I respectfully agree with Douwe Korf and Graham Child. In particular the “balance sheet” approach to human rights -shall we say?- shortcomings is an implied shrugging off too far, as though those noncompliances identified were- to repeat Norman Lamont’s shabby remark- “a price worth paying.”
All the same what the lead judge observed in the hearing and presence of Dominic Raab was timely and telling.
There is an underlying mischief around where the insistence routinely is that the ECHR and our Human Rights Act only serve to let offenders off the hook and to frustrate the direction of travel of the U.K. government of the day. In fact Act also and equally protects the rights and upholds the expectations of victims.
What as I believe underpins the wish to “revise” it- for which read “abolish, or failing that water it down” - is the executive embarrassment for the government of the day of its being thwarted.
I feel your conclusion (which is repeated in the heading) overstates what can be concluded from the statistics. It is in any case not very useful to create rankings of this sort (which is why when I worked for Amnesty International in the 70s and 80s we steadfastly refused to create "worse" and "best" human rights rankings). There are many serious human rights issues in the UK and your conclusion gives comfort to those who try to deny or downplay that. "UK is the best at human rights" Really?
It is wrong to say that "the United Kingdom continues to have the best human rights record in Europe". The measure of Strasbourg cases per 10.000 citizens is not suited to support that claim. Rather, it suggests that the domestic system is generally good in upholding human rights law/Convention rights domestically (hence also the good score of Germany). For an assessment of a country's overall record, it is better to look at the UN regular review reports - which are not all that great for the UK.
Some will argue that the Convention needs an update to take account for example of the speed and ease with which people can move around the globe. There may be other aspects where this is so. Do the judges have any sympathy for this view and can they do anything at all to help? An amendment can be very difficult to obtain.
I respectfully agree with Douwe Korf and Graham Child. In particular the “balance sheet” approach to human rights -shall we say?- shortcomings is an implied shrugging off too far, as though those noncompliances identified were- to repeat Norman Lamont’s shabby remark- “a price worth paying.”
All the same what the lead judge observed in the hearing and presence of Dominic Raab was timely and telling.
There is an underlying mischief around where the insistence routinely is that the ECHR and our Human Rights Act only serve to let offenders off the hook and to frustrate the direction of travel of the U.K. government of the day. In fact Act also and equally protects the rights and upholds the expectations of victims.
What as I believe underpins the wish to “revise” it- for which read “abolish, or failing that water it down” - is the executive embarrassment for the government of the day of its being thwarted.
I feel your conclusion (which is repeated in the heading) overstates what can be concluded from the statistics. It is in any case not very useful to create rankings of this sort (which is why when I worked for Amnesty International in the 70s and 80s we steadfastly refused to create "worse" and "best" human rights rankings). There are many serious human rights issues in the UK and your conclusion gives comfort to those who try to deny or downplay that. "UK is the best at human rights" Really?
It is wrong to say that "the United Kingdom continues to have the best human rights record in Europe". The measure of Strasbourg cases per 10.000 citizens is not suited to support that claim. Rather, it suggests that the domestic system is generally good in upholding human rights law/Convention rights domestically (hence also the good score of Germany). For an assessment of a country's overall record, it is better to look at the UN regular review reports - which are not all that great for the UK.
Some will argue that the Convention needs an update to take account for example of the speed and ease with which people can move around the globe. There may be other aspects where this is so. Do the judges have any sympathy for this view and can they do anything at all to help? An amendment can be very difficult to obtain.