Amongst many Canadians, a popular response to the shootings in Ottawa that claimed the life of Nathan Cirillo earlier this week has been: “This doesn’t happen here… This is Canada.” And that’s true enough. Political violence of the sort we witnessed this week rarely touches Canadian lives. Ottawa is one of those curiously apolitically political cities – a place where the majority of the workforce works directly or indirectly for the government but a community where global politics rarely penetrates every day life. But the Ottawa shootings should bring into relief the need for the Canadian government and Canadians at large to look themselves in the mirror and ask a simple yet tough question: why did this happen?
The easiest answer, and one that has already been proffered by a host of observers, is that a single, crazed lunatic who hated Canadian values went on…
You are the country of my birth, my youth and that beacon in my heart that reminds me that another way is possible where our individual and collective voices trumped violence and terror. Alas, our voices are now momentarily silent from the shock that has followed from the targeting of our soldiers on home soil. Our hearts have taken a blow as we consider the implications that the events in Québec and Ottawa have for our unique multicultural democracy.
As noted by MPs whilst locked down in the Parliament speaking to the world’s press, ‘ours is an open society that is welcoming for all’. There were no barriers preventing these individuals from storming Parliament Hill because that is not the Canada we want – one where our politicians and institutions reside behind fortified ramparts, only accessible after multiple security checkpoints. One Canadian journalist even stated that there is weekly yoga open to the public on the lawn out front.
We should remember that the casualties of these attacks have been two soldiers at home.
Our collective sorrow at the presence of political violence in Canada is understandable. I had grown up thinking of our soldiers as wearing the blue berets of peacekeepers. I enjoyed the positive reputation that the country of my birth afforded me when travelling elsewhere in the world. Having moved to the United Kingdom, I still get a prompt apology when an incorrect assumption is made based on my distinctly non-British accent. (To be fair, I always say there is no reason to apologise. I’m from Toronto. As Alec Baldwin quipped in 30 Rock: “It’s like New York, without all the stuff.”)
FLQ and the October Crisis of 1970
But this is not the first time that Canada has borne witness to such acts on home soil. In 1970, during the FLQ October Crisis, terrorists (I won’t even acknowledge their agenda for separatism – it is an insult to those separatists in Québec who act peacefully as one should in a just democracy) kidnapped a British diplomat (James Cross) and killed a Québec Provincial Minister (Pierre Laporte), and also set off almost a hundred explosive devices during their campaign. Ultimately, James Cross was released in exchange for safe passage to Cuba for the kidnappers. However, in order to deal with the crisis, the War Measures Act was invoked, suspending habeus corpus, and the military was deployed in Québec and Ottawa to re-establish order. This crisis was where Prime Minister Pierre E Trudeau famously stated: “Just watch me” in response to a question of how far he would be willing to go to deal with the matter.
During that crisis, Warrant Officer Class II Walter Leja of 3 Field Engineer Regiment was gravely injured whilst attempting to disarm an FLQ mailbox bomb. He was later awarded the George Medal by Queen Elizabeth II. A watchman, Wilfred O’Neill, was killed when another bomb went off at a Canadian Army recruitment office in Montréal.
The legacy of this crisis was such that violent political extremism was condemned as repugnant and unnecessary, and as testament future separatist efforts were pursued under the rule of law by peaceful means.
Oka: A Breakdown of Relations with First Nations
In 1990, following encroachment upon lands subject to claims by the Mohawk Nation and an attempt by Québec Police (Sûreté du Québec) to dismantle a barricade around that land, a stand-off ensued between the Canadian Military and the paramilitary arm of the First Nations, the Warriors. In a famous image from the tense events, a Native Warrior stood face-to-face with a Canadian soldier in an effort to provoke violence. Here is the CBC evening news report on that day:
What makes this distinct from the FLQ, and what gives pause to labelling the events as ‘terrorism’ is difficult relationship that has endured between the Government of Canada and the First Nations. Under the original alliances with the British Crown, the First Nations were recognised as ‘friends of the Crown’, as opposed to subjects – the status of non-native Canadians.
A colleague of mine who served in the Canadian Forces at the time was deployed to Oka. Conversing with him on the matter, he stated that it was the most difficult mission he had ever undertaken. Given that he was also deployed in the first Gulf War, I asked how this engagement differed. His answer was as stark as it was to the point: “When I looked down sight of my rifle, I realised I was aiming at a fellow Canadian. I’m not sure I could’ve shot.”
Sadly, during the initial police intervention, SQ Corporal Marcel Lemay was struck and killed by gunfire. The stand-off lasted 78 days, with the Mohawks and the military commander Lieutenant-Colonel Robin Gagnon (Royal 22e Régiment) negotiating for a peace. It should also be noted the intervention of the Mohawk women who intervened and ordered the Warriors to de-escalate tensions. However, this crisis formed the basis for further tensions in other parts of Canada with First Nations peoples. Much is yet to be resolved.
Post-9/11: Responding to the ‘War on Terror’
The events of 11 September 2001 in the United States prompted Canada to reorient our military efforts to support the American-led and ISAF/NATO operations in Afghanistan. Putting Canada ‘on a war footing’, Canadian military forces entered Afghanistan in late 2001, with the initial insertion conducted by the elite Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2).
On 17 April 2002, four soldiers from 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (‘PPCLI’) were killed, and eight wounded, following a friendly-fire bombing by an American F-16 mistaking the Canadian’s live-fire training operation for a Taliban assault (the Tarnak Farm incident). These casualties were the first for Canadian Forces since the Korean War.
In another tragic first, on 17 May 2006 Canada suffered its first female servicemember’s fatality, when PPCLI Captain Nichola Goddard’s armoured vehicle was struck by RPGs.
The toll on our soldiers from the Afghan conflict was extreme. According to currently available reports, 158 soldiers were killed and 1,859 were injured or wounded. The Canadian public attitude towards the war shifted from supportive (from 2001-2005, only 1 in 5 Canadians opposed the war) to opposition (by 2010, 56% were opposed to the mission in Afghanistan). However, throughout the conflict, the dissent was mostly directed towards the political decisions and not targeted towards Forces personnel.
On 15 March 2014, the last Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan returned home.
On Monday (2014.10.20), two soldiers walking in a parking lot outside a veteran’s support centre were run down by a car driven by a 25-year-old man who was known to police for radical ideology and sympathies for the terrorist group ISIL/ISIS/Islamic State. 53-year-old Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent succumbed to the injuries he sustained in the attack. The other soldier is still in hospital. The perpetrator also died of injuries sustained when he was shot by Québec Police attempting to apprehend him.
Then, earlier today (2014.10.22), a gunman approached the National War Memorial in Ottawa and opened fire on the honour guard protecting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Despite medical interventions by civilian by-standers, Corporal Nathan Cirillo died of his gunshot injuries.
The gunman proceeded towards the Canadian Parliament buildings, entering inside and reportedly firing more than thirty times. The Sergeant-at-Arms (typically a ceremonial post) for the Parliament, Kevin Vickers, intercepted and killed the perpetrator just outside the rooms where Canadian MPs were holding their caucuses. Reports have suggested that the federal police (RCMP) and Canadian Army are still looking for multiple suspects believed to be involved. Most of the capital was subject to lockdown until 2025hrs EST. Parliament Hill remains closed to the public.
The subtitle of this post is ‘A Eulogy for Innocence’. The innocence I speak of is that which all Canadians have in relation to our self-image as a tolerant nation inclusive of all that transcends the problems elsewhere in the world. This innocence is, unfortunately, one of youthful naivety. Canadians are today, perhaps more than at any other time, now realising that not everybody else in the world thinks fondly of our Northern paradise. Furthermore, we also must come to realise that our servicemembers experience real peril when we send them out on deployment. While these professionals carry the Maple Leaf on their shoulders, they represent the best of us: compassionate in the face of tragedy, defiant in the face of tyranny, and resolutely heroic in the face of danger. The True North Strong and Free.
When they come home, however, Canada should be the one corner of the earth where we all share in these values. They should not find themselves facing the possibility that their fellow citizens may pose a danger to their lives.
Living in south-east London, I was very close to where Fusilier Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered on the streets of Woolwich outside the Royal Artillery Barracks. The deranged acts of his killers were a result of similar radicalisation as had occurred with the attacker on Monday. (The gunman in Ottawa has not, at time of publication, been identified by authorities as having shared in radical ideology.) And it is further lamentable to consider that here in the UK, soldiers on home soil have had to be on guard against numerous threats in the past, including from the IRA. To see so many soldiers in uniform in public during the 2012 Olympic Games was disconcerting at first, but they did a wonderful job of securing the venues and providing assistance where needed.
Nonetheless, I think that any person serving their country should never have to hide that identity for fear of retribution whilst at home. But pragmatic security concerns have made it so. After all, rhetoric will be of little comfort to their family if practical measures could have saved a soldier’s life.
What makes me sad is that these measures that I have grown accustomed to here in Britain could possibly be necessary back in Canada now. The barriers outside Westminster Palace (British Parliament) and the security just to enter will need to be considered for Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Self-protection measures for soldiers in uniform in Canada will have to be developed in order to keep them safe when amongst the public.
But saddest of all for me is that after today’s horrific tragedy, is that my military friend’s psychological dilemma of even pointing his rifle at a fellow Canadian may no longer be a justifiable concern. When citizens take advantage of their mutual goodwill towards each other to commit heinous acts of violence, suspicion may be the legacy that lingers longest amongst us.
I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong.
UPDATE (2014.10.26): It is too early to consider how this week’s events could alter the national conversation that most Canadians know we must have in order to go forward from this tragedy. However, I wish to point out that I have never heard a more patriotic and emotionally-rousing performance of the National Anthem prior to any Hockey Night in Canada. Click here: Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal unite for stirring Canadian anthem (Courtesy NHL)
It seems that the recent advances by UKIP and the perception of instability within the Conservative Party over membership in the EU and its effect on Westminster’s control over immigration is becoming a source of embarrassment for the United Kingdom. The EU as an institution (in this instance the final-month-as-Commission President José Manuel Barroso), as well as other EU Member States are becoming curiouser and curiouser as to the British position regarding the free movement of people. And what they have to say, in the absence of any firm proposals to them, is that attempts to arbitrarialy limit free movement are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the EU, and that Prime Minister David Cameron should not expect a positive reaction if we suggest that the UK could renegotiate an ‘opt-out’ (or ’emergency brake’ as has been reported) from this principle.
However, I am torn between two truths here.
Firstly, the speculation and posturing by the the majority partner of the UK coalition Government over renegotiation with Brussels has often been led by the Conservative’s fear of their own UKIP shadow. What’s worse is that, somehow (and I suspect this is due to an unfortunate-yet-chronic transient identity crisis) Labour has been drawn into entertaining similar Brexit referendum mania out of concern of losing support in the next General Election in May 2015. The Liberal Democrats have been the only party to firmly state their position that they would remain in the EU if installed into Downing Street next spring – though I’d hazard the supposition that DPM Nick Clegg thinks his chances of such success are as likely as that other dream he has where he solves the Middle East Crisis before lunch and then wins Euromillions. Bless.
If I have to reiterate UKIP’s position on the EU, you may wish to take the opportunity to check yourself for a pulse. (I’ll wait…)
Assuming you haven’t just realised your membership in the ‘choir invisible’, the only thing I’d speculate about UKIP is that, if flabbergastingly they were to become the UK Government, I doubt they would hold a referendum on Britain being in or out of Europe. They would likely unilaterally turn in Britain’s EU membership card and clear out our lockers in Brussels, and then have the cheek to suggest that we’d still like access to the common market facilities without financial or social obligations.
In addressing the matter at Chatham House, Barroso stated that while he dismisses the likelihood of an arbitrary exemption for the UK on immigration, that all the member states of the EU have concerns with regard to benefits-abuse related migration, and constructive dialogue on this issue would likely find sympathy throughout Europe.
And this is the central point of the first truth: The political narrative in the UK has become so distorted by the influence of UKIP from the fringe – and yes, they remain on the fringe even with an MP – that the ability of more reasonable political forces to pursue proper policies with more reasonable expectations of success. Put simply: UKIP has perverted UK-EU relations to the point where the Government and the Opposition must appear to negotiate by impossible ultimatums, rather than act responsibly within our international legal obligations and through consensus-building dialogue with our EU allies. This path will not deliver the reform that all Member States desire. It will not usher the UK into an EU-unfettered era of isolationist glory. It will not endear our British reputation to future international partners that our commitments are fleeting. Most importantly, it falsely provides the British public with the idea the only thing that comes from EU membership is inward migrants increasing pressure on a limited job market, contrary to the truth that the benefits of EU membership are legion and offset the price of that membership.
Furthermore, Farage was able to suggest that this is another instance of the EU dictating terms to the UK – a complete distortion of the reality that in fact the current obligations for Britain towards the EU are based on the UK’s sovereign decision to undertake those terms when it ratified the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. But that is what Farage has always been effective at: distortion bordering on outright lies. It was the cornerstone of the majority of his claims during the ill-conceived EU debate between himself and Nick Clegg. (Despite anybody who has even a passing understanding of the facts, Farage’s delivery and charisma managed to convince the general public that he came out on top in that instance.)
But what irks me about Barroso’s intervention is just that – it was a foreign intervention in what amounts to a domestic matter. But George! Isn’t it appropriate for the EU to respond?! No, or not yet at least. Barroso acknowledges that no proposal to limit immigration from Europe has been transmitted to Brussels from the UK. Legally speaking, the EU has not been invited by the UK to consider the matter as yet, let alone respond directly outside diplomatic channels. Speculating about the UK position when you are still (for another month) the EU Commission President is, at best, poorly timed. Had Barroso waited until after his impending retirement to make comment as a private citizen, the political fallout for the Conservatives would have been limited. But as Commission President, Barroso represents the institution of the EU in an official capacity.
So why, if Barroso’s statements are true, is it bad for an official from the EU to interfere with the UK?
Firstly, all the Member States of the EU remain sovereign, even if they have agreed to undertake obligations within the international organisation (‘IO’). The EU, as an international body, is constrained to operate within the principles of applicable international law – specifically in this instance the prevention of interference from an IO in matters that are essentially under domestic jurisdiction. At the United Nations, this principle is enshrined in Article 2(7) of the Charter. Furthermore, under diplomatic law, Article 41(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations imposes upon persons enjoying diplomatic privileges “a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of [the British] State”. References to customary diplomatic privileges appear in the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the Lisbon Treaty. Barroso, in the absence of formal proposals or communiqués from the British legation to Brussels, is essentially interfering in a purely domestic political issue in the UK – similar to his intervention with regard to the Scottish Referendum. In both these instances, the veracity of his statements in no way vindicate the violation of domestic sovereignty.
Secondly – and worse – is that Barroso’s interference adds fuel to the UKIP fire. The narrative from their party now will use these statements to underscore a manufactured perception that the Prime Minister and his party are supposedly lying to the electorate and ineffectual at asserting the British State’s rights internationally. This is completely false, but nonetheless effective and fitting with the UKIP ideological ‘Canada’ strategy. Disturbingly however is the notable lack of any of our British politicians having the confidence to mirror Barroso’s statements from within the UK. It would seem that the political strategists in the Labour and Conservative parties strongly feel that countering the message delivered by Farage and UKIP would not resonate with the public and might lose them the election. Talk about squeaky wheels…
Therefore, I propose a solution to my dilemma of two truths.
If UKIP has got this level of influence out of being the squeaky wheel on the EU, those of us who believe the opposite – that EU membership is fundamentally in the interest of Britain – should make our position known in sufficient numbers that incumbent and prospective politicians seeking our vote understand that we could do with an antidote to all this UKIP madness.
I say hold the referendum. To echo the Prime Minister, I am at heart a democrat. I accept the defects that come with such adherence to principle, and in this context accept that there is a risk that a majority may decide to take the UK out of the European Union. I hope that this is not the case, and I would contribute as I might to ensuring that the public had access to knowledge allowing them to decide the matter informatively.
However, hold the referendum now. Before the next General Election. On exactly the terms of the Lisbon Treaty as they stand today. Putting negotiations on the table under threat of departure is hardly the mature or enlightened persona that should accompany our nation’s relations with partner states. If reform is preferred, then remove the threat of departure, and allow the United Kingdom to take the lead in partnership with the other EU nations to examine the real concerns within the organisation. But we should abandon the idea that we can fundamentally gut the foundations unilaterally and still enjoy a positive relationship.
Rather than being unreasonable, let us be reasonable. Rather than collapsing into isolationist insanity, let us aspire to building cooperation. Rather than demanding the impossible, let us be the torch-bearer of real progress in Europe.
You can’t always get what you want… …but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.
Lyric Credit: You Can’t Always Get What You Want (Jagger/Richards) from Let It Bleed (1969)
Waking up to the dawn of new Conservative Party plans to scrap the European Convention on Human Rights for the UK was both disturbingly incoherent and troubling in implications. Likely a response to the party-political challenge posed by UKIP towards the Tories, it seems that Europe is a source of headache within a party that seems to be schizophrenic in its approach. While espousing the strength and leadership of the UK, Tories – in the same breath – suggest that where the UK must abide by rules it helped bring into existence is antithetical to ‘British democracy’.
Hogwash. But let me tell you why…
International Law: Pacta Sunt Servanda
One of the jus cogens (non-derogable) rules in international law is Pacta Sunt Servanda – all treaties are binding. (This rule can be found in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 26) In essence, where a state signs up to a treaty it is held that the state intends to abide by the terms in good faith. While the VCLT acknowledges principles whereby treaties can be terminated or suspended (Arts 54-64), threatening both the ECHR and the EU to withdraw unless concessions are made after the UK has entered into such obligations is antithetical to the principles that treaties are binding.
What goes beyond the pale is the consistent statements from the Tories that somehow the UK can withdraw from those aspects that it deems unattractive yet continue to reap benefits from such institutions that it publicly (and possibly privately) denounces. On the implications of ECHR, the Tories are suggesting that a concession (or reform in their parlance) will be made allowing the UK to ignore rulings from the Strasbourg Court, effectively only making a court an ‘advisory body’. It is notable that this is not what the European Convention set out (and was agreed upon by the UK). Article 46(1) states: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”
For this ‘reform’ to take place, all signatories (‘High Contracting Parties’) would have to agree to modification of this Article. How could this be? If the ECtHR (the Court) is perceived as advisory only, then can it possibly be that human rights in the UK and elsewhere in Europe truly have a judicial means of enforcement? No, this would amount to a gutting of any teeth that human rights have developed since their inception in the wake of World War Two. Furthermore, in 2013 the ECtHR rendered 916 judgments, with only 13 judgments (1.4% of the total cases) involving the UK. Of those 13 cases, 8 judgments found at least one violation by the UK of a Convention right. It should be remembered as well that ECHR rights apply only between an individual and the state (vertical effect), not between individuals alone (horizontal effect).
Of note to a possible withdrawal from ECHR by the UK, such an action would be incompatible with our membership in the Council of Europe (it is a requirement), and likely to be ineffectual in the EU (given that ECHR rights are incorporated almost verbatim by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights). Isolation of our little island appears to be the policy of the Conservative Party.
So, it appears that the Tories’ approach to ECHR is to declare that because in the case of eight people who’s rights were found to be violated, international protections afforded all 63+ million British citizens should be abandoned, and so few negative consequences under an international treaty are sufficient for the British state to act in a manner inconsistent with its good faith obligations under international law. The caveat that saves the British reputation at this point is that this is not draft legislation, so at present cannot be construed as representing official state policy or law. Once we cross that line however, we may find international reactions to be significant and legion.
Domestic Law: The Human Rights Act 1998 – The UK’s domestic efforts to enforce rights
Further to deriding the ECHR, the Tories have also suggested tearing up the Human Rights Act of 1998 (‘HRA’) which came under the Blair Labour government. This document is vital for domestic enforcement of human rights, and stands as the primary reason for why there are so few interventions from Strasbourg over UK jurisprudence. Without this legislation, the UK courts would be powerless to enforce human rights, meaning that any violations would have to go to Strasbourg, a scenario that would significantly increase the likelihood of ECtHR interventions. However, in the event of UK withdrawal from ECHR as well, this would mean that there would effectively be no human rights in the UK.
Let me repeat that. Tearing up the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from ECHR means that, as a British citizen, you would have NO human rights.
Such a consequence gives me pause.
However, the Tories have suggested that it would be ‘democratically correct’ that the Parliament of the UK should be the ultimate arbiter as to what rights are afforded to its citizens. Cue the sounds of the masses shouting ‘Hurrah’ for British Democracy, politicians being elected ‘to protect democracy’ from the threat of human rights, and the sounds of gavels falling ordering those horrible criminal foreigners being sent home. This would cure all our ails, and the rails of HS2 will be made of gold.
I think not.
Firstly, human rights are a shield, not a sword. My colleagues know that I am pragmatic and realist in my attitude to human rights’ role in the rule of law, but I have never ever suggested that they do not occupy a very important part of the fairness and just nature of our society. Human rights cannot threaten democracy. Human rights are not accomplices after the fact to criminal actions. Human rights are the baseline measure of how a country treats its people. Human rights enhance our ability as citizens to engage with our nation’s democracy with confidence. And most importantly, human rights universally apply to us all.
Where human rights laws have challenged policies on counterterrorism, immigration or welfare, it is those policies that should be reformed, not the human rights that prevent abuse of individuals by the state. Certainly, the operation of human rights do not pose existential threats to any democracy.
Human rights, in reality, typify the ability of minorities to avoid persecutions by a majority – akin to the difference between a real democracy and a dictatorship. These rights should be controversial. They should, from time to time, create a paradox whereby the easy road is made unavailable in dealing with difficult situations. Human rights forces us as a society to address the complexity and consequences of state actions without sacrificing those elements that make a country worth living in in the first place.
The HRA only being passed in 1998 is shocking to me. While certainly not the only means of rights enforcement before that point, most British people must traverse the breadth of the domestic legal order before seeking redress in Strasbourg. Often referred to as a ‘foreign human rights court’, I’d support the idea of moving the seat of the court to somewhere in the UK just to negate such disingenuous statements. But that the seat is external of the UK should compound the tragedy that in even 8 cases, justice could not be meted out here at home.
What is being suggested is that the HRA and ECHR should be replaced with a ‘British Bill of Rights’.
Firstly, how simple a people are we where such pandering could gain traction? Just because a document contains ‘British’ in its title does not translate to superior content. Arguably, the current content of the ECHR is limited in domestic scope by the HRA – not all of its provisions have been given direct effect in British courts. What more would be removed from these minimal rights to make them acceptable to the ranks of the Tory part who are petrified of their UKIP shadow?
Secondly, a ‘Bill of Rights’ already exists in the American constitution (they are the first 10 amendments). Very few of those amendments parallel the current human rights regime in Europe. (The Second Amendment – the right to bear arms – is not a right that I would wish for the UK.) Invoking the name ‘Bill of Rights’ also suggests an enhanced constitutional status of those ‘British rights’. Unfortunately, most citizens in the UK do not realise that such constitutional protections do not exist here. All that is necessary to alter laws that are constitutional in nature is a majority vote in the Commons, a process made that much easier with a majority election win by a single party. Hence the attachment of this human rights review to the desire for a Tory majority in May 2015. This is how the original HRA was passed under a Labour win in 1997. However, HRA incorporated already-existing rights laws from an international treaty and did not seek to ‘re-write’ those human rights. The model of the HRA was taken from the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, part of the Constitution Act of 1982 in Canada. Again, in Canada, under Article 38(1), changes to human rights require (a) resolutions passing in the Senate and the House of the Federal government, and (b) passage in two-thirds of the provincial legislatures where the population of those provinces is more than 50% of the Canadian population. Changing human rights in the Great White North is not a process undertaken lightly.
In the UK, there are no provisions that protect our constitutional laws from being tinkered with by any single political party which gains a majority – disturbing when you consider that in voter turnouts of barely 65% since 2001, a majority in Parliament could result from less than a third of the electorate supporting that party. That such a case may significantly impact legal protections and enforcement of human rights is doubly disturbing.
And that is where the nub of the domestic conversation lies: human rights without a means of enforcement against the government/state are meaningless. They are relegated to the pages of academia, and have no value for the people they are meant to protect. Whatever the Tory iteration of this ‘British Bill of Rights’, it will be borne of political frustration as opposed to any real criticisms of the ECHR regime. And worse, this rewrite is likely to contain less rights with less enforcement where ‘Parliament’ (read ‘Government’) has final say as to whether they have violated your rights. Considering that one of the principles of the rule of law is that no one can sit in judgment of their own case, I heavily suggest that this is what the Tories’ plan for human rights will ultimately endeavour to accomplish. But then again, how can they violate your human rights if they have effectively taken them away from you?
Selling out human rights because the UK state was caught out a handful of times would be laughable if it weren’t so fundamentally frightening. It’s time here in Britain that we stop acting like a petulant toddler refusing to play nicely with others. We need to stop threatening to become international delinquents if we don’t get our way. We should focus on adapting to the changing geopolitical challenges before us, and working within our international legal obligations, as opposed to constantly suggesting that the UK be treated exceptionally from all other nations. Pining for our history (as is espoused by UKIP) increasingly seems to come at a cost for our future. The empire is dead and buried (as it should be), but our best days may still lie ahead.