RSS Feed
January 25th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
By
Jason Groves
Last updated at 1:22 PM on 25th January 2012
David Cameron will travel to Strasbourg today where he is expected to call for fundamental reform
Europe’s flagship human rights court is in danger of becoming a discredited ‘small claims court’, David Cameron will warn today.
The Prime Minister will travel to Strasbourg to call for fundamental reform of the controversial European Court of Human Rights.
He will declare that the court – once seen as a beacon of Europe’s commitment to human rights – is becoming ‘swamped’ by thousands of vexatious cases.
Mr Cameron warns that the court, which has infuriated ministers by repeatedly interfering in British anti-terror and immigration law, should not ‘undermine its own reputation’ by reversing the decisions of courts in nations such as the UK where human rights are respected.
Britain is seeking to use its six-month presidency of the court to drive through sweeping reforms designed to reverse the flood of frivolous claims made in recent years – and help speed up deportation cases.
UK officials believe the court should focus on serious allegations of human rights abuses in some of the court’s other 46 members, such as Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine.
They pointed out that 97 per cent of cases lodged against the UK have eventually been thrown out as inadmissible.
But, in a sign of the difficulty involved, the head of the court, British judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, yesterday fired a broadside at Mr Cameron over his criticism of the court, which is locked in a dispute with Britain over the right of prisoners to vote in elections.
Sir Nicolas said it was ‘disappointing’ to hear senior British ministers criticising the court for ‘interference’ in the UK’s affairs. He said the criticism was ‘not borne out by the facts’, as the Strasbourg court had only found against the UK in eight cases last year.
Britain is hoping to use its six-month presidency of the European Court of Human Rights (pictured) to deliver the reforms
He accused British ministers of
‘misunderstanding’ the court’s role.
He said it was ‘particularly
unfortunate’ that prisoner voting ‘has been used as the springboard for a
sustained attack on the court and has led to repeated calls for the
granting of powers of Parliament to override judgments of the court
against the UK, and even for the withdrawal of the UK from the (Human
Rights) Convention.’
Government sources pointed out that Sir Nicolas does not have a vote on whether the reforms to the court are approved. However, ministers do need to secure the unanimous approval of the court’s other member states – a process that will require delicate diplomacy and take at least two years to complete.
Mr Cameron will today hit back at the UK’s critics, saying that Britain has been a champion of human rights for centuries.
He will point out it was Britain’s commitment to human rights that ‘led to the abolition of slavery, that drove the battle against tyranny in two World Wars and that inspired Winston Churchill to promise that the end of the “world struggle” would see the “enthronement of human rights”.’
MP Douglas Carswell said it was time the UK ‘quit the jurisdiction of this foreign court’
He says that a commitment to human rights remains ‘both morally right and strategically right’.
But he warns that the exponential growth of the court, which has a backlog of 150,000 cases, has undermined its standing.
He says: ‘The Court should be free to deal with the most serious violations of human rights. It should not be swamped with an endless backlog of cases.’
The Prime Minister also warns that the court needs ‘consistently strong’ judges, rather than the political appointments imposed by some countries.
And he cautions the court against undermining justice in member states by effectively becoming a court of last resort.
He will say: ‘The court should ensure that the right to individual petition counts; it should not act as a small claims court.
And the court should hold us all to account; it should not undermine its own reputation by going over national decisions where it does not need to.
‘For the sake of the 800million people the court serves, we need to reform it so that it is true to its original purpose. ‘
Tory MPs reacted angrily to the intervention from Sir Nicolas. Douglas Carswell said it was now time for Britain to ‘quit the jurisdiction of this foreign court’.
He added: ‘The issue is not whether every ruling by the Human Rights Euro court is right. Rather it is whether this supranational quango has the right to be making these decisions in the first place.’
As a result of the huge backlog of cases, it takes more than two years for an average case to be heard. In cases involving deportation the delay effectively gives people a licence to remain in this country, even though their claims are likely to be rejected.
Russia alone has more than 40,000 cases against it, while Turkey has almost 16,000 and Italy more than 13,000. Britain has some 3,650 outstanding claims against it.
JAMES SLACK’S ANALYSIS
Nicolas Bratza: Not the best qualified
Nicolas Bratza’s arrogant attack on the Prime Minister confirms how the European Court of Human Rights is unwilling or unable to understand the concerns of the British public.
The unelected Sir Nicolas waxes lyrical about how the ECHR has tempered the behaviour of former totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe.
But that is no argument for interfering in the affairs of Britain, which has a long, proud record of respecting human rights and deserves the right to determine its own affairs, under the jurisdiction of some of the finest minds in the world – our own judges.
Normally, the most important decisions in public life are taken by those who are most able and best qualified.
Yet nobody could seriously argue that the 47 judges who sit on the ECHR are of superior quality to our own esteemed Supreme Court or, indeed, the Court of Appeal.
Take the panel which last week overturned a decision by our Law Lords (now the Supreme Court) that Al Qaeda hate preacher Abu Qatada could be deported.
Sir Nicolas, son of a Serbian concert violinist who settled in London after the First World War, has never held senior judicial office in Britain.
Ljiljana Mijovi is a former professor of European human rights in Sarajevo and Montenegro with no senior judicial experience.
David Thór Björgvinsson, a former student of the University of Iceland and Duke University, in North Carolina, was briefly assistant judge in the Reykjavik civil court before returning to the University of Iceland as Professor of Law.
There are more like them.
Even more infuriating will be Sir Nicolas’s remark that the court has had an ‘overwhelmingly positive’ impact on British life.
It’s the direct result of the court’s ruling in a case called Chahal that we are no longer able to balance the danger a terrorist or foreign criminal poses to the UK public with the theoretical threat to their human rights if deported.
No single verdict has caused greater strife for the Home Office or security officials. The problem for Mr Cameron is that the ECHR knows it’s holding all the cards.
The Prime Minister can huff and puff but, ultimately, the judges know Mr Cameron cannot do anything without the approval of his Lib Dem partners, who would never sanction withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Similarly, reforming the ECHR would require co-operation from the other members of its parent body, the Council of Europe. Some are as fed up with Strasbourg’s meddling as we are, but not enough to bring the ECHR to heel.
As Sir Nicolas knowingly remarked, ‘reforming an institution set up by international treaty is a slow and complex process’.
The basic message is reform? Us? Not this decade.
Share this article:
Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have not been moderated.
-
Newest -
Oldest -
Best rated -
Worst rated
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE GENUINE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION: What is the reason for several politicians in the past promising and in/out referendum only to renege once in a position to deliver? Is there a clause someone making this impossible? I am genuinely interested (and concerned) because no-one who has promised a referendum has actually told of the reason why they could not deliver.
Report abuse
Why do they have to rule on every single case the supreme court just doesn’t take up most cases it gets.
Report abuse
You tell ’em Dave, I’m sure they’ll listen to a lightweight like you.
Report abuse
making it illegal to use our laws against us would be a start!
Report abuse
We should do our own thing.We are quite capable of deciding anything,and everything,about human rights.
We have a wonderful record on such things as Human Rights,and should ALWAYS decide,what is right and what is wrong.
Report abuse
More posturing to try and keep the faithful on board, what don’t you understand Dave, about the fact that the majority of British people simply want OUT!
Report abuse
Take it away from the little people they are not worth consideration. Tory ideaology at its most basic. Thankfully the human rights people have seen right through him, mind you there’s not that much to have to see through.
Report abuse
If Cameron really wanted to do something about this he could have us withdraw from the EU and the ECHR, but being as he is a dedicated Bilderberger and pro EU, there is no way he will rock the boat, and will continue to spin and posture all the way and allow the craziness of their laws and rulings from this Court to be imposed on us. Nothing will change, but Cameron will manage to pull the wool as usual.
Report abuse
DAVE,DAVE,DAVE, TALK TO THEM UNTIL YOU ARE BLUE IN THE FACE, ITS AN OLD BOYS CLUB, POLITICIANS MADE IT SO, FOR WHEN THEY GET THROWN OUT OF DEMESTIC POLITICS, ITS A NICE LITTLE EARNER IN THE E.U. A GOLDEN PENSION POT ONE MIGHT SAY !!!!!!
Report abuse
Another Groundhog day. ?
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
