should not act as a small claims court. And the Court should hold us all to account; it should not undermine its own reputation by going over national decisions where it does not need to," he said in a speech to the European Court on Wednesday.

In a clear sign that Britain is no longer prepared to tolerate the European Court being an automatic backstop for those convicted in the UK, Whitehall sources have indicated that a detailed draft of proposed reforms will be ready by the end of February, with a conference of European justice ministers being convened in April.

Britain holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe until May, reflecting the speed at which the PM is seeking to make these changes. Whitehall is expecting a series of "short but intense" negotiations on the reforms, and while there is agreement within the coalition and among many European nations that the court is unfit for purpose, it is far from clear how reforms which can quickly separate genuine human rights abuses from spurious cases can be achieved.

In a sign of frustration in Number 10 with the court's interpretation of its powers under the European Convention on Human Rights, the prime minister said: "We are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally."

The current wait for a case to be heard by the court is around two years, leading to many would-be deportees languishing in jail. The system leads to long-running and emotive cases, including that of the Islamist cleric Abu Qatada, whose deportation to Jordan was blocked by the European Court on human rights grounds last week. The case caused Tories to call for a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, although what's being proposed falls far short of that.

Downing Street sources spoke of a "single agenda, which is reforming the court." There is no apparent move by Britain to amend the European Convention itself, with government sources suggesting that even making the changes outlined will be "very difficult".

There is nothing in the coalition agreement on changing the ECHR, but sources close to Nick Clegg said the deputy prime minister was entirely supportive of Cameron's plan. "Nick has been calling for reform of the court for many years, and as with all speeches this was agreed beforehand," said one source.

Labour have criticised the PM's rhetoric on reforming the ECHR, suggesting it could be the first step towards a unilateral move away from its auspices if the negotiations fail.

Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan accused the PM of "peddling myths that denigrate the human rights successes of the Court and the Convention. It smacks of throwing ‘red meat’ to the hungry pack of Conservative backbenches so recently emboldened by the Prime Minister’s waltzing away from the European negotiating table."

He went on: “The Labour Party is fiercely proud of the UK’s role in protecting and championing human rights across Europe, and beyond. Other countries look up to the UK, and our moral authority as a member of the club of 47 nations empowers us to pressure those who have weaker human rights records. To simply walk away, as the prime minister has hinted, would constitute a gross neglecting of our duties as a beacon of civility amongst the family of nations.”

The human rights group JUSTICE has also criticised Cameron's comments. Angela Patrick, director of human rights policy said some of the cases the government does not like deal with issues that are "far from small" involving "at their heart a fundamental commitment to an absolute bar on torture".

"Comparing the Strasbourg Court to a small claims court damages our public commitment to the international rule of law," she said.

Conservative MPs reacted with glee at Labour's instant opposition to the proposals, with one telling HuffPost UK they were finding it hard to believe that Ed Miliband was managing to be out of touch with public opinion on another issue.

"Who's advising him?" said one Tory MP, who was entirely supportive of the plans.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage said David Cameron should "face facts": "The stream of ridiculous judgements from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, protecting drug dealers and known terrorists will continue to bind us in knots while we are signed up members of the EU. I asked the EU Commission about this issue last year and they made it crystal clear that while the UK is a member of the EU, we must fully comply with the ECHR. David Cameron should not suggest otherwise."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

David Cameron has hit out at the European Court of Human Rights saying it should not "undermine its own reputation" by intervening in UK decisions. The prime minister is seeking to change the Europ...
David Cameron has hit out at the European Court of Human Rights saying it should not "undermine its own reputation" by intervening in UK decisions. The prime minister is seeking to change the Europ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 61
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
15:37 on 26/01/2012
Hey Dave. Get a grip. If you want out of the European Court of Human Rights, it's easy. Give Great Britain the referendum on membership of the EU it deserves, and let the people decide.
09:26 on 26/01/2012
Labour chamption human rights? Like, those rights to free speech, free association and free thought that they stamped down on. The right to privacy, free of state intrusion. The right of victims of crime to see justice in the courts. The right of people to be treated equally in the eyes of the law (rather than systematically favoured for having a different skin colour and religious belief).
21:30 on 26/01/2012
Fair point(s).
katertaif
My wife thinks I have one fault. Everything I do!
03:46 on 26/01/2012
There is only one question here. Are we a sovereign country, or are we not? Are we in a preferred trading agreement with our European allies, or are we in fact no more than a province of the United States of Europe. If we are merely a province then of course the ECHR has every right to have the final say on who we can deport and who we can't. If we are a sovereign country, then the ECHR has no jurisdiction over us at all. That is what Cameron needs to have sorted out, and I believe I know what the vast majority of indigenous people think and want. They think things have gone far too far,and want our sovereignty back. Then Abu Qatada alias Mahmoud Othman, or whatever his name is (he and his kind are so legal, they cannot even use their real names) can be removed by the very next aeroplane. If The ECHR insists they have th esay, then let him go to them, and they can do what they like with him.
01:45 on 26/01/2012
The sooner we are out of this crap the better....the only people it benefits are criminals.
00:17 on 26/01/2012
all we need to do is withdraw from the ECHR . the huge benefit of which would be we would then have to leave the EU, as its conditions require all members to be in it.
00:11 on 26/01/2012
Utill we get a referendum to get out of the E.U ,which will be the same time as I get Elected to run the bank of England, why dont we go along with the, european court of human rights,and make them work as a normal court. The acused will be sent there to stand trial with all the normal army of lawers etc for and against with all the relevent evidence. if the accused is found guilty he or she will be sent to Jail obviously monitored by human rights organisations which would give them great joy and, if they are found not guilty they could be returned home to their loved ones again along with a monitor. The savings of the national ,obviouly inferior ,courts could be paid to the monitors to live in the accused country and report back to the courts End of story yes I know the two are seperate
00:00 on 26/01/2012
Our BRITISH law is good enough. If it short anywhere WE BRITISH can address that. We do not need Human Rights legislation on top of that. Human Rights legislation is too open to abuse, by shady lawyers, criminals and other "n'er do wells."
23:43 on 25/01/2012
Human rights cut both ways and this is where it fails. I don't often agree with David Blunkett, but when he pointed out that it is as big a miscarriage of justice for the guilty to walk free as it is for the innocent to be convicted, he got it right. We do not have a civilised society. In a civilised society, children can go out to play safely, a woman can walk the night streets alone and unafraid, you can go out and leave your car/front door unlocked, then return to find it safe and unrobbed. The reason we do not have a civilised society is because the uncivilised criminals are free to roam among the rest of us, and inflict uncivilisation on the vast majority. I want my human rights, please. Stop them from doing that.
23:04 on 25/01/2012
Come on David show us what you are made of, put your foot down right on top of the eu court
23:02 on 25/01/2012
If what Nigel Farage says is true then we must simply withdraw from the EU. So if David Cameron really wants to deport Abu Qatada, he should hold that referendum, now!
22:18 on 25/01/2012
yes we should have human rights but only for honest decent people who need it , not for criminals terrorist and scum. who seem to get everything at our expense.
23:13 on 25/01/2012
Human rights for some humans.

Now where did I hea something like that before.... oh I know.

"All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others."
22:16 on 25/01/2012
The human right act or the bill of human rights was first drawn up after the second world war had ended to make sure that Europeans did not have to suffer any inhuman treatment or be persecuted by any other country or organisation,yet the human rights law is defending those who abuse other peoples human rights,ie bomber, criminals,killers and such,its this type of abuse of the human rights that must be changed.
20:39 on 25/01/2012
it should be named the european court of stupid rights judging by some of the decisions they make. they are a disgrace and ought to be replaced by sensible people who would put victims rights before the crimminal.
19:29 on 25/01/2012
Far too much corruption and human rights abuse in the UK as it is.

Keep the ECHR.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
20:43 on 25/01/2012
You've obviously never travelled overseas if you think what we have is human rights abuse in the UK.....
21:25 on 26/01/2012
We don't help the cause of human rights abroad by condoning torture.
20:45 on 25/01/2012
yeah dont we ju7st love foreign crimminals living here and threatening our way of life and moaning about our laws.
21:14 on 26/01/2012
Agree with your point about foreign criminals.

The question is whether we tolerate torture. In effect the government is saying it is wrong to secure a conviction by torturing the suspect/criminal, but it is all right to secure a conviction by torturing a witness.

We have rules against torture. The ECHR is only doing its job properly.
19:29 on 25/01/2012
This site has some very educated people by the tone of many threads, so I shall ask a couple of questions:-

1. Why does a criminal, uk or foreign get better human rights protection than their victims and their families as well as the law abiding citizens?
2. Europe has failed for the lsast 17 years to have their accounts signed off - massive fraud, corruption and total incompetence by everyone tainted with working in the EU - why do people in this country still think the future is Europe?
3. For all those that agree with the ECHR ruling on the 'hate-preacher', what have you done about Mugabe in the last few years, even though this is not a european problem, some of their countries welcome him?
4. For all the pro-EU people on here, please tell me what personal benefits you have received from your MEP's, have you seen their reports, do they hold meetings which you can attend?
21:01 on 25/01/2012
Lets try the bigger picture. Improving what is working is one thing, criticising for the sake of doing so hardly ever advances humanity. Truth is, the future is and will be a unified Europe, world and human race. If you doubt that, the financially well endowed care less. They will assemble in Davos this next few days, plot your custom hence sustenance whilst sampling the delightful luxury of diverse culinary and other multinational pleasures less bothered by the colours of flags or skin, money a worthier passport not limited by redundant notions. This are your world leaders or masters, choose one wisely folks. Waste not time debating whether you are European. They will indulge in yet more wealth creation, unlimited by visa controls, migration policies or place of abode; money makes them world citizens. So some of 'us' chose to squabble about a few square miles, agree to massage or inflate egos with nostalgia for past glory, cloth in false nationalism and 'perceive' unique untouchable identies? Flee moves that could divide - drag people back into limiting national clusters. British, what British? French, whatever..a DNA check and most of are far more mixed than 'we' could care to contemplate. This folks is the 21st century not the 1st! The world marches ahead, hopefully it won't be too hard to plead to get back into the 'larger family'. Politics is fast replacing religion. Be carefully the hidden message.What is the alternative to the European Court, each goes their separate way?
concodtob
16 stone athlete and intellectual
21:43 on 25/01/2012
No doubt you would welcome the likes of Abu Qatada roaming our streets then?If so i suggest you live next door to him.Your comment is absurd as it is out of touch.
21:54 on 25/01/2012
What a load of flowery codswallop! Without a nation we are nobody! National pride, national interest, national wellbeing equals world movers and shakers. People like you will have us a grubby little European backwaterm fit only for the dross and crap of failed euro economies. Do us all a favour. Go to europe and live.
concodtob
16 stone athlete and intellectual
21:49 on 25/01/2012
You mean the dwindling number of pro-EU people on here lol.Judging by the ridiculous ruling on Abu Qatada the number will become ever smaller.