we've been building to this moment through successive conservative prime ministers. from cameron's vote for prisoners tantrum to may threatening to rip up the HRA every time someone exhaled, this has been coming for a while but the framing of it is just so disingenuous [thread]

the human rights act 1998 was a piece of legislation brought in by the blair government to normalise and entrench rights we have enjoyed since september 3rd 1953, when the european convention on human rights came into effect.

the HRA was necessary because we have a dualist system of law which means there are 2 legal systems operating simultaneously - national+ international. national supersedes international bc of doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty so only way to entrench rights is through statute.

in that sense, the framing is right - the HRA does represent the folding in of 'european law' into 'british law' BUT, that doesn't quite do justice to the story of the genesis of the European Convention on Human Rights...

in may 1948, the congress of europe was convened in the hague+ was attended by leaders from across the continent including winston churchill. drawing inspiration from the universal declaration on human rights, the congress declared its desire for 'a charter of human rights' +...

'a court of justice with adequate sanctions to implement the charter'.

this 'charter' was drafted in summer of 1949 at an assembly of over 100 politicians from 12 member states of council of europe.

the assembly was chaired by british lawyer+conservative MP david maxwell-fyfe

maxwell-fyfe was a prosecutor at nuremberg trials (his cross-examination of goring is a mad thing+ u should watch it). he went on to serve as home secretary for churchills 2nd premiership + then lord high chancellor for 8 years. he is credited with drafted much of the convention.

the convention was opened for signature in november 1950 in rome. it came into effect 3rd september, 1953.

the european convention on human rights, as with it's slightly older sibling the UN declaration on HR were born of a direct result of the horrors of WWII.

britain, specifically in this instance - conservative politicians, had a hand in pushing for the creation of a european charter specifically *with* a european court of human rights attached bc the UN declaration was viewed as toothless. convention was directly influenced by UN...

.. declaration, which in turn drew it's inspiration from the allies "four freedoms" which they adopted as their war aims after FDR declared them in 1941 state of the union. these were:

> freedom of speech
> freedom of religion
> freedom from fear
>freedom from want

we can have a row about how much of the convention+ it's framing etc was posturing against stalin another day but it is without question that the european convention on human rights is a profoundly british document in terms of genesis, drafting + implementation.

in that sense, it's domesticisation in the human rights act in 1998 was long overdue.

the HRA was born of the horrors of war+ genocide. it is a sad irony that those who seek to limit the act+ its protections will do so whilst continually invoking the spirit of that war.

the declaration, the convention, the court+ the act are far from perfect. their interpretation and implementation even less so BUT, they are all we have. this latest attempt to remove some of those rights is the most serious yet and we must fight till our dying breath to stop it.

there's an awful lot more to say on this, about other conventions like refugee convention+ about the complexities of dualism, sovereignty + international law (particularly in the context of withdrawal agreement debacle) but for now it's vitally important we contest the narrative

that we know that the removal of a right for one of us is the removal of a right for all of us, and this brazen attempt to undermine basic human rights and decency must be stopped by any means necessary.