I’ve worked in care in one capacity or another since I first volunteered as an unemployed school-leaver in 1981. Over the last 30 odd years I’ve been privileged to see some amazing developments in the way that vulnerable people are treated by society and by the caring professions. I’ve met some incredible, inspiring people and watched in awe as people overcome seemingly insurmountable odds, sometimes as a result of the care they receive and sometimes in spite of it. It’s been and continues to be a fantastic career, witnessing human growth and potential that would have been impossible without this country’s extensive package of human rights protections.
That’s why, some years ago, long before Brexit I wrote this little PDF. It outlines just why I love the European Convention on Human Rights, not just in relation to care services but because of its benefits for society as a whole.
If you’re at all unsure why so many care workers and others fear for our rights post-Brexit please download ‘The convention‘ and see just what the fuss is about.
New seminars and training on human rights coming soon. It’s important for care workers to know what we risk losing. That way they have a chance to help keep our rights.
So many nationalists talk about how great UK is. They cite our history, particularly 20th century history and the post-war society they grew up in. And I agree – for all its faults, post-WW2 UK hasn’t been a bad place to grow up in.
Our emphasis on justice, compassion, tolerance and human rights has created a pretty cool place to live. We have education, health care, protection for workers, unemployed people and the sick and disabled. We have a reasonable justice system without barbarity and access to legal remedy for all. It’s true that recent ideologically driven austerity measures have definitely impacted negatively on most of these advantages. None the less most UK adults today grew up with a working set of rights and safeguards before recent governments began trying to remove them.
What seems odd to me is the way that, whilst extolling our nation’s virtues, these nationalists often want to remove the emphasis on rights, tolerance, representative democracy and justice that made modern UK society so good in the first place.
Why is that? I think it’s probably because they don’t quite get the reality of Human Rights and what they’re in place to achieve. For years now the media and certain politicians have distorted the public’s perception of human rights with a parade of half-truths and downright deceptions.
My solution is to develop a training pack, primarily for care workers but actually relevant across society to help show people what’s at stake as the UK prepares to leave the EU. There is a lot of talk about scrapping our human rights. I think we need to be very, very clear about just what that means – and about what we want to come next. Knowledge is power!
Please get in touch if you have any suggestions for topics to include, FAQs to prepare for or any other questions or comments about this new project.
The European Convention on Human Rights is not, as we have seen, universally popular in Britain. Neither is the UK’s Human Rights Act (1998). Not everyone agrees that these rights should be in place for everyone. Some argue that it is foolish to give the same rights to foreigners or to criminals and many within the current coalition government are vehemently opposed to any European legislation affecting what goes on within these shores.
I first wrote this in June 2011 – sadly government hostility to the ECHR remains just as strong two and a half years later.
From my perspective these arguments are all rooted in what is known as ‘special pleading’. The idea is that some people are somehow ‘special’ or more deserving of rights and consideration than others. As is probably clear by now I see things a little differently – and I hope that you will too.
I believe that history (including some very recent history throughout Europe) has shown us that none of us are really safe from the abuses of those who would exploit or abuse us. The International Court has issued a warrant just this week for the arrest of the Libyan leader ‘Colonel Gadaffi’ on charges of war crimes. Libya, of course is not a European state but the former Yugoslavia was and it’s hard to forget the religiously motivated ethnic cleansing that happened there in recent years.
Less extreme is the way that our current government portrays disabled people (especially those with mental disorders) as ‘benefit scroungers’. The discrimination that seems to be inherent both in the benefits system and the wider job market against people with mental ill health combines to prevent them from finding work and then to penalise and vilify them for their failure to do so.
Hate crime is on the increase in our country, presumably as a reaction to economic austerity (that seems to happen whenever people’s livelihoods are threatened) and intolerance of all kinds seems gradually to be becoming more widespread and socially acceptable. Perhaps now, more than ever before, we need the ECHR to keep the UK ‘on track’ as a civilised country.
The assault on prisoners’ rights and their proposed disenfranchisement (as though losing their liberty wasn’t punishment enough) is worrying, but not so worrying as the increasing calls for a return to capital punishment. There has even been some limited support in this country for an American organisation called ‘Project Prevention’. This ‘charity’ aims to sterilise substance users, as much upon moral and economic grounds as upon any platform of compassion.
It is interesting that Vince Cable MP, a current UK government minister threatened earlier this month that the law prohibiting strike action may be ‘tightened’ to prevent aggrieved workers from taking action to protect their interests. However many argue that without the ability to withdraw their labour workers have no effective means of asserting their rights. It will be interesting to see if workers’ industrial safeguards are removed as Cable threatened and if so whether or not the new restrictions are challenged under article 4.
However that turns out in the future it is already the case that a good deal of our UK employment law is based upon ensuring that working conditions are reasonable and do not become so exploitative that they fall foul of article 4. It is Europe that gave us limits to the amount of overtime we can be forced to work and the national minimum wage (also unpopular with the current government) is based as much on article 4 principles as it is upon anything else. This article, along with article 14 which outlaws discrimination, has also done much to assist minority groups such as women or disabled people to achieve both employment and comparable pay and conditions.
In my own field of health and social care it is amazing how many hard working people are barely able to make ends meet as they exist on minimum wage, regardless of how difficult, exhausting and sometimes dangerous their work may be. Without a strong legal framework to protect them how much more exploitative would their working conditions be? As I write this I’m aware that a private members bill aimed at removing the minimum wage itself has recently been tabled in parliament by a coalition MP.
I don’t know what the future holds for UK but I do know this. Without the ECHR it would be far easier for exploitative and abusive people, especially those in positions of power and authority, to walk roughshod over the rights of citizens who already are struggling to survive in this tough economic climate.
Whatever generalised, unrepresentative illustrations cynical politicians may make about illegal immigrants or ‘loony lefties’ please remember that for most of us – and that almost certainly includes you, the reader – life would be far less secure and a great deal more difficult without the ECHR.
Thankyou for reading this.
Stuart Sorensen (June 2011)
About ‘The Convention’
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here: https://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/amj-freebies-downloads-and-services/
ARTICLE 14 The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
As most people are aware many forms of discrimination are unlawful in British society as they are throughout much of the rest of the world. However the nature of discrimination (what it actually means) isn’t always so clearly understood. The confusion about what is and is not discrimination isn’t helped by the way that certain individuals or groups claim ‘discrimination’ when really they are simply failing to get their own way. A recent example of this involves Father Raniero Cantalamessa, Pope Benedict’s personal preacher who likened the current criticism of the Roman Catholic church to anti-semitism. Cantalamessa claimed that the current outrage at the Catholic church’s failure to protect children from paedophile priests is anti-catholic discrimination.
In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Raniero Cantalamessa
What we see is arguably pro-Catholic discrimination in that the leaders of the church appear to be receiving preferential treatment. If the management of any other organisation had protected paedophiles from the law and knowingly continued to place them in positions of trust with vulnerable children they would be prosecuted. The ‘blind eye’ that the current Pope himself turned in the past would, according to UK law at least, result in prosecution and very probably a lengthy prison sentence. If there is any discrimination at all it is not anti-Catholic. It is pro Catholic.
The desire to protect children from abuse is not discrimination and such claims are merely an attempt to distract attention from the real issue – the repeated abuse of children by paedophile priests in the full knowledge of a hierarchy that was more interested in secrecy than in upholding the law. This would be a problem in any organisation, not just a Catholic one.
Criticising criminals for their abuse is fair comment. The reason for criticism of the church hierarchy is not their Catholicism, it is their criminal behaviour in shielding abusers from justice and continuing, consistently to place paedophiles in positions where they can repeat their abuses of vulnerable children.
We can see then that what does or does not constitute discrimination depends upon relevance.
It would be discriminatory to treat all Catholics, or even all Catholic clergymen as though they were child abusers. This is because Catholicism is not relevant to paedophilia per se. Not all Catholics are paedophiles and not all paedophiles are Catholic.
It is when we make unreasonable distinctions between people that we are guilty of discrimination. For example when we make assumptions about someone based upon characteristics that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. This sort of discrimination, based upon irrelevancies, is what happens when people make judgements based upon skin colour, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, disability, profession or sexual preference.
Skin colour for example has nothing to do with trustworthiness and disability does not invalidate a person’s right to be treated with respect. In both cases, colour and disability, the ‘condition’ is irrelevant to the point under consideration.
However the fact that an individual belongs to a group that is regularly discriminated against does not mean that they can do no wrong. A gay man who assaults his neighbour in a dispute about a garden fence will still be prosecuted. But he will be prosecuted because of the assault. His sexuality is irrelevant. He may claim discrimination on the grounds of his sexuality but his claim will not be taken seriously by the courts because his sexuality is not relevant to the case at hand.
On the other hand a gay couple refused accommodation in a hotel or guest house would be supported under anti-discrimination legislation for exactly the same reason. Their sexuality is not relevant to their right to use services.
Similairly if I, when I was manager of a residential drug rehabilitation unit had to evicted an Asian man because of his use of illicit substances on the premises he could not then have claimed racial discrimination. Actually, anyone who knows me would understand how ludicrous such a claim against me would be but that’s not the point. The eviction would be because of the rules of the service which are applied equally to all service-users regardless of skin colour or racial type. Colour is simply irrelevant and therefore the decision to evict is not discriminatory – it is simply an appropriate response.
The basic ‘rule of thumb’ then for front line workers is to ask if the alleged discrimination is relevant. Is your action the result of the individual’s need or behaviour or is it motivated by the fact that they belong to a particular group.
If it’s because of individual circumstances and would be the same whatever subgroup the person belonged to then it’s probably not discrimination. I say probably not because there is the additional aspect of institutional discrimination that we will consider in a later post. If it’s because of the subgroup they belong to (eg Catholic, gay, disabled, Asian etc) then there’s a good chance you really are discriminating.
As ever ‘relevance’ is the key when deciding whether or not you’re being discriminatory.
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here: https://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/amj-freebies-downloads-and-services/
There is little that needs to be said about article 13. All it really means is that each country must enact laws to ensure that European Convention rights are upheld. If they are not then enacted then aggrieved citizens can take their country to the European Court of Human Rights to sit in judgement in their particular case.
Appealing to Europe is expensive and time-consuming though and so most countries try to ensure that their own, domestic legislation reflects the ECHR. Here in UK that’s what the Human Rights Act 1998 is all about. It includes all the articles of the ECHR except for article 13. That’s because the government believes that article 13 is automatically upheld simply because the Human Rights Act 1998 exists. It provides effective remedy in itself and needs no further discussion.
ARTICLE 13 says:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Human Rights Act 1998 also re-emphasises the duty of all UK courts to interpret the law in a way that is consistent with the ECHR when reaching a judgement. There is a ‘side option’ known as a ‘statement of incompatibility’ which allows the court to say that existing UK law cannot be interpreted in keeping with the ECHR and so pass it back to Parliament to review but this is rarely needed.
About ‘The Convention’
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here: https://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/amj-freebies-downloads-and-services/
We have already established that the European convention is a response to the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and the creation of the Third Reich. What isn’t quite so well known is the way that German ‘National Socialism’ attempted (and in large part succeeded) in preventing people from associating with each other. The idea was that if people couldn’t come together in large enough groups they wouldn’t be able to oppose the Nazi party’s dominance of the country.
On the 27th February 1933 an arson attack on Berlin’s Reichstag (the German equivalent of the UK’s houses of Parliament) was blamed on German Communists. Most people believed at the time that the fire was actually set by the Nazis themselves as an excuse to demonise their most prominent political rivals. It certainly gave them an excuse to outlaw not only the communist party but also any other associations that might threaten their all encompassing control of German society.
On February 28th, the very next day, Hitler passed the ‘Defensive Measures Act’. He told aides that:
“The German people will have no sympathy with lenience. Every communist official will be shot where he is found. The communist deputies must be hanged this night. Everything connected with the communists is to be settled. No more indulgence will be afforded the social democrats or the Reichsbanner.”
Adolf Hitler (February 1933)
“My measures will not be crippled by any judicial thinking. I don’t have to worry about justice! My mission is to destroy and exterminate, nothing more!”Herman Goering (March 1933)
The Defensive Measures Act (1933) restricted:
Personal liberty;
Free expression of opinion;
Assembly and association;
Postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications;
Domestic privacy;
Property ownership.
This opened the door for mass arrest and summary execution of political ‘undesirables’ from communists to liberals, democrats and ‘middle of the road’ political activists of all persuasions.
In direct response to this Article 11 concerns itself with freedom of association and ideology. In combination with other articles (predominantly articles 5, 8, 9 & 10) it protects our right to form associations and to meet and discuss our ideas with others.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. this article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
Since the early days of the Convention the courts have produced a stream of judgements providing guidance in balancing the right of free association with the need to protect society and the rights and freedoms of others. One definite principle is that mere difference of opinion is not likely to be sufficient grounds to prevent association. A recent case involved the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF).
ASLEF vs UK clarified that a union cannot expel a member simply for belonging to a political organisation unless other problems also apply. The case concerned a far right BNP activist belonging to the traditionally left wing ASLEF union. That is because association is not usually anything more than a private affair. It is possible for the law to intervene in associations where there are reasonable grounds to do so based upon past or likely behaviour. It is also possible in the right circumstances for particular groups or associations to be declared illegal per se but again there needs to be good reason. It ought to be more than merely a difference of opinion.
So thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights you and I have the right to meet and discuss our grievances against the prevailing government. We can form pressure groups or political parties and we can even take our grievances out onto the streets so long as we respect the lawful rights of others to go about their business.
Ironically the extreme far right groups most opposed to the convention are the ones benefitting most from it (and the ones most likely to remove it if ever they achieved power themselves). But that’s not such a problem. The Convention affords these groups the right to meet and to demonstrate but it also prevents them from removing that liberty from others. That’s the price we pay for liberty – we have to accept the right of others to oppose (for others) the very liberty they enjoy themselves. As Voltaire allegedly said:
“I disagree with what you have to say, but I will
fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”
About ‘The Convention’
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here:
According to the European Convention on Human Rights…..
1. “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” Stephen Fry on ‘Taking offence’
This has been the source of much misunderstanding, confusion and offence over the years – never more so than today in the United Kingdom of 2011. Fuelled by sensationalist media hype and hatemongering racists playing the ‘freedom of speech’ card many people are far from clear about what article 10 really does and does not say.
One thing that really ought to be made clear from the outset is this:
There is no law that protects people from being offended
In fact the right to express oneself, however offensive others may find your statements is a basic and fundamental right of a democratic state.
Such was the decision of the European court in Strasbourg in the case of Handyside v UK (1976). It is clear in law that the right to express oneself is the ‘default’ and that this right can only be curtailed if the law expressly makes it so. To put that another way…
European citizens can say anything they like unless there’s a specific law against it. To illustrate….
It’s OK to criticize the Bible, however many Christians might be offended by your words. It’s even OK to criticize Christians themselves for advocating such a primitive, discriminatory and barbaric set of rules if that’s what you want to do but it’s not OK to advocate hurting Christians or burning their churches. That’s because advocating harm breaches ‘incitement’ and ‘public order’ laws and also article 9 of the ECHR as previously discussed.
Say what you like – that’s expressing an opinion but don’t imagine that it’s OK to go further and interfere with the rights of other people to live as they choose to.
The reverse of this is that the Christian churchgoers who are protected by Article 10 are also bound by it. That’s why, for example, they find themselves in court for discrimination when they treat gay and lesbian hotel guests differently or attempt to ban women from holding positions of authority among their ranks.
The law may not agree with the tenets of Christianity (try owning slaves on religious grounds or stoning children for playing on a Sunday for example and see what happens) but that doesn’t mean that it will allow anyone to be abused for their belief. Their actions are another thing altogether too.
I’ve intentionally focused upon Christians here to make a point by the way. So far as I know not a single one of my Christian friends would advocate keeping slaves or stoning children. Nor would they advocate eternal damnation for drinking both beer and wine at the same setting and most of them don’t particularly care about other people’s sexuality. But their holy book (the bible) is very clear on these issues and not really very nice about them.
The fact is that it would be ridiculous to condemn all Christians because of a few barely read passages in Leviticus or a throwaway line in one of St. Paul’s epistles. People are much more complicated than that – and on the whole much better. That’s why most (alas not all) Christians I know are genuinely nice people. Consequently it’s OK to criticize the idea of Christianity but not to discriminate against the individuals themselves.
The same, incidentally is true for all religious beliefs. It’s fine to criticise religious ideas – I do it all the time. In fact I just did in the preceding few paragraphs. And guess what – no matter how many people might be offended by that paragraph I have a perfect right to say it. Without the legal right to express our different opinions and views society could never develop, diversity would become narrower and narrower and our nation would revert to the sort of enforced conformity of Puritanism or some fascistic police state.
But we can’t go around stirring up trouble and we can’t be racist because there are specific laws preventing that sort of rabble rousing. Enter the English Defence League.
As regular readers of my blog will know I am no fan of the EDL. On the contrary I consider them to represent the very worst of reactionary and ill-considered bigotry dressed up in a cloak of patriotism that has almost nothing to do with their real purpose. I say ‘almost’ nothing…
What they do demonstrate, at least sometimes, is a genuine concern over the welfare of citizens who may find themselves unfairly judged by religious courts. They’d be more credible if they also opposed Christian and Jewish religious courts instead of focussing purely upon Islam but that’s unlikely to happen. After all their beef isn’t really with Islam – it’s with people who aren’t white skinned. They just use religious extremism as a convenient cover. But let’s apply article 10 to their behaviour and see what we come up with.
Article 10 supports the right of the EDL to protest peacefully and to put their point across.
Article 10 supports the EDL in criticising Islam as well as in debating the relative merits of Islam as opposed to other systems of morality.
Article 10 does not support the EDL in attacking Muslims, in setting fire to Mosques or in inciting violence and civil unrest. That’s why so many EDL members have found themselves in court recently and why so many of them, including their leader, Stephen Yaxley Lennon, have been banned by the courts from attending EDL demonstrations.
Freedom of expression is one thing – attacks against other citizens and blatant discrimination are quite another.
“This means that formalities – including Contract Law as laid down by each member state, conditions, restrictions or penalties may be imposed on the exercise of this right if they are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and are necessary in a democratic society. This latter condition requires the means employed to be necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. The legitimate purposes for which freedom of expression can be limited are set out in Article 10(2)”
An interesting and recent ECtHR case involved a Turkish journalist who criticised Islam but who stopped short of attacking or inciting violence against Muslims themselves. I reproduce the summary (together with weblink) below.
“2. Aydin Tatlav v. Turkey, 2 May 2006 (blasphemy, (not) an abusive attack on a religion or its symbols)
In 1992 Erdoğan Aydin Tatlav, a journalist living in Istanbul, published a five volume book under the title Islamiyet Gerçeği (The Reality of Islam). In the first volume of the book he criticised Islam as a religion legitimising social injuries portraying them as “God’s will”.
Following a complaint at the occasion of the fifth edition of the book in 1996, the journalist was prosecuted for publishing a work designed to defile one of the religions (art. 175 Crim. Code). He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, which was converted into a fine.
Before the ECtHR Tatlav complained that this conviction had been in breach of Article 10 of the Convention, referring to the right of freedom of expression “without interference by public authority”. Essentially, the Court evaluated whether the interference in the applicant’s right could be legitimised for the protection of the morals and the rights of others as “necessary in a democratic society”.
The Court is of the opinion that certain passages of the book contained strong criticism of religion in a social-political context, but that these passages had no insulting tone and neither contained an abusive attack against Muslims or against sacred symbols of Muslim religion (See ECtHR I.A. v. Turkey, 13 September 2005, Iris 2005/10, 3-
4). The Court did not exclude that Muslims could nonetheless feel offended by the caustic commentary on their religion, but this was not considered a sufficient reason to legitimise the criminal conviction of the author of the book. The Court also took account of the fact that although the book had first been published in 1992, no proceedings had been instituted until 1996, when the fifth edition was published. It was only following a complaint by an individual that proceedings had been instituted against the journalist.
With regard the punishment imposed on Tatlav, the Court is of the opinion that a criminal conviction involving, moreover, the risk of a custodial sentence, could have the effect of discouraging authors and editors from publishing opinions about religion that were not conformist and could impede the protection of pluralism, which is indispensable for the healthy development of a democratic society.
Taking into regard all these elements of the case, the Strasbourg Court considers
the interference by the Turkish authorities disproportionate to the aims pursued.
Consequently, the Court holds unanimously that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see also ECtHR Giniewski v. France, 31 January 2006, Iris 2006/4, 2-3)
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here: https://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/amj-freebies-downloads-and-services/
I purposely avoided focussing upon the English Defence League’s antics in the last entry on article 9. That was because ‘The Convention’ series aims to remain relevant for longer than the EDL’s limited lifespan. Let’s face it, like all such paranoid groups they will break up as infighting and internal mistrust takes over. This is already happening and the group probably won’t last for too much longer.
But then I came across this report on today’s EDL rally in Dagenham:
It seems that a limited police presence has given these anti Muslim ‘demonstrators’ a chance, once again to show their true nature. So far 3 Asian youths have been hospitalised and ‘HopeNotHate’ photographers have also been assaulted. This event is continuing as I type. Who knows what the final toll of violence will be by the end of the day.
It may be that the lack of police presence is due to the Islamophobic EDL’s recent decision to exclude police from the planning stage of their demonstrations. This is unlawful in itself and based upon today’s events it’s easy to see why. Peaceful demonstration is one thing. Violent discrimination is quite another!
Update from HopeNotHate blog:
“I’ve just spoken to one of our people on the ground. He confirms that three Asian teenagers were attacked, one seriously enough to require urgent hospital treatment. We do not know how badly this lad was attacked but there was a lot of blood.”
Here’s a photo of the assault itself. Racist EDL mob violence in Dagenham
Members of the EDL, of course, deny that any violence occurred at their ‘peaceful demonstration’.
And here’s an interview given by one of these young Muslim men (from his local hospital’s A&E department) following the EDL mob’s attack: http://bit.ly/mvLlMQ
HopeNotHate blog continues….
“We’ve also received more information about the police operation. It seems that Dagenham police were prepared and had 12 vans waiting for the EDL march as it was to enter their borough. The problem, it seems, was in Redbridge, where the march began. The only police presence was a community support officer on a bicycle and he did not intervene when the three lads were attacked. Apparently the police in Redbridge had no intention of diverting any resources to the EDL demonstration.”
About ‘The Convention’
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here: https://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/amj-freebies-downloads-and-services/
Almost every day the British press runs a story decrying the European Convention on Human rights and article 8, the right to private and family life, is a favourite target. Here’s a classic example from The Mail online.
The main focus of this article is crime and deportation, a small part of article 8’s emphasis. There are many more aspects of the ECHR that the tabloid press could comment on but, not surprisingly article 8 is the one that is attacked most often – at least so far as I can tell. That’s hardly surprising. After all article 8, the right to privacy, is the biggest thorn in their sides. Let’s look at an example or two…
In 2008 Max Mosley, president of the ‘Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile’, challenged the News of The World in the High Court after they published private videos of his involvement in sexual acts. The case which was based upon Mosley’s article 8 rights cost the newspaper £60,000 in damages.
The News of the World has been involved in a series of court cases, investigations and pay-offs since 2006 when the now infamous telephone tapping scandal first broke. Even now, five years later the case still hasn’t gone away and Scotland Yard launched ‘Operation Weeting’ last January to further investigate the phone tapping allegations.
But it’s not only newspapers that fall foul of article 8. In 1978/9 The Metropolitain Police tapped Mr. James Malone’s telephone. He was unaware of this and also the ‘metering’ of his phone which meant a record was kept of every other telephone number he connected to. When this became clear Mr. Malone took his case through the UK courts but the dispute was not resolved and so it was referred to the European Court of Human Rights. The judgement recorded in 1984 went against the police and against UK – not because Mr. Malone should not have been investigated but because there were no adequate safeguards in place to ensure the monitoring was reasonable, proportionate and legal. The result was the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
It is still possible and legal to monitor a person’s communications but since 1985 UK law has demanded that it is only done in keeping with article 8 conditions. To put it another way interference with privacy and family life must be necessary and proportionate (not using a hammer to crack a nut) and intended to:
• protect national security
• protect public safety
• protect the economy
• protect health or morals
• prevent disorder or crime
• protect the rights and freedoms of other people.
A more recent case involving privacy within family life was that of Smith & Grady v UK (1999). These two women were discharged from the British armed forces because of their homosexuality. The European Court did not agree that their private sexuality had anything to do with national security, public safety, the economy, public morals, crime and disorder or the freedoms of others. The court further ruled that any fears and prejudices based upon their presence in the military were both unreasonable and unwarranted. The following years the UK Armed Forces Code of Social conduct was revised to remove such unwarranted prejudice against homosexuality.
Article 8 is a bit bigger than tabloid articles about deportation suggest, isn’t it?
In health and social care article 8 was significant in the Bournewood case (HL vs UK) which led to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Neary case in which the High Court ruled only a few days ago against Hillingdon Council. Family life can include contact with significant others, the right to refuse entry into property, and the right for your confidential communications to stay that way. These rights are serious and cannot be interfered with by anyone without good reason. Funnily enough the European court is unlikely to consider headline gossip about someone’s sex life to be a proportionate way to protect public safety or health, national security, the economy or anything else.
Perhaps that’s why the tabloids focus upon immigration so much – it’s less obvious than attacking the right to privacy directly.
About ‘The Convention’
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here: https://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/amj-freebies-downloads-and-services/
One of the Axis powers’ most memorable practices during WW2 was the use of slave labour. From the Nazi labour camps to the forced labour of Japanese POWs slavery was rife. Many were simply worked to death. This is the background to article 4, the freedom from slavery and servitude.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that slavery has been eradicated in Europe or even here in the UK. What it does mean is that slavery is unlawful and that forcing another person into slavery is a serious criminal offence.
Josef FritzlIt is disturbing though to consider the amount of human trafficking and subsequent sexual slavery that comes to light in and between European states. Stories of ‘baby farms’ where kidnapped girls are impregnated and then robbed of their offspring for sale to childless couples ‘no questions asked’ are chilling and yet common enough that they cannot be ignored. Trafficked women in brothels that seem more like prisons seem to have very limited choices and in many cases can only really be described as sex slaves. Equally disturbing are the occasional examples of kidnapped women spending years or even decades as the unwilling playthings of their captors. Cases such as that of Josef Fritzl who imprisoned and enslaved his daughter, Elisabeth in a cellar for 24 years.
Then we see other, less dramatic but no less serious forms of slavery from migrant workers whose passports are removed to illegal immigrants forced to work long hours for little or no wages and kept in secret, overcrowded accommodation with no real means of escape. Piece workers who receive their meagre wages in cash without the protection of ‘above board’ employment and the benefit of a proper contract in a regulated workplace. These are all forms of slavery and servitude and they are all outlawed by the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided in the case of Siliadin vs France that France (and all other European countries) had an obligation to pass laws making it illegal to keep another person as a slave. As a result several European countries enacted such a law. This, along with other offences such as false imprisonment and manslaughter is why Joseph Fritzl, mentioned above, will spend the rest of his life in prison. Imprisoning, enslaving and raping his daughter was and still is a criminal offence in Austria.
In the United Kingdom subjecting another person or persons to slavery was made a criminal offence in section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009). Better late than never! The offence of holding another person in ‘slavery, servitude or forced, compulsory labour’ is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Article 4 may have started because of the labour camps and ghettos of the second world war but it helps a lot more people in a lot more situations than that.
About ‘The Convention’
This series of posts first appeared on Stuart’s blog in June 2011. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or even particularly authoritative reference guide to the ECHR. Rather it is a brief introduction to a much larger and infinitely more fascinating subject. You can download the entire series in PDF format here: https://stuartsorensen.wordpress.com/amj-freebies-downloads-and-services/
Mind The Care Training 