For some two thousand years, Europe was the most violent continent on the planet. But in the middle of the 20th Century, this bloodsoaked continent resolved to put an end to the suffering and the cruelty. 

In 1949, the leaders of ten European states came together in London 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, who praised the idea of "a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law".

But today, the party of Churchill has turned against the convention. Justice secretary Dominic RaabA British politician who is currently deputy prime minister, secretary of state for justice and lord chancellor. has announced that it will be replaced in UK law with a new bill of rights.

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 people's human rights.

The bill was announced a week after the government was prevented from deporting seven people to Rwanda as part of its new scheme to process asylum seekers' claims outside the UK. 

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

Now the government wants to prevent any similar legal challenges in the future by limiting the power of the ECHR over UK courts. It argues that 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.. 

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

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

Some think it is a sign that the government is heading down an increasingly 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 effectively 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 and compromise. But here, the government can use its majority to force the changes through in months. Now, critics say it is ironic that a bill intended to restore sovereignty to Parliament is being pushed through with little parliamentary discussion.

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.