Now why would cameron want to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights? See below and Kitty’s excellent, thoughtful article.
Article 2 of the Convention on Human Rights uses the following definitions of genocide, amongst others:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
The right to life contained in Article 2:
Prohibits the State from intentionally killing;
and requires an effective and proper investigation into all deaths caused by the State.
There you have it.
Government policies are expressed political intentions, regarding how our society is organised and governed. They have calculated socio-economic aims and consequences. None of the policies that this government have formulated regarding the “support and care” of the most vulnerable citizens could be seen as anything other than expressions of intended harm.
Unintended consequences may arise from implementing policies, however, governments usually evaluate the merit, worth and consequences of policies, using criteria governed by a set of standards for evaluating, after implementation, and before implementation by carrying out a cumulative impact assessment. There has been neither a review nor a cumulative assessment of the welfare “reforms” carried out by the government to date. (The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) submitted a report with several recommendations for a cumulative impact assessment of welfare reform, which were recently rejected by Lord Freud, in a letter, on behalf of the government).
View original post 2,492 more words