The oft-repeated mantra that departure from the European Convention on Human Rights would put the UK on a par with Belarus and Russia is misconceived and should not be part of serious debate, senior political and legal figures argue today. Former lord chancellor Jack Straw and Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption are among the contributors to Against Cheap Rhetoric, a publication from conservative thinktank Policy Exchange.
In his foreword, Jack Straw, a Labour lord chancellor from 2007-2010, says fellow supporters of ECHR membership 'must do better than trot out the tired, indeed nonsensical, argument that if we were to leave we would be in the same "club" as Belarus or Russia. It’s a "Here be dragons” argument, devoid of serious meaning'. Straw notes that Belarus was refused membership of the Council of Europe and Russia was expelled because of their 'lamentable' human rights records. 'Voluntarily leaving the ECHR is quite a different matter,' he writes.
Lord Sumption, who favours withdrawal, attacks 'cheap rhetorical slogans'. Russia and Belarus lack independent courts and any meaningful opposition to the government. 'None of these things are true of Britain, nor is there any reason to suppose that they ever will be. He concludes: 'Let us hope that from now on we will hear no more of these tired clichés from any respectable source.'
Policy Exchange, founded in 2002, describes itself as an 'independent, non-partisan educational charity'. It does not identify its sources of funding.
In the latest report, authors Conor Casey, Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws note that people deploying the 'Belarus and Russia club' argument include attorney general Lord Hermer and home secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Liberal Democrats' leader Sir Ed Davey. However they say comparisons between the UK and Russia or Belarus 'collapse on the slightest analysis, which may be part of the reason why politicians never develop the comparison'. If the UK leaves the ECHR, it will be to make sure democratic politics (which we have and which Belarus and Russia do not) has an important and bigger role to play in making decisions about human rights.'
A more realistic comparison, the authors argue, is with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, 'three well-governed common law states that protect human rights and the rule of law without being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.'
The report concludes: 'There are serious arguments to be had about the merits of the UK's membership of the ECHR. The spectre of being "in company with" Belarus or Russia is not one of them.'
2 Readers' comments