A Kangaroo Court By Another Name — The European Court Of Human Rights

The Siren Temptation Of Joining The ‘Just Like Hitler Chorus’

A Kangaroo Court By Another Name — The European Court Of Human Rights

 

FRANK FUREDI

The ‘they are just like the Nazis’ crowd of scaremongers has just been joined by a very distinguished member of Britain’s oligarchy. No less a figure than Lord Hermer who serves as Attorney General in the UK’s Labour Government has decided to occupy the moral low ground and compare his political opponents to Hitler’s Nazi Germany!

He informed his audience that both Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and Kemi Badenoch’s Toris were complicit in promoting Nazi ideology. So, what is their Nazi sin? Apparently, Farage and Badenoch are guilty of Nazism because they have argued for withdrawing Britain from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)[i].

Hermer who appears to believe that the judiciary – national and international – should be able to override the decisions taken by elected representatives of the people has a special love for the ECHR. Why? Because he believes that international courts ought to have greater power than national parliaments.

But how does Lord Hermer justify the use of the Nazi epithet against opponents of the ECHR? He argues that the threat to withdraw Britain from the ECHR echoes Nazi ideology because it privileges the law of the nation at the expense of an international one. Hermer stated that Farage and Badenoch’s behaviour reminds of him of 1930s German jurists who rejected ‘the constraints of international law in favour of raw power’. Hermer compared this approach to that of the Pro Nazi jurist, Carl Schmitt who apparently asserted that ‘state power is all that counts, not law’[ii].

As it happens opponents of the ECHR are not motivated by an obsession with state power but with the affirmation of the primacy of the laws passed by the nation’s democratically elected parliament. Nor are opponents of the ECHR inspired by the motive of waging rules against international institutions and laws. Their hostility is a response to the constant use of the ECHR for bypassing Britain’s elected decision makers. Since its inception the ECHR has serves as a medium for arriving at judgments that run counter the wishes the British Parliament.

For example, for over 12 years there was a standoff between the ECHR and Parliament over whether or not prisoners had the right to vote[iii]. In the end a compromise was reached and only a small number of prisoners in British jail were given the right to vote. But the question is what business did a court based in Strasbourg have to dictate that prisoners in Britain should be able to vote in the first place?

The ECHR has played a key role in preventing the British Government from deporting illegal migrants from this country. All that an illegal migrant has to do is mention ‘my human rights’ and the ECHR will step in to defend this individual’s rights. There have been numerous cases of illegal migrants and foreign criminals whose deportation was halted because they cited Article 8 of the ECHR. Thanks to the ECHR an Albanian criminal avoided deportation because of his son’s aversion to foreign chicken nuggets. A Pakistani paedophile who was jailed for child sex offences but escaped removal from the UK as it would be “unduly harsh” on his own children[iv].

Opponents of the ECHR have no interest in increasing the naked power of the state. Their goal is to defend their nation from the Court’s constant intervention in domestic affairs. The human-rights movement supporting the ECHR regard the exercise of national sovereignty and of democracy with suspicion. They do not trust the people and their representatives to exercise their power responsibly and regard international courts as the body that should have the final say about the resolution of tricky domestic issues. Their outlook is underpinned by a globalist, cosmopolitan sensibility that believes that a group of international judges and experts who are detached from their nation states should be the final arbiters on matters facing society.

As it happens the ECHR is not in the business of promoting and enforcing justice. The ECHR is a political entity masquerading as an even-handed ]]court, However the people who inhabit the ECHR possess clear globalist commitments and are instinctively hostile to any manifestation of national sovereignty.

Just recently the leaders of nine member states of the EU wrote to the Council of Europe to complain about the politicisation of the ECHR[v]. In an open letter launched a few days ago by the Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen and her Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni, the European heads of government question whether the court, in some cases, has extended the scope of the [human rights] convention too far as compared with the original intentions behind the convention, thus shifting the balance between the interests which should be protected’. These leaders are deeply concerned that this Court has made it difficult for them to deal with illegal migration.

Despite the diplomatic tone of this letter it is evident that they are moving dangerously close to a territory that in Hermer’s eyes bears a close resemblance to Nazi Germany.

As I write these lines, I am told that Hermer has just apologized for the ‘clumsy remarks’ he made about comparing his opponents to 1930s Nazis[vi]. His apology and its tone further highlight the moral illiteracy of Britain’s Attorney-General. Branding someone with the Nazi label is a serious matter and one would imagine that a senior politician would reflect at length before using such a slur against an opponent. There was nothing clumsy about Hermer’s pre-meditated attempt to demonize his political opponents. It is evident that his apology smacks of hypocrisy and bad faith. Once we accept that calling someone a Nazi is merely a ‘clumsy’ turn of phrase we end up validating the hysterical scaremongering that is so widely practiced by globalist oligarch’s.

Ridding society of the power and influence of the ECHR is an objective well worth fighting for. It is a Kangaroo Court serving the interest of the bitter opponents of national sovereignty.

[i] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/29/quit-echr-like-rise-of-nazism-starmer-lord-hermer/

[ii] Cited in https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lord-hermers-nazi-jibe-at-reform-wont-work/

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/council-of-europe-accepts-uk-compromise-on-prisoner-voting-rights

[iv] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/14/migrants-echr-deportation-cooper-starmer-labour-europe/

[v]

[vi]    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/30/lord-hermer-regret-nazi-jibe-attorney-general/

---

This article (The Siren Temptation Of Joining The ‘Just Like Hitler Chorus’) was created and published by Frank Furedi and is republished here under “Fair Use”

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.