I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win
Discussion
Getragdogleg said:
I am quite glad we are leaving the EU, it means that ordinary people have a chance to influence the decision makers, either by voting them in/out or actually talking to their MP and making sure their points and concerns are listened to.
Unlike life within the EU which was typically "Here is a rule, do it" with zero chance of getting rid of bad legislation or tailoring it to suit any implementation problems that are encountered.
All the people who wanted to remain should now use their angry energy to make sure the Brexit deal we get is the best one and to make sure that from now on our political classes can hear us loud and clear and not hide behind the excuse of "the EU told us to do it".
What's the connection between your post and the subject of this thread?Unlike life within the EU which was typically "Here is a rule, do it" with zero chance of getting rid of bad legislation or tailoring it to suit any implementation problems that are encountered.
All the people who wanted to remain should now use their angry energy to make sure the Brexit deal we get is the best one and to make sure that from now on our political classes can hear us loud and clear and not hide behind the excuse of "the EU told us to do it".
rscott said:
Getragdogleg said:
I am quite glad we are leaving the EU, it means that ordinary people have a chance to influence the decision makers, either by voting them in/out or actually talking to their MP and making sure their points and concerns are listened to.
Unlike life within the EU which was typically "Here is a rule, do it" with zero chance of getting rid of bad legislation or tailoring it to suit any implementation problems that are encountered.
All the people who wanted to remain should now use their angry energy to make sure the Brexit deal we get is the best one and to make sure that from now on our political classes can hear us loud and clear and not hide behind the excuse of "the EU told us to do it".
What's the connection between your post and the subject of this thread?Unlike life within the EU which was typically "Here is a rule, do it" with zero chance of getting rid of bad legislation or tailoring it to suit any implementation problems that are encountered.
All the people who wanted to remain should now use their angry energy to make sure the Brexit deal we get is the best one and to make sure that from now on our political classes can hear us loud and clear and not hide behind the excuse of "the EU told us to do it".
So, my post was suggesting that if those people who are worried about us having no human rights laws if the Conservatives get in should be thankful for Brexit as that might give us the chance to shape our own better more suitable laws.
All we need to do is focus the amazing energy the left have been demonstrating and channel it into something other than complaining about Brexit and us it as an opportunity to sort ourselves out here.
Well. Unless you are already, or are planning to act in a way that identifies you as a potential terrorist to the authorities, your broader human rights would appear to be safe. It would appear that folks concerned for their human rights posting on here are getting the context a little wide of what she said.
Ayethangyoo.
She actually said:
“We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court. And if human rights laws get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them."
So, do you qualify to have your rights removed by this suggestion? If so, please provide me with your full details so I can pass them on to MI6.Ayethangyoo.
TooMany2cvs said:
Getragdogleg said:
The connection is the intertwined nature of the Human rights debate
No, not really. There's absolutely no relationship with brexit and human rights legislation at all.So, no, I think the discussion on Brexit, the Election and human rights are VERY linked indeed.
SeeFive said:
Well. Unless you are already, or are planning to act in a way that identifies you as a potential terrorist to the authorities, your broader human rights would appear to be safe. It would appear that folks concerned for their human rights posting on here are getting the context a little wide of what she said.
Ayethangyoo.
She actually said:
“We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court. And if human rights laws get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them."
So, do you qualify to have your rights removed by this suggestion? If so, please provide me with your full details so I can pass them on to MI6.Ayethangyoo.
Getragdogleg said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Getragdogleg said:
The connection is the intertwined nature of the Human rights debate
No, not really. There's absolutely no relationship with brexit and human rights legislation at all.So, no, I think the discussion on Brexit, the Election and human rights are VERY linked indeed.
The ECHR is tied to our membership of the Council of Europe, which has 47 member countries, and of which the UK was one of the founders in the late 40s. The only countries with a foot in geographical Europe who aren't members are the Vatican, Belarus and Kazakhstan - and the latter two want to join, but aren't being allowed because of their own human rights records, while the Vatican won't join because they don't buy into the "freedom of religion" bit.
It seems very strange to me that the UK should be somehow held to a lower standard of international human rights oversight than Putin's Russia - which is a member and signatory...
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 20:19
TooMany2cvs said:
It seems very strange to me that the UK should be somehow held to a lower standard of international human rights oversight than Putin's Russia - which is a member and signatory...
The country with the internment camps for gays? Hmm, that seems to be a good point.Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 7th June 20:19
This thread shows the absurdity of how we have become as a nation. A leader says she will remove some rights from those who are intent on doing us harm and she is wrong, apparently.
The argument being we must wait until they actually do something before we can deal with them. And then if we want to deport them, back to a third world s
thole that supports their views, some liberal will say we cannot because his or her rights might be infringed.
Most of the people on here have never had a loved one lost in such a manner, so they will not get why we should act before they do harm to us. We couldn't deal with ABU Hanza, we had to ship him to the States, only after they promised not to top him, to get the job done. We wouldn't ship him to Egypt where he was wanted as they might be mean to him. That is what the HR acts stops us doing
Never mind though, we will see everyone pasting a label on their facebook page. Stars will sing and we will say they will not change our way of life and yet now we have streets that have concrete barriers, we have troops on the street, they have already changed our lives and still some say that their rights are still worth keeping unchanged inspite of all these deaths ? And they will continue as they see us as weak.
We can argue on here but the reality is parents have lost children, families have lost people because some scumbag has been allowed to say what they want and to wait until they want to act because of our weakness and our sticking to the rules. Someone asked how many lives will it take to be lost before some people change their minds and put the safety of the majority above their own, too many have already been lost for me.
The argument being we must wait until they actually do something before we can deal with them. And then if we want to deport them, back to a third world s
thole that supports their views, some liberal will say we cannot because his or her rights might be infringed.Most of the people on here have never had a loved one lost in such a manner, so they will not get why we should act before they do harm to us. We couldn't deal with ABU Hanza, we had to ship him to the States, only after they promised not to top him, to get the job done. We wouldn't ship him to Egypt where he was wanted as they might be mean to him. That is what the HR acts stops us doing
Never mind though, we will see everyone pasting a label on their facebook page. Stars will sing and we will say they will not change our way of life and yet now we have streets that have concrete barriers, we have troops on the street, they have already changed our lives and still some say that their rights are still worth keeping unchanged inspite of all these deaths ? And they will continue as they see us as weak.
We can argue on here but the reality is parents have lost children, families have lost people because some scumbag has been allowed to say what they want and to wait until they want to act because of our weakness and our sticking to the rules. Someone asked how many lives will it take to be lost before some people change their minds and put the safety of the majority above their own, too many have already been lost for me.
spaximus said:
We couldn't deal with ABU Hanza, we had to ship him to the States, only after they promised not to top him
Umm, not quite...He was in prison in the UK, having been found guilty of eleven terrorism charges, when the ECHR said "hold on a minute" to the extradition while they investigated whether the US prison system's "special measures" would be inhumane. A little bit of... <fanfare> evidence later, and they gave it the nod. The US tried him, and found him guilty. He spent eight years in prison here between his initial arrest and extradition, only two years of which were between his ECHR appeal being launched and the judgement. He was found guilty of the UK charges two years after the initial arrest, eighteen months after being charged.
You're getting confused with Abu Qatada - look back in this thread a few pages for the reality of that one.
Frankly, I'm just surprised nobody's come up with the "...because he had a cat" case yet...
spaximus said:
This thread shows the absurdity of how we have become as a nation. A leader says she will remove some rights from those who are intent on doing us harm and she is wrong, apparently.
The argument being we must wait until they actually do something before we can deal with them. And then if we want to deport them, back to a third world sthole that supports their views, some liberal will say we cannot because his or her rights might be infringed.
Most of the people on here have never had a loved one lost in such a manner, so they will not get why we should act before they do harm to us. We couldn't deal with ABU Hanza, we had to ship him to the States, only after they promised not to top him, to get the job done. We wouldn't ship him to Egypt where he was wanted as they might be mean to him. That is what the HR acts stops us doing
Never mind though, we will see everyone pasting a label on their facebook page. Stars will sing and we will say they will not change our way of life and yet now we have streets that have concrete barriers, we have troops on the street, they have already changed our lives and still some say that their rights are still worth keeping unchanged inspite of all these deaths ? And they will continue as they see us as weak.
We can argue on here but the reality is parents have lost children, families have lost people because some scumbag has been allowed to say what they want and to wait until they want to act because of our weakness and our sticking to the rules. Someone asked how many lives will it take to be lost before some people change their minds and put the safety of the majority above their own, too many have already been lost for me.
+1The argument being we must wait until they actually do something before we can deal with them. And then if we want to deport them, back to a third world s
thole that supports their views, some liberal will say we cannot because his or her rights might be infringed.Most of the people on here have never had a loved one lost in such a manner, so they will not get why we should act before they do harm to us. We couldn't deal with ABU Hanza, we had to ship him to the States, only after they promised not to top him, to get the job done. We wouldn't ship him to Egypt where he was wanted as they might be mean to him. That is what the HR acts stops us doing
Never mind though, we will see everyone pasting a label on their facebook page. Stars will sing and we will say they will not change our way of life and yet now we have streets that have concrete barriers, we have troops on the street, they have already changed our lives and still some say that their rights are still worth keeping unchanged inspite of all these deaths ? And they will continue as they see us as weak.
We can argue on here but the reality is parents have lost children, families have lost people because some scumbag has been allowed to say what they want and to wait until they want to act because of our weakness and our sticking to the rules. Someone asked how many lives will it take to be lost before some people change their minds and put the safety of the majority above their own, too many have already been lost for me.
Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all.
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before...
spaximus said:
This thread shows the absurdity of how we have become as a nation. A leader says she will remove some rights from those who are intent on doing us harm and she is wrong, apparently.
Well, actually, as they're Human Rights, they apply to everybody. It's like "the right to vote", "the right to a fair trial", that kind of thing. You can't selectively apply rights, they're all-or-nothing.She's been held in contempt of court before for ignoring legal requirements to do with detention of prisoners, she just really dislikes the HRA and will mercilessly abuse logic at any opportunity to get rid of it. Terrorism is an (it's in the name) emotive subject, so it's a really good time to exploit emotion to get support for such measures.
Shouldn't those in authority have to explain why they're not using existing laws properly before asking for additional powers?
For example,
ISIS/ISIS is a proscribed organisation so anyone who can be shown to support them, display their emblems, etc could be charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. Yet this doesn't seem to be happening.
For example,
ISIS/ISIS is a proscribed organisation so anyone who can be shown to support them, display their emblems, etc could be charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. Yet this doesn't seem to be happening.
wst said:
spaximus said:
This thread shows the absurdity of how we have become as a nation. A leader says she will remove some rights from those who are intent on doing us harm and she is wrong, apparently.
Well, actually, as they're Human Rights, they apply to everybody. It's like "the right to vote", "the right to a fair trial", that kind of thing. You can't selectively apply rights, they're all-or-nothing.She's been held in contempt of court before for ignoring legal requirements to do with detention of prisoners, she just really dislikes the HRA and will mercilessly abuse logic at any opportunity to get rid of it. Terrorism is an (it's in the name) emotive subject, so it's a really good time to exploit emotion to get support for such measures.
rscott said:
Shouldn't those in authority have to explain why they're not using existing laws properly before asking for additional powers?
For example,
ISIS/ISIS is a proscribed organisation so anyone who can be shown to support them, display their emblems, etc could be charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. Yet this doesn't seem to be happening.
For example,
ISIS/ISIS is a proscribed organisation so anyone who can be shown to support them, display their emblems, etc could be charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. Yet this doesn't seem to be happening.
TooMany2cvs said:
spaximus said:
We couldn't deal with ABU Hanza, we had to ship him to the States, only after they promised not to top him
Umm, not quite...He was in prison in the UK, having been found guilty of eleven terrorism charges, when the ECHR said "hold on a minute" to the extradition while they investigated whether the US prison system's "special measures" would be inhumane. A little bit of... <fanfare> evidence later, and they gave it the nod. The US tried him, and found him guilty. He spent eight years in prison here between his initial arrest and extradition, only two years of which were between his ECHR appeal being launched and the judgement. He was found guilty of the UK charges two years after the initial arrest, eighteen months after being charged.
You're getting confused with Abu Qatada - look back in this thread a few pages for the reality of that one.
Frankly, I'm just surprised nobody's come up with the "...because he had a cat" case yet...
Abu Qatada, was only able to be deported when Jordan agreed to become involved. Both cases used the EHRC to delay facing justice which it was never designed for.
spaximus said:
Abu Qatada, was only able to be deported when Jordan agreed to become involved. Both cases used the EHRC to delay facing justice which it was never designed for.
Abu Qatada ended up going voluntarily, when the Jordanians agreed not to use the evidence obtained by torture and, when he was finally (re-)tried, he was found not guilty and released... That good ol' lack of reliable, usable evidence again.TooMany2cvs said:
spaximus said:
Abu Qatada, was only able to be deported when Jordan agreed to become involved. Both cases used the EHRC to delay facing justice which it was never designed for.
Abu Qatada ended up going voluntarily, when the Jordanians agreed not to use the evidence obtained by torture and, when he was finally (re-)tried, he was found not guilty and released... That good ol' lack of reliable, usable evidence again.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff