Open letter to Members of Parliament

 Dear All Members of Parliament;

Having listened carefully to the arguments on both sides prior to this Thursday’s debate in the House of Commons I believe it would not be unfair to sum the arguments of Mr Raab, Straw and Davis as follows; ‘Does it matter if we ignore the ECHR? No.’ Alas they have missed a fundamental point.

While they are correct to the extent the UK can technically ignore any compensation order issued by the Strasbourg court without worry of reprisal. They have not considered the moral authority of the United Kingdom in international law and diplomacy.

The European Convention on Human Rights is arguably one of the greatest achievements in recent history. Not to mention one of the greatest British exports, for the convention was drafted by British lawyers and is based on British law and British neo-liberal ideology. 

The convention emerged from the European experience of world war and embodies a commitment to find a way of having a continentally agreed rule of law.  Following a European-wide holocaust of Jews, gypsies and ethnic minorities, countries from across the continent drafted together a list of fundamental rights. They did so in the hope that no such atrocity would ever befall their people again. The convention contains fundamental safeguards like the right to life, preventing states deliberately or recklessly killing its subjects, the right not to be tortured and the right to freedom of expression.

The assumption that we can happily ignore one right handed down by this historic document, while lecturing the world on the remainder is astounding. If we ourselves breach, on what legal authority will we question Russia the next time a pioneering journalist is killed by the state? On what legal authority could we pose questions to Turkey should they once again remove the property rights of Greek-Cypriot refugees? On what legal authority could we question our own government when Parliamentary sovereignty fails to prevent our government from banning homosexuals from serving in the armed forces or detaining suspects without trial or charge?

While I understand that many parliamentarians have reservations about giving prisoners the vote, they should understand that on Thursday night they will stand on the precipice. Regardless of what they think on this issue, our reputation in the international legal world is on the line.

Over 60 years ago our politicians signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights. They realised that while compliance wouldn’t always be easy, the ECHR’s aspiration represented the very best of us. Next Thursday the resolve of the UK Parliament will be tested again; it is my hope that despite Mr Straw, Mr Davis and Mr Raab’s protestations to the contrary our current stock of MPs will realise that compliance with the convention still matters a great deal.

No related posts.

February 7, 2011 · Frances Crook · 3 Comments
Tags: ,  Â· Posted in: Government policy, International, Prisons

3 Responses

  1. Does it matter if we ignore the ECHR? « Civitas - February 8, 2011

    [...] an emphatic open letter, the Director of the Howard League, Frances Crook, calls on all MPs to stand against Thursday’s [...]

  2. mike austin - February 8, 2011

    Regardless of the Strasbourg ruling I believe prisoners should have the vote in order to reconnect them with ‘Society’ from which they both feel and are alienated.
    It need not be a costly exercise since they could be given a postal vote like other voters who are unable to attend a polling station.

  3. Mr. Jogga Singh Teidy - February 11, 2011

    I say, to stick a ruling of any court without testing and for evidence of the rhyme and reason behind it is to subject oneself to abuse and injustice…this is precisley the sort of compliance expected of the UK domestic poplation, when they are wrongly convicted…to respect the and accept the judgment and buck passing when it siuts goverment dept or ministers and decalre the independance of the judiciary…even their standard of rationality based on evidence has to evaluated…their victim or victim of their judgment.

    So the ECHR judges, if these cannot justify their decsion with sound values and make arbitrary decsions because …they are the judges, this onl serves to lock stresses in society, one againt the other.

    The dececsion of the ECHR has no basis of any rationality that serves the convicted nor free society…

    It appeaers to me that it is a gameof oneupmanship than really helping people who have become cauht up in the criminaljustice system…

    I want to see offended helped andex offenders helped, so they become productive memebrs of society…

    voting is a least of the issue to worry about when people are incarserated…and I am sure it is not something they worry about when they comeout of prison.

Leave a Reply