European Court Demands UK Respond to Remainers’ Election Interference Claim

The European Court of Human Rights has demanded the UK government to respond to a legal claim made by Ben Bradshaw, Caroline Lucas and Alyn Smith over alleged Russian interference in elections. Yes, they’re still banging on about this…

Having fallen flat on their faces in the High Court in 2021 alongside Carole Cadwalladr – the judge ruled the case was “unarguable” and threw it out – the three MPs have now turned to Strasbourg to explain away why Remain lost in 2016. They’d previously claimed Boris had “unlawfully failed to act compatibly with his public law duties in refusing to establish a public inquiry” on the issue, and insist the government has now breached its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg now say the government has until the end of April to respond…

The ECHR did add that this request doesn’t yet mean the case has been found admissible. A Downing Street spokesperson said “I would point out this claim has been roundly rejected by UK courts.” Not that that’ll ever placate the likes of Caroline Lucas…

 

mdi-timer 20 January 2023 @ 10:09 20 Jan 2023 @ 10:09 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Gullis, Boris, Priti, Rees-Mogg and Nadine Launch Anti-ECHR Putsch

Ex-minister Jonathan Gullis will today launch a counter-offensive against the ECHR, in an attempt to begin flights to Rwanda immediately. A Ten Minute Rule Bill will be presented to the Commons by Gullis today, and is backed by a cadre of senior Conservatives, including:

  • Boris Johnson
  • Priti Patel
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg
  • Nadine Dorries
  • Mark Francois
  • Andrea Jenkyns
  • Pauline Latham
  • Tim Loughton
  • Ben Bradley
  • Lia Nici
  • Mark Jenkinson

The Bill, if passed, would permit the Government to ignore the European Court’s blocking of deportation flights, allowing them to resume immediately. Gullis shrewdly draws comparisons to David Davis’s successful battle against the ECHR to ban prisoner voting, which the court had ruled was a breach of human rights. 

While a Ten Minute Rule Bill would usually be of no consequence, Politico Playbook hears the Bill may be opposed by opposition members, meaning a tricky vote lies ahead for the Government.

When pressed yesterday by Simon Clarke whether he’d move against the ECHR should his latest small boats policy fail, Rishi sheepishly dodged the question. Now the party bigwigs are moving to do just that. Popcorn at the ready…

mdi-timer 14 December 2022 @ 09:14 14 Dec 2022 @ 09:14 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Owen Paterson Suing Government in Court He Campaigned to Leave

Owen Paterson – remember him? – is suing the government over Parliament’s ruling that he broke lobbying rules last year. He claims the probe into his actions broke his “right to privacy“, and that the revelations “damaged his good reputation”… according to the European Convention of Human Rights. Yes, he’s suing the government in the ECHR…

This will probably come as a surprise to Paterson’s learned friends in Strasbourg. Here’s what he had to say about the ECHR in 2014:

“Much of the problematical immigration into this country stems not just from the EU but from the European Court of Human Rights. This is exacerbated by the rulings of judges in the court at Strasbourg and by our own UK courts implementing the Human Rights Act. Repeal of the HRA and adoption of a new Bill of Rights, breaking free from the ECHR, would also relieve us of migrant pressure…”

The same court from which Paterson called the UK to “break free” is now the last line of defence for his “good reputation“. Best of luck…

mdi-timer 22 November 2022 @ 16:19 22 Nov 2022 @ 16:19 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
ECHR: Defaming Prophet Muhammad Beyond “Permissible Limits” of “Objective Debate”

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that defaming the Prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate”, upholding an earlier conviction by an Austrian court on the grounds it “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria”.

The ECHR found that a 47-year-old woman from Vienna had not had her right to freedom of expression impinged and added that domestic courts had been correct to convict her for “disparaging religious doctrines” as her comments “could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace”.

According to the ECHR, the woman held two seminars in 2009 “in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year-old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad ‘liked to do it with children’ and ‘… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?'”

The Austrian court found that “by making the statements the applicant had suggested that Muhammad was not a worthy subject of worship”. The ECHR has now agreed that this is a crime which trumps a person’s right to free speech. On the same day that Ireland is finally voting to take blasphemy laws out of its constitution, the ECHR seems determined to put them back in…

mdi-timer 26 October 2018 @ 11:12 26 Oct 2018 @ 11:12 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Leavers Can Challenge £9 Million Leaflet In Euro Courts

banks elliot

The Venice Commission, of which the UK is a full member, was established by the Council of Europe to ensure European countries protect the “Principles of Europe’s electoral heritage”. Their Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters has previously been used by the European Court of Human Rights to settle legal disputes – including challenging the ban on prisoner voting.

Millionaire Brexit backer Arron Banks and Vote Leave’s head Matthew Elliot should pay particular attention to paragraph 111 of the Code, which states the following:

“in the field of public funding of parties or campaigns the principle of equality of opportunity applies”

The referendum would here be defined as a “campaign”, which must achieve “equality of opportunity” when it comes to public funding. However, Leavers really have the government bang to rights with the later Code of Good Practice on Referendums. The 24 page document provides specific guidelines for European states looking to hold referendums, including very firm rules on public funding:

“the public authorities (national, regional and local) must not influence the outcome of the vote by excessive, one-sided campaigning. The use of public funds by the authorities for campaigning purposes must be prohibited.”

That’s section 3, subsection 3.1, paragraph b telling governments that the use of public funds must be specifically ruled out to ensure the “Freedom of voters to form an opinion”Banks and Elliot can take their case to the European Court of Human Rights here

mdi-timer 8 April 2016 @ 12:00 8 Apr 2016 @ 12:00 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments