Thursday, July 18, 2024
HomeBrexit WatchDo we need a referendum to free us from the lunacy of...

Do we need a referendum to free us from the lunacy of the human rights court?


PATRICK Christys, standing in for Dan Wooton on Wednesday evening, devoted the first half of his GB News show to the Government’s Rwanda plan for asylum seekers – currently thwarted by arbitrary intervention of (the non EU) European Court of Human Rights to which Britain remains a participant. 

He set the scene for an honest and open debate about the sheer lunacy of the situation. 

Here we have a court, established 70 years ago when human rights meant something very different to today’s concept of universal entitlement – an unaccountable foreign institution that operates by questionable standards (a report two years ago from the European Centre for Law and Justice revealed a disturbing connection between the ECHR and those involved in cases before it) – hindering the due process of law in our sovereign state.  

I was given the unenviable task of arguing for a referendum on exiting the court. Of course, we should simply withdraw from it unilaterally. However, in the absence of our wonderful government having the strength of purpose to do that, there is a case for pressing for a national poll.   

As with Brexit, it would for the first time ensure that ALL sides of the argument were presented. By that I mean the broadcast media would be duty bound to field those making the case for leaving. That process would expose how exactly how this court (with the help of UK human rights lawyers and and non-governmental organisations) have been undermining our rule of law for years, have hindered deportations, and are sustaining and living off, so to speak, a circular people-trafficking and humans rights ‘industry’, which leaves this country unable to address criminality.  

A referendum would also free people to express their views without being ‘shamed’ into silence or painted as inhumane, bigoted or racist by the woke BBC and virtue-signalling elites who support the court while remaining unaffected by the ramifications of its interference.  

My fellow debaters were Shoaib M Khan, a human rights lawyer who astonishingly didn’t think people should be allowed to debate this at all, and the delightful Mayar Tousi, who describes himself as a ‘Political YouTuber’ for free speech, free markets and free people – who seems to have his head very firmly screwed on.

The bottom line is that ever evolving human rights culture and industry is – and has been for a considerable time now – an active threat to the rule of law in Britain and without which the Government would not have had to resort to the Rwanda plan. You can watch the show here. 

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.