Over the weekend we saw an announcement that Teresa May was contemplating leaving the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which was welcomed by a reasonable amount of people.  However I don’t think personally that these people have actually thought about the ramifications of such a move. 

Now I can understand why some people may be a little annoyed at times with the ECtHR, occasionally it throws up decisions that some people don’t like especially when it comes to things like deportation of terrorists and alike. 

However I think this is a knee-jerk reaction, we get a few results which some people disagree with and this has resulted in calls to leave the court.  However if you looked at the UK courts you would see a lot more decisions each year and over time that you disagreed with which have an impact on much more people. But the ECtHR has done a lot more good than the few odd outlying cases that have caused so much anger towards the court. 

Now let’s just for two minutes consider what the implications of such actions would be.  The UK’s Supreme Court is not like any other in the western world, unlike France, Germany, Spain or the USA to name a few, it has no powers to strike down any laws that parliament makes.  Now the ECtHR can’t do this either but a judgment against any Government is in effect very similar and will result in a change to the law. 

So without that safeguard it makes parliament supreme, it means that the elected officials answer to no one there is no checks and balances to prevent them doing what they want with the law.  A government with a large enough majority could rule without any question and pass any laws it wanted to running roughshod over yours and mine rights. 

Now is that really a situation that you want to be in?

Now let’s say the next prime minister after having left the Council of Europe is not to happy with criticism of his actions or his beliefs.  So to stop this happening he introduces an anti-criticism law which makes it a criminal act to criticise publicly and privately the actions of the government and re-introduces strict blasphemy laws. 

Now none of the UK courts can do anything, they have no power to overturn the laws and can only follow them as they are written down.  So you have just had your free speech heavily restricted and there is nothing you can do about it. 

With Human Rights law you would be able to challenge such a law and the courts could find in your favour which could prevent you getting a criminal record.  But without it, you are wishing away your liberty all because you didn’t like how they ruled on a few cases.   Is it really worth risking your liberty because you dislike half a dozen judgments?

While the ECtHR may not be perfect, as no system with humans in can ever be, is it really worth going the nuclear option because of it? As after all the ECtHR has done a lot of good that benefit you more than it has done to harm you. 

For example; Ireland v United Kingdom says the government can’t lock you up without trial, X.,Y. and Z. v. United Kingdom says that families do not have to be related by blood to be considered families under the law.  Lustig-Prean and Beckett v United Kingdom says discriminating against people in employment due to sexual orientation/race/gender and so on is illegal.  Then there was the Spycatcher case which the UK had tried to suppress the memoirs of an ex-MI5 office, that the court stopped.  Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner which involved phone tapping of people by the police. 

The list could go on and on with cases from all 47 member states to show just how beneficial the court has actually been in protecting your rights and liberties as individuals.  Leaving while it may give you some misguided sense of success in the short term will eventually lead to a less free society with less rights and more power in the hands of the government with the ability to take your rights away with even more ease. 

So before you praise this as being a great thing, just please stop and think of the consequences that will come about as a result of it. 

Now if we go back 60 years to the early 1950’s male homosexuality was illegal, and you could find yourself in prison just for following through with your sexual attractions to another man.  However at this time attitudes were starting to change with regards to if this should be a criminal offence.  Then we saw in 1957 the Wolfenden Report  which suggested the decriminalisation of certain sexual acts. 

Which eventually did materialise a decade latter with the Sexual Offences Act 1967; and over the coming decades we have seen major changes in public attitudes to homosexuality.  Now culminating in the current consultation that is looking at how we can grant marriage equality for same sex couples and we have a raft of anti-discrimination law for homosexuals. 

However today I was saw a re-tweet of a link to a news story comparing homosexuality with paedophilia (http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/b4u-act-pedophilia-takes-step-toward-being-considered-212800919.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us).  By a group who want to normalise the attraction of people to children.  Wishing to de-sensitize society to the effects of paedophilia so that some people may consider it normal like we do with homosexuality now.

So naturally I had a look at their website to see how credible this group actually is, and to see if it’s not just a group of paedophiles’ trying to find a way of justifying what they do so that they can eventually campaign for the de-criminalisation of their actions.    However their website doesn’t list names of either the lay people or the medical professionals that are part of this organisation.  So it does raise credibility questions. 

However as a gay woman I find their stance and comparison to the LGBT movement unnerving and very offensive.  As with homosexuality it concerns two consenting adults, who know and understand what they are doing and can rationalise their feelings for each other. 

Whereas does a young child know what is happening and would they want to have sexual relations with a middle aged man?  Now I know some 8 year olds are very bright you occasionally hear of an 8 year old getting a GCSE or an A-level.  But that type of intelligence is not the same as being able to cognitively understand what sex is.  This is why we have an age of consent for sex; as this is the age where people can understand what sex is. 

I don’t think any rational human being would agree that we should let paedophiles have sex with children because they consider it to be a natural thing just like homosexuality.  The problem is not if it is a natural thing or not, but it’s what it is doing.   There are numerous scientific studies that say children that go through sexual abuse can have a multitude of problems in later life.   This on its own should be enough to convince people that to even consider talking about the possibility of doing something with the law on this issue should just not happen. 

This I see as being one of the few things that society will never be able to accept, because of the shear destructive effect that it can have on the lives of the children involved.  It is an abhorrent and egregious act and we shouldn’t be looking at listening to their nonsense we should be looking at ways to strengthen the protective measures in place to stop these people doing it in the first place.  Personally I consider this a crime up there with murder and should upon conviction automatically generate a life sentence, on public protection grounds.