Reader comments · Comment: The Tories should not withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: The Tories should not withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What a ridiculous articl. In order to withdraw from the EChR the UK would need to have in place a robust and watertight replacement from the word go. A like for like replacement offers everyone the same protections but without the meddlesome antics of Strasburg. Xx

    1. bobbleobble 6 Jan 2014, 7:46pm

      Why would it? I don’t trust the Tories in relation to Human Rights no matter what they’ve done with same sex marriage.

    2. Rob in Vancouver 6 Jan 2014, 8:46pm

      It is thanks to the “meddlesome antics” from the European courts that UK LGBT enjoy more equality. But not only LGBT, but also women as well as prisoners who were wrongly convicted. The UK political system was NOT able to provide those groups with the necessary protections. What makes you think it would in future?

    3. Why are UKIP’s internet army always so bad at spelling and grammar?

    4. The whole point is the wont and do not want to replace it. If you actualy red the article you would know that they alos plan to scrap the human rights act.

      The Tories believe they have a god given right as the ruling class to rule us. So back to the 18th century we go.

      1. de Villiers 7 Jan 2014, 8:51pm

        Last time I checked, every political party who wanted to be in the government had to take part in a democratic election.

    5. William Burd 12 Jan 2014, 1:37pm

      With all due respect, but this is naievete of the highest order. No doubt Putin is rubbing his hands at the prospect.

  2. The Tories will lose badly anyway and one of the principal reasons will be people don’t like posh boys like Cameron and Osbourne making nasty speeches about how the majority of unemployed people are willfully lazy and are making a “lifestyle choice” about their unemployment with “drawn curtains” whilst everyone else has a job to go to ect. The nasty party in this respect at least never went away and infact has become increasingly demented and virulent in its nastyness to an extent never seen before. Any party that can tolerate someone like Iain Duncan-Smith in such a sensitive government post as the Secretary of State for the DWP has got serious questions to answer as to its ‘nasty’ or ‘nice’ character.

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Jan 2014, 8:35pm

    Let’s face it, it’s only doing it to keep UKIP at bay, no backbone.

    1. Nope, it’s also doing it to be able to inflict tougher working regimes, give corporations more power, reduce the care and funding needed for disabled and elderly citizens, increase taxes on the majority even when it pushes them into further debt and poverty, remove the rights of detainees, and increases the abilities of GCHQ to grow their power over a free and innocent public, among other things.

      Mark my words, if we allow the nasty party to destroy Human Rights, we will end up like Russia within ten years. The country will become massively corrupt, privatization will be rife, poverty insurmountable, the elderly, sick and vulnerable left in sh*t holes with cheap care run by private corporations…

      This is a massive step back to a dark age, where the “lords” rule over the “plebs”. If you want to really know what this country will look like as a result, go back through our own history and look at the state we were in before social safety nets were developed.

      1. well said. People focus on the few stories of Human Rights “abuse” in the papers. but do not realise how much impact they have on their day to day lives. Esp. when something goes wrong. I fully support the human rights act. ON another subject re the tories. Gay people that vote tory baffles me. If it they were the ruling party , they would have rejected same sex marriage without a doubt. As it is , it looks like a coalition party between the tories and Ukip are on the horizon , and same sex marriage will go out the window. So be careful what you vote for

  4. Craig Nelson 6 Jan 2014, 9:47pm

    Britain pulling out of the European Court and the European Convention would be both destructive and dangerous. In most cases the Court makes little difference to life in Britain. Of course in the past there was a time when Britain was one of the most homophobic countries in Europe and the Court played a big role in the equalisation of the age of consent, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland, the right to serve in the military, the right to gender reassignment were all established by the Court. If Britain walks away from the Court it will then be open to ANY country to do so such as Russia and others that are not so friendly to LGBT people and other minorities.

    It would not be so bad if there was a watertight replacement for the Convention with the UK Supreme Court in charge of it. The whole point of the exercise however is to get around human rights laws so there is little chance that there will be a replacement convention.

    1. I am not a UK citizen or resident, so it’s not for me to say what UK should do. However, there’s a glaring problem in that you and Prof. Wintemute seem to think that Russia is actually following the ECHR rulings. That just isn’t so. Several years ago, ECHR has ruled that Russia must allow LGBT demonstrations. Well, I am pretty plugged into Russia’s LGBT community and Russian news, and I haven’t seen any positive changes – in fact, Russian government has gone completely the other way. (And the same is true about other issues, it’s not just the LGBT rulings that are not followed and enforced.) Despite ECHR rulings against it.

  5. Very bad idea to withdraw. I know the restrictions around deporting terrorists are a nuisance but Britain must set an example to the poorer and socially undeveloped countries of Eastern Europe.

    1. Seriously? The principle that extraditing people to foreign countries should only be allowed if we expect them to receive a fair trial is a “nuisance”?

      If somebody is really a terrorist, they can be tried and imprisoned in the UK, no matter where the alleged crime took place – that is, assuming the UK authorities actually have evidence they did something wrong.

      1. I have said I am in favour of keeping the convention. Most terrorists come from countries with appalling human rights records. My heart did not bleed when Abu Hamza was deported after running around the British Justice system for years at a cost of millions.

  6. *repercussions

    Also, don’t forget the recent overturning of the ban on same-sex adoption in Northern Ireland, which would not have happened if it weren’t for the Human Rights Act (which requires domestic courts to apply the principles of the ECHR). We still don’t have full legal equality in the UK, and the ECHR and the HRA are still vital tools to get us there.

    What really angers me are the lies used to smear human rights laws, from Theresa May’s imaginary “catgate” case, to Michael Howard’s race baiting about travellers and planning permission, to that MP bizarrely trying to argue that only criminals have ever won cases against the UK. If your political views are defensible, you can defend them without lying.

  7. Conservative/UKIP logic: Oh, I know, lets join Belarus as the only other country on the continent outside the European Convention on Human Rights. Because “Europe’s Last Dictator” is good company to keep.

  8. Philip Breen 7 Jan 2014, 7:47am

    Whatever one thinks about certain aspects of UK accountability to Europe, that accountability is necessary if the UK is not to regress even, in her record of human rights. There is still much to do regarding rights and justice for the LGBT community as, for example, the Turing pardon indicates. A UK exit from Europe, for us, would be disastrous.

  9. If they were the only party running, I would spoil my ballot paper before I would bote for them.

  10. GingerlyColors 7 Jan 2014, 11:18am

    Ideally, I do not wish to see the UK withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights although I believe that the UK will be better outside the EU. I much rather see the UK join Norway (which is not in the EU) than Belarus (which does not recognise the ECHR). However people are getting cheesed off with rulings coming from the ECHR demanding that we should allow convicted criminals the right to vote and making it difficult to deport fanatical clerics who demand the stoning of gays. If we do withdraw from the ECHR then we need a constitution similar to that of the United States which will continue to protect our human rights. We do not what a constitution like Hungary’s that can be torn up and replaced on the whim of an incoming government.

    1. bobbleobble 7 Jan 2014, 11:49am

      Norway isn’t in the EU but it is in the EEA which means in many ways it has to follow the rules of the EU without actually getting any say in them.

      The ECHR didn’t say all prisoners must be given the vote. They said that a blanket ban is arbitrary and unfair and instead of simply banning everyone it should be considered case by case. I genuinely can’t see a problem with that, nor with prisoners voting in general after all they have as much of a stake in society as anyone else.

      And I am frankly dismayed that anyone thinks it is ok to deport someone to a country where they would face torture or execution no matter what they say about gay people. We don’t exactly occupy the moral high ground if we lower ourselves to their level.

      We will not get a strong constitution if we withdraw from the ECHR, I doubt we’d even get something like they have in Hungary. We’ll get something cobbled together that might look good but will have no teeth and simply give the powerful more control.

    2. Okay, now look at it this way…
      If we remove Human Rights, the damage to you, me, and millions of others will be immense.
      And at the moment, the biggest problems with Human Rights are that we have to pay a couple of hundred thousand a year to keep a religious defective in the country, and allow prisoners to vote?

      It’s an acceptable trade-off in my opinion. The religious fanatic doesn’t affect me, he has no power here and he is monitored. I personally believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote (like it or not, they are citizens and EVERY citizen should have a vote no matter their circumstances).

      Either way, they don’t affect my life. Removing Human Rights and risking MASSIVE social harm, state overreach, corporate corruption, a future totalitarianism etc is far more scary a prospect.

      I would rather feel indignant about an issue that has no real bearing on my life, than throw the baby out with the bathwater and risk a complete socioeconomic collapse of our society.

  11. Far from the “meddlesome antics” of the EU being damaging to UK LGBT rights, it is precisely BECAUSE of them that we have the freedoms we now enjoy. I can never fathom why someone gay would support the distancing of ourselves from the continent. If old school Tories (as was evident from the recent equal marriage debate) had had their way, trust me, we’d all still be criminals. And, if the Tories DID abandon the ECHR what message would that send out? That Tories have their OWN views on what are the rights of human beings and those that are not? Human Rights are universal …. and not something to be picked-over to suit whatever regime holds power at any one time.

  12. NickDavisGB 7 Jan 2014, 1:55pm

    Remember it works both ways. I can’t wait to be able to ban christians from my business.

  13. “The Conservative Party wants to leave the Convention so that Britain will be free to deport suspected terrorists to countries where they may face torture (or trials in which evidence obtained through torture will be used against them), and to deport convicted criminals regardless of the impact on the British partners and children they would leave behind.”


  14. onesecond 7 Jan 2014, 8:00pm

    This is the first time I have heard of this plans. This is horrible! I hope pinknews will bring many more articles on this to raise awareness! How on earth can the Tories even imagine to violate human rights out of convenience? Even bad people have fundamental rights! Despicable and disgusting and it opens the door for any other convenient discrimination in the future and who knows maybe it will be convenient to discrimiate to discriminate against LGBT or whatever in the future again?

    1. The idea is to replace it with a British written constitution or Bill of Rights after a consultation on the wording and represented areas. This has been publicised many times since 2010.

      I have to question how intelligent this “professor” is since he purposefully left that bit out to scaremonger.

      If a Bill of Rights is done properly then it could be a big bonus to UK Democracy over an unelected foreign court. Cue the downvotes from raging Labour supporters

  15. The Tories will not withdraw the UK from the ECHR. For a start it’s a condition of being in the EU. What’s going on here is a campaign to intimidate the Court and give human rights a bad name, so that we are softened up to accepting state surveillance and the rule the Coalition introduced that you can no longer bring your partner into the country unless you earn more than £18,600 per year. The lies and misrepresentation of the Court’s rulings are a disgrace and Labour is just as bad at denigrating it. As one example, the Court never ruled that all prisoners should be given the vote, merely that there should not be a blanket ban and parliament should consider if someone in prison for using a stolen credit should be denied a vote, when a murderer released the day before an election is perfectly entitled to vote.

  16. You can blame the idiots that voted Liberal and Conservative at the last election

  17. Jago Tremain 19 Jan 2014, 10:11pm

    UK withdraws from HR Convention – great – think what a huge cheer would go up from every nasty oppressive regime in the world. Britain doesn’t give a toss about human rights – why should we?

  18. David Tough 1 Feb 2014, 9:24pm

    withdrawing from the European Human rights would be a disaster. same nasty homophobic Tory party

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.