Why are worst violators put in charge of human rights?
Clarke also revealed he was drawing up plans to reform the European court of human rights in Strasbourg when Britain takes over its chairmanship this autumn.
He has been accused by the Tory right of bowing to the court's judgments, such as allowing the vote to prisoners. But he said supporters of the court were also deeply concerned by its inadequacies. "It is too big. There are 47 judges. It also has tens of thousands of old cases because it does not have the power to get rid of the frivolous ones. It just needs to have some new way of sitting to get rid of this backlog."
The UK has shown itself to be incapable of drawing up plans to fully comply with Hirst v UK (No2) in over 5 years, yet we are supposed to have confidence that the UK is capable of the far larger task of reforming the ECtHR?
Presently, the chairmanship is with Turkey. I wish somebody would explain how it is that Turkey with the second worst human rights abuse record in Europe can chair an organisation dedicated to protecting human rights?
Surely this kind of thing only casts doubts upon the legitimacy of the whole set up? I would like to see the UK denied Chairmanship until it cleans up its image. However, if Europe turns a blind eye towards Turkey's very bad record then the UK's middling to bad record won't raise any eyebrows. Russia has had 10,019 cases where the ECtHR has found human rights violations; Turkey 2245, Ukraine 709 and the UK 271.
The next chairmanship is Ukraine followed by the UK.
Ukraine: 11 May-November 2011
United Kingdom: November 2011-May 2012
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment