Wednesday 10 December is International Human Rights Day. It’s “a day meant to reaffirm dignity and protection for all”, according to Amnesty International UK.
But it’s also the day of a Council of Europe summit. Deputy Prime Minister, Justice Secretary and perpetual disappointment David Lammy is representing the UK.
And he’ll be taking a message that sounds very much at odds with the spirit of Human Rights Day. Because he’ll apparently be suggesting that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was “never intended to be frozen in time“.
Human rights, up to a point
According to reports, UK ministers want to reinterpret or restrict protections under Article 3 of the ECHR. This prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
They also want to change Article 8, covering the right to family life. These proposals would narrow protections for people fleeing war, persecution or serious harm. Even though Article 3 is absolute, without ambiguity, exception or compromise.
Amnesty said that on an anniversary recalling the founding spirit of universal dignity, it would be a profound betrayal if the government used this moment to retreat from fundamental human rights protections.
How far the UK has fallen
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme Director, said:
There is a dreadful irony in our Justice Secretary working with his counterparts to remove or reduce rights on the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It shows how far we have drifted from the moral resolve of the last century, when our grandparents determined that the fact we are all born free and equal must be protected in law.
Human rights were never meant to be optional or reserved for comfortable and secure times. They were designed to be a compass, our conscience, when the politics of fear and division try to steer us wrong.
To weaken ECHR protections now, on a day meant to reaffirm dignity and protection for all, is not reform. It is moral retreat.
You cannot protect the majority’s rights by attacking the rights of minorities. That is the opposite of universal human rights.
Appeasement of anti-rights demands has never satisfied those who want full withdrawal from the ECHR. It only encourages them to push further.
The very idea that Mr Lammy might soften our commitment to those fleeing war and danger, simply because times are politically difficult, should shame us all.
International human rights treaties are promises. As was clear when they were first made, when times are hardest it is most vital these promises are kept.
Amnesty warns that undermining Article 3 and Article 8 protections will not fix asylum pressures. Instead it will create a two tier system in which some families and lives are treated as disposable.
It adds that the government’s recent asylum plans indicate a shift toward weakening human rights for those most in need. These include restricting refugee status and reducing protections for families and people at risk of destitution.
Not what the public wants
Polling commissioned by Amnesty International UK shows strong opposition to any weakening of the ECHR:
48% of UK adults say the UK should remain part of the ECHR, while only 26% support withdrawal. This is a near 2 to 1 margin in favour of staying.
87% agree rights and laws must apply equally to everyone, rejecting selective or politically motivated restrictions.
78% believe rights should be permanent, not something a government can reduce.
These findings show that, despite political pressure, the public remains committed to universal and binding human rights protections. The public doesn’t want temporary concessions or politically convenient reinterpretations.
Amnesty is urging the UK government and all participating states to reaffirm, not rewrite, what human rights stand for. Weakening these protections would betray decades of human rights leadership, endanger lives and cast a long-lasting moral shadow over the UK’s commitment to justice and dignity.
Featured image via the Canary
By The Canary
From Canary via This RSS Feed.