Whose Rights Are They Anyway

GRASSMONSTER SAYS:

“Whose Rights Are They Anyway?”
By @grassmonster

It would be quaint, almost charming, to believe that treaties signed in the wake of global catastrophe remain untouched by politics. That when the UK affixed its name to the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951, it was carving noble principle into constitutional granite. But, as we now know, granite can be reshaped by the chisel of convenience.

Last week, in a speech that carried the weight of quiet escalation, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood stood before her European counterparts and declared that the UK will seek reform of the Convention. Not scrap it – reform it. But as anyone with a long memory and a short fuse knows, the road from reform to rupture is often paved with footnotes and foot-dragging.

The heart of this debate, like a moral pacemaker, pulses around one key artery: deportation. More specifically, the rights of individuals – often convicted or alleged criminals – to avoid removal from the UK based on Article 8 of the Convention: the right to family and private life. Judges have, at times, blocked deportations of violent offenders citing a cat’s presence in the home, or a child enrolled in a local school. It may sound farcical, but these cases are real. And they have not sat well with successive Home Secretaries, nor much of the public.

For years, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has issued judgments that, while not binding, carry the psychological weight of parental scolding. And the British government – not unlike a truculent teenager – has grown tired of being told what to do in its own house.

The push to “reform” the Convention is part legal recalibration, part political performance. The current government, knowing full well that ripping up the whole agreement would cause diplomatic indigestion and possibly legal heartburn, has opted for what it calls “targeted clarification.” In plain English: stop blocking deportations, stop interfering with Parliament’s sovereignty, and let Britain decide how far it’s willing to extend dignity.

But here lies the peril. Rights, once selectively negotiated, cease to be rights at all. They become permissions – issued on the basis of political mood, not moral law.

Shabana Mahmood insists this is about restoring balance. Others fear it’s about tipping scales. Either way, the reformist tone is unmistakable. For those watching from Strasbourg, it is the sound of a partner who has started sleeping on the sofa.

This is not yet Brexit 2.0 – not yet an exit from the ECHR. But it smells vaguely of it. Reform becomes retreat. Sovereignty becomes isolation. And before long, rights once fought for in the ashes of war are bartered in the fog of electioneering.

There will be applause from the usual corners. And there will be warnings from the usual quarters. But for the rest of us, the question remains unsettling and simple: when the state decides who deserves a right, who decides whether the state still deserves power?

@grassmonster

#ECHR #HumanRights #UKLaw #DeportationDebate #ShabanaMahmood #SovereigntyOrSilence #GrassmonsterSays