Report comment

Oh dear. Ekins banging on again about the supposed "conceit" that the ECHR is a "living instrument"., as though the idea was something arbitrarily dreamed up by power-crazed judges.
The idea is an entirely sensible one - much of what was acceptable in 1950 would not be acceptable today. And it is not a new one - see the speech of Lord Sankey in 1929 in which he famously declared of the Canadian constitution that “The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits…”
Opinions may differ as to where the “natural limits” mentioned by Lord Sankey should actually lie. If Ekins confined his argument to a suggestion that the living instrument principle had gone beyond its natural limits, rather than an attack on the principle as a whole, there might be some merit in what he says.
I shall not be holding my breath.