Took part in an interesting Chatham House rule discussion this morning covering both the legal/policy substance and the public politics of the European Convention on Human Rights. I contributed on why many people have uncertain and cross-pressured views, outside two solid defend/oppose groups - ThreadSky

sundersays.bsky.social • 13 days ago

Took part in an interesting Chatham House rule discussion this morning covering both the legal/policy substance and the public politics of the European Convention on Human Rights. I contributed on why many people have uncertain and cross-pressured views, outside two solid defend/oppose groups

Comments

pollik.bsky.social•12 days ago

The issue of leading or loaded questions has long be known, but it is good to have it demonstrated.

hughmannwright.bsky.social•13 days ago

📌

hughmannwright.bsky.social•13 days ago

Excellent example.

martinstarkie.bsky.social•12 days ago

This is awful. "Not support for leaving"??? This means support for remaining. If there's a simpler way to say a thing, use it. But then on the neutral question, support for leaving is 20, support for staying in is 48. So this is PLUS 28 support remaining. So whence the negative??? Explain someone.

davidtee.bsky.social•12 days ago

https://youtu.be/6GSKwf4AIlI?si=QAF-HmhpnEsT3Eri

sundersays.bsky.social•13 days ago

People don't know much about what "reform" means, and it could mean many different types of approach. The underlying attitudes are that 3/10 are staying in, whether or not any reforms, and 1/5 are for leaving in all circumstances.

sundersays.bsky.social•12 days ago

The latent debate about the ECHR often gets animated by a specific dominant issue - such as prisoners voting (2005: settled in 2017 by v limited national reform); Abu Qatada (2012 judgment blocked deportation; he was deported in 2013). Issues of immigration, asylum, removals are a current focus.

nathanielgraham.bsky.social•12 days ago

I suppose it depends if people believe what they’re told. For example, that it prevents s deporting terrorists, rapists and other serious criminals. In fact it’s very difficult to resist deportation even if you’ve lived here for a long time or virtually your whole life or have close family ties.

sundersays.bsky.social•12 days ago

Case for UK quitting ECHR usually has these premises
1. ECHR & its interpretation prevents from UK govt doing something important + reasonable in the national interest on key issues.
2. It won't be possible to fix the issue without leaving the ECHR
3. These gains of leaving outweigh any downsides

sundersays.bsky.social•12 days ago

Few of those 3 premises seem to me to be met in the case of immigration/asylum
> What policy it is that the UK could pursue outside ECHR that it cannot now, while inside it?
> There are significant costs of leaving, to the UK on this issue

sundersays.bsky.social•12 days ago

There are two different levels of debate for/against ECHR.

One level is substance.
- what did or didn't happen in case X or Y
- how wide are implications of Article 8 for some kinds of case: terrorism, crime, asylum deportations
- what types of response are available to govts about such cases?

sundersays.bsky.social•12 days ago

The substantive debate matters for future policy and law. It will inform whether/how govts legislate (eg to seek to restrict scope), how MPs/peers respond. It will feature in select committee scrutiny & claims and counterclaims will be debated & contested in varied broadcast, print & online outlets

carlgardner.bsky.social•12 days ago

I think there’s so much public misunderstanding and confusion about this. For example I think a lot of people got the impression the courts had said Abu Qatada couldn’t be deported at all, and that his eventual deportation was somehow in defiance of Strasbourg.

carlgardner.bsky.social•12 days ago

It’s so much about what politicians and media choose to make a fuss of, too. I think Hirst really was a bad judgment but S & Marper not long after was just as bad, or nearly. But it happened to suit the Tory opposition at that time so it’s never cited as problematic by politicians or media.

drjoewills.bsky.social•12 days ago

@edbatesechr.bsky.social

fiona-the-celt.bsky.social•13 days ago

Fascinating example: Thankyou for sharing

garethaethwy.bsky.social•12 days ago

Sir Humphrey gave Bernard a brilliant lesson in the use of leading questions, and how their use can lead to abuse.
It’s one of my favourite scenes.

mashley.bsky.social•12 days ago

Interesting example, thanks. I wonder whether you'd also see an effect from swapping the word order in the neutral question

"should the UK withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or stay in it" vs "should the UK stay in the European Convention on Human Rights, or withdraw from it"

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply