Arbitrary judgment in whether a given country is ‘safe’ is laughable

🙄🤪🫣😬

Sort of surprising given the NIHRC and Phoenix’s challenge to IMA leading to swathes of it being disapplied.

Would have thought provisions around Articles 3 (?!), 8, withholding of asylum support and the possibility of ‘derefugeeing’ someone and risking refoulement would be eminently challengeable

I have heard before now around Brexit time that the Orange Order were pro remaining in the CoE and adhering to ECHR for this reason ie in terms of freedom of assembly

Fox hunters and big tobacco.

Also noting that litigants using the HRA (which incorporates most of the ECHR into UK law) aren’t the “foreign rapists, murderers & paedophiles of fevered tabloid imagination” but rather “powerful economic interests & social conservatives seeking judicial intervention to frustrate Holyrood” eg AXA,

Vanessa Whyte, Kathryn Parton and Mary Ward were murdered by their partner or former partner.

Violence against women is not a result of immigration. It’s home-grown, home-made endemic misogyny.

Given UK Gov’s shall we say ‘selective’ view of which bits of international human rights treaty law they need to apply, there is quite a degree of brass neck syndrome going on here. 🙄👀

Courts, both domestically and at Strasbourg already interpret the convention as a ‘living instrument’ and already award national governments leeway in taking into account their particular circumstances and the fact that some issues are best left to legislatures.