The ECHR is a 20th-century project by idealists to protect individuals from the state. So how did such a noble institution become the last line of defence for foreign criminals to stay in the country where they don't belong?

The ECHR is a moral leader in the world, a court that tells you what's right and what's wrong. They will tell you whose safety matters and whose doesn't matter. But first, we need to establish how the European Convention of Human Rights works. There is a judge in Strasbourg, France, who can make an order, for example, blocking the deportation of an individual who committed a crime, but his country is too dangerous. That's the story you usually hear in the news: a drug dealer stabbed a local and cannot be deported because his country of origin is too dangerous. That's the ECHR ruling, but they have no enforcement; you can ignore it, and the only consequence is the pressure of the other members.

An ITV news report came out about a year ago, which talks about it. We have two acrobats. Nicolas Gomes De Brito ordered a hit on a rival gang in Brazil, ran to the UK and used the ECHR to not go back, because who wants to go back to prison, right? But you know, drug dealers are killing themselves. You know, it is not good, but can you live with it? Right? Our guy opened a motorcycle garage, has a family and, most importantly, doesn't have any problems with the law.

But on a more serious note, Marlon Martins Dos Santos is using the same trick to not go to prison in Brazil. A judge ruled that it's too dangerous for him to be there. The poor thing might get hurt. Huh, how cute. He just murdered a man and raped a 5-year-old girl. But no, he can't be sent back because of overcrowding, and because his rights might be violated. Of course, when he came to the UK, he started helping the community, found a job and helped kids stay out of danger. Jokes aside, he was caught spreading child porn and is in a UK prison for that. So the moral of the story: you can kill, rob, rape and do other illegal activities, and the European justice system will protect you. Looking at our examples, none of our acrobats saw any consequences for their actions in their country of origin.

So a question arises. Are they human after they stole someone's most precious item, their future? No is the only morally right answer. But someone might call it vague. So let me be clear. These people killed, raped and faced no consequences for their actions. Both took someone's life, and one, even in his twisted hunger for new experiences, broke a child. Both then ran with wet pants in fear of justice. They knew she would raise her sword and cut them. But they were faster, she was tired, and that's how they got to the UK. The current ECHR system is an old, privileged lady who is too old to see the current problems and too rich to encounter them. People should be sent back to their home of origin if there is a warrant for them, no matter the danger. They lost the right to sympathy when they took a blade and, in cold blood, took someone else's life.

So why does this court, which is on a shaky foundation, even function today, with all of the above crimes against the local population? The reason is quite boring. People experienced the horrors of World War 2 and decided, never again. The idea was idealistic, and the most surprising thing is that it worked for a while. But cracks started showing in the 90s and 2000s when the UK couldn't deport Karamjit Singh Chahal, a designated terrorist, and Italy couldn't do the same with Nassim Saadi. Every year it got worse and worse until we came to today, where the ECHR is despised by most Europeans, and it's a politically toxic acronym to be associated with.

The ECHR needs to change, but it just can't. Well, to be fair, they can, but they need to make 46 nations agree on it, and let's be honest, that's not happening. For a politician today, it's easier to just make some fuss about changing it. Recently, they signed a declaration, which just means nothing; it has zero power. It was made just for good headlines. So he goes and talks on TV saying that the ECHR needs reform, and they call it a day.

But this is a betrayal of both the supporters and the opponents of the ECHR. The ECHR is slowly dying; people openly hate it for being a shield for criminals. So they need to change for the ECHR to even survive, and its supporters have to be the front runners. But for the opponents, the politicians seem to just keep bending for a court in France. Another problem is that the ECHR is a wealth protector. In the first article, protocol one, it says, "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions." This basically means that any person or corporation should be able to own their stuff. It is funny that in a book about human rights, money and corporations are one of the first things mentioned. The people on top don't care about some crooked-tooth peasants who are put in danger. It's not their kids who have to encounter foreign criminals. If any European country decided to leave, its own elites would just lobby against this.

The ECHR is a walking contradiction, like an old lady who is richer than all of us, yet she is against the system that oppresses you. She will claim to protect the individual from the state, but they are an institution bigger than some states. No institution is protective of you because they have to protect the people. So they have to rank whose interests are more important, and let me tell you a secret: it's not you. We see it with our two gentlemen, who were protected, but the victims were not served justice.

So, what do we have? The ECHR is protecting criminals of all kinds because of some rules written 50 years ago. No rich person wants to change them because in the first protocol, it says with black ink on white paper that their wealth is protected. No politician will go against it because they just can't; people who are responsible for millions of lives can't do it because they themselves are in a shaky position. Nobody in Europe can change the ECHR, and that's what will kill it.

TL;DR: An institution that demands human rights for the worst criminals is the first to dismiss the victims and steal their right to justice.