Withdrawal from ECHR critical to protect our physical and financial security says UKIP

Court cases lodged by ISIS, or families of terrorists, risk spiralling into international legal warfare, unless the UK immediately withdraws from the European Court of Human Rights.

In the past week, British taxpayers are being stung for potentially millions of pounds, in lawsuits filed one of soldier Lee Rigby’s murderers, as well as the parents of British-born ISIS terrorist named “Jack”. Jack, who converted to Islam and travelled to the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa in Syria, is thought to have been captured by Kurdish militia during 2017.

Richard Bingley, UKIP Spokesperson for Terrorism and Cyber Security said:

“It is documented in ISIS terror training guides that a major way to sap the morale of their enemy (i.e. us) is to exploit and choke-up our legal system.

“From their point of view, these tactics cost us lots of money and police time. But also, more vitally, they are designed to drag on for years, and deteriorate our confidence and resolve.

The longer uncertainty lasts, the more human beings tend to over-analyse and destroy something. It’s classic psychological warfare. They know it. Our military and intelligence agencies know it.

“Our government should reject any attempt to accommodate ISIS terrorists, or their supporting infrastructure, within our British legal system.

“This is something our MPs can fix. But the problem worsens when these individuals lose cases and can successfully apply to the ECHR, which has a keen track-record of backing compensation claims by terrorists and their families. We need to withdraw from ECHR, for our own physical and financial security.”


  1. Withdraw from ECHR Now. I do not want my Hard earned Tax Payments to be going to Islamic Terrorists or their Families. Can those FOOLS in Brussels not see what is happening here. No More. No Excuses NAZI Despots of Brussels !!!!

  2. We need to fundamentally reappraise the globalist project. There is a logic to regulatory agreements (for instance in trade) but there is not when we provide rights to non-citizens at the expense of citizens.

    The 1951 UN Charter on Refugees for instance. Whilst this charter allowed only those in Europe sanctuary (i.e. our responsibility was a wider orbit around our own backyard and would have covered Yugoslavia) the 1967 protocol that extended it globally has had a particularly negative effect.

    Tony Abbott discussed this in 2013. It’s time other politicians (and think tanks) debated how we can extricate ourselves with the least political damage.

    Stating the desire is not the same as outlining its feasibility, a criticism that might be levelled at this piece on the ECHR.

Leave a Reply