Europe was once the most violent continent. In the middle of the 20th Century, this bloodsoaked continent resolved to put an end to the suffering. 

In 1949, the leaders of ten European states came together to form the Council of EuropeAn international organisation made up of 46 states in and around Europe. It covers a population of approximately 675 million people. It has been criticised for admitting human rights-abusing states like Azerbaijan., dedicated to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

They drafted the European Convention on Human RightsAn international convention to protect rights and freedoms in Europe. It was written in 1950 and entered into force in 1953., a charter of individual rights that would bind all of its members, and established the European Court of Human RightsA highly-regarded international court set up to defend the Convention. (ECHR) to enforce its rules.

One of the most enthusiastic supporters of this new convention was British prime minister Winston Churchill.

Now, justice secretary Dominic RaabA British politician who is currently deputy prime minister, secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor. has announced the convention will be replaced.

Under the bill, it will become harder to bring human rights cases against the UK government. It will water down the government's responsibility to protect human rights.

The bill was announced a week after the government was prevented from deporting seven people to RwandaA country in the centre of Africa. At least 500,000 people were killed in the appalling genocide of 1994.. 

The seven were saved by a ruling by the ECHR. The court raised concerns about conditions for asylum-seekers in Rwanda, and determined they should not be deported until the policy had been fully scrutinised in the courts.

Now the government wants to prevent any similar legal challenges in the future by limiting the power of the ECHR. It argues courts can currently interpret laws in ways never intended by legislators. The new bill, it says, is necessary to ensure the sovereignty of parliamentA central principle in UK law is that the parliament is the supreme authority with the power to create or end any law. Its laws cannot be overruled by the courts, and any other lawmaking body exists only at its pleasure.. 

Some human rights groups and legal professionals think the new legislation is misguided. They point out that rulings from the ECHR are not binding in UK courts.

They claim the bill will decriminalise a whole swathe of human rights abuses. Claimants hoping to appeal against a ruling on human rights grounds will have to get past a "permission stage" showing they have suffered a "significant disadvantage" just to get their claim heard.

Some think it is a sign the government is heading down an authoritarianEnforcing strict obedience to authority. path. They point out that because the convention is enshrined in UK law through the Human Rights ActA law of 1998 that enshrines the ECHR in UK legislation., the government is seeking to change the UK's uncodified constitutionA kind of constitution that is made up of many individual pieces of legislation, rather than one single document..

In most countries, this is a process that would require years of discussion. But here, the government can use its majority to force the changes through.

Yes: This new legislation gives the government unprecedented power to trample on the rights and liberties of both its citizens and the world's most vulnerable people.

No: The elected government must be able to govern without running into red tape and legal obstacles. The UK has a strong human rights tradition that will be adequate to protect our freedoms.

Or... The substance of the bill is not really what matters. It is the fact that the government is trying to force it through without any scrutiny. We should be very worried by this autocraticRelating to a ruler with total power. turn in British politics.