I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win

[TooMany2cvs]

Crackie said:

If you want to interpret "more robust methods of interrogation" as meaning torture, so be it. I was not.

Well, since the relevant part of the ECHR says (in full, verbatim)...

ECHR said:

ARTICLE 3 - Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

...then if we're talking about "more robust methods of interrogation" than are permitted under that legislation, it doesn't seem to be an inappropriate word to use.

As for what it means, I'd say the wording of the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture would be a fairly workable starting point, wouldn't you?

UNCaT said:

For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src...

So if you're suggesting something that falls outside that, then there isn't currently any bar. If you're suggesting something that falls within it, then the ECHR is not the only bar.

BTW, that UN convention also forbids states to move people to countries where they may be tortured... So if the UK's leaving the CoE/ECHR to be allowed to <say> deport people back to Somalia, we'd also have to leave the UN.

Y'see, that's the problem with pointing the finger at one particular source - it's rarely the only thing. The choice is fairly simple. Be nice and play nice, or be a bit of an international pariah...

[TooMany2cvs]

CrutyRammers said:

wst said:

ell, actually, as they're Human Rights, they apply to everybody..

They don't, actually. They don't apply to enemy combatants in a war, for example.

Temporary derogations can be requested - as they were for internment in Northern Ireland.

That didn't work terribly well.

[p1stonhead]

Stickyfinger said:

Not the point ( I would not place it either)


however, calls to ban it would be restricting free speech ?

Would this be allowed in London ?

I would imagine it probably wouldnt be allowed but we're a bit less shouty than Americans so perhaps understandable in that sense?

Those es-gay posters for busses by a Christian group were banned a few years back wernt they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-218945...

[Likes Fast Cars]

p1stonhead said:

Doesnt the Christian god suggest genocide for basically anything in some parts of the Bible?

It says homosexuals should be killed. Would you put that on a sign?

Why try to wind people up on purpose?

Answer is: no.

Correction: the concept of God is the same god, there is no "Christian God" or "Muslim God" or "Jewish God", all the same.

[p1stonhead]

Likes Fast Cars said:

p1stonhead said:

Doesnt the Christian god suggest genocide for basically anything in some parts of the Bible?

It says homosexuals should be killed. Would you put that on a sign?

Why try to wind people up on purpose?

Answer is: no.

Correction: the concept of God is the same god, there is no "Christian God" or "Muslim God" or "Jewish God", all the same.

What was the flood which killed everything apart from the things on the Ark? Not genocide? Or just killing everything on Earth?

And they are not all the same gods. Allah/Vishnu etc etc isn't Jesus' dad is he? There are thousands of different gods. All made up but still

[Mrr T]

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.

I am not sure the poster knows what he is posting about but you are not correct either.

While brexit will not change the legislation it will change its enforcement. Since the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty’s there has been a contradict on human rights issues between the HCHR, which ruling are for guidance, and the ECJ, which sets binding precedent.

I expect post brexit the ECJ will have no jurisdiction in the UK on HR issues.

[otolith]

p1stonhead said:

I would imagine it probably wouldnt be allowed but we're a bit less shouty than Americans so perhaps understandable in that sense?

Those es-gay posters for busses by a Christian group were banned a few years back wernt they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-218945...

Hmm, as I read it, although it talks about banning, that wasn't a case of anything being banned, that was a court case to see whether TFL acted legally in declining to carry the poster.

[TooMany2cvs]

p1stonhead said:

And they are not all the same gods. Allah/Vishnu etc etc isn't Jesus' dad is he? There are thousands of different gods. All made up but still

Allah is "Jesus' dad", yes - as well as Jehovah/Yahweh.

The Abrahamic timeline is just three different stops on the Torah/OT -> NT -> Koran route, each building on and incorporating the previous step. Muslims count Jesus as a prophet, although they do think he fibbed a bit about his parentage.

[rscott]

otolith said:

p1stonhead said:

I would imagine it probably wouldnt be allowed but we're a bit less shouty than Americans so perhaps understandable in that sense?

Those es-gay posters for busses by a Christian group were banned a few years back wernt they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-218945...

Hmm, as I read it, although it talks about banning, that wasn't a case of anything being banned, that was a court case to see whether TFL acted legally in declining to carry the poster.

So wouldn't it be likely that the owner of the advertising hoarding would decline to carry the poster Stickyfinger posted, rather than it actually being banned?

[Likes Fast Cars]

p1stonhead said:

Likes Fast Cars said:

p1stonhead said:

Doesnt the Christian god suggest genocide for basically anything in some parts of the Bible?

It says homosexuals should be killed. Would you put that on a sign?

Why try to wind people up on purpose?

Answer is: no.

Correction: the concept of God is the same god, there is no "Christian God" or "Muslim God" or "Jewish God", all the same.

What was the flood which killed everything apart from the things on the Ark? Not genocide? Or just killing everything on Earth?

And they are not all the same gods. Allah/Vishnu etc etc isn't Jesus' dad is he? There are thousands of different gods. All made up but still

I think some context is needed here, the flood was not manmade
(Actually Noah and his family survived!)

[TooMany2cvs]

Mrr T 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.

I am not sure the poster knows what he is posting about but you are not correct either.

While brexit will not change the legislation it will change its enforcement. Since the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty’s there has been a contradict on human rights issues between the HCHR, which ruling are for guidance, and the ECJ, which sets binding precedent.

I expect post brexit the ECJ will have no jurisdiction in the UK on HR issues.

You're right, but...

EConvHR/HRA breaches by the UK government are rarely taken to the ECJ - they're usually heard in UK courts or the ECtHR. ECJ rulings would normally be against breaches by the EU itself, since the EU itself is not bound by the ECtHR.

The short answer is... it's complicated. But my basic point stands - the EConvHR/ECtHR/HRA aren't directly related in any way to the UK's EU membership, and brexit won't affect them in any meaningful way.

[Mrr T]

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.

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.

Thanks for posting what TM actually said. This is a typical TM statement, grandiose, sounding as if they know what they are doing, but if you read it, it means nothing.

Let’s ask the questions which are not answered.

How do we know a person is a risk when they have not committed an offence which is covered by exiting law?

Who will decide who we will detain?

What rights will they have to defend themselves?

Who will decide when they can be released?

What does detain mean? Is it just house arrest or are we locking them up?

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

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.

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.

Thanks for posting what TM actually said. This is a typical TM statement, grandiose, sounding as if they know what they are doing, but if you read it, it means nothing.

Let’s ask the questions which are not answered.

What TM said is clear enough at this stage. Wait for the green paper / leak from some socialist mandarin.

[otolith]

rscott said:

otolith said:

p1stonhead said:

I would imagine it probably wouldnt be allowed but we're a bit less shouty than Americans so perhaps understandable in that sense?

Those es-gay posters for busses by a Christian group were banned a few years back wernt they?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-218945...

Hmm, as I read it, although it talks about banning, that wasn't a case of anything being banned, that was a court case to see whether TFL acted legally in declining to carry the poster.

So wouldn't it be likely that the owner of the advertising hoarding would decline to carry the poster Stickyfinger posted, rather than it actually being banned?

Yes, especially if they've heard of Charlie Hebdo.

[TooMany2cvs]

Mrr T said:

Thanks for posting what TM actually said. This is a typical TM statement, grandiose, sounding as if they know what they are doing, but if you read it, it means nothing.

<mild paranoia>
Eh? Pardon? What've I done now?
<light dawns>
Oh, right. With you now...

[CrutyRammers]

TooMany2cvs said:

The short answer is... it's complicated. But my basic point stands - the EConvHR/ECtHR/HRA aren't directly related in any way to the UK's EU membership, and brexit won't affect them in any meaningful way.

Isn't it the case that EU membership requires being signed up to the convention and the court, and the HRA implements that in UK law? Hence the HRA can't really be fundamentally changed while we are a member of the EU. When we leave the EU, it can be.

[loafer123]

TooMany2cvs said:

p1stonhead said:

And they are not all the same gods. Allah/Vishnu etc etc isn't Jesus' dad is he? There are thousands of different gods. All made up but still

Allah is "Jesus' dad", yes - as well as Jehovah/Yahweh.

The Abrahamic timeline is just three different stops on the Torah/OT -> NT -> Koran route, each building on and incorporating the previous step. Muslims count Jesus as a prophet, although they do think he fibbed a bit about his parentage.

Getting real here, all religions are a method of subjugating the masses. It is all a complete fiction.

[babatunde]

Einion Yrth said:

REALIST123 said:

spaximus said:

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

This.

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

Tough st, they are are brown people, so don't really matter /s
Next think we should lock up all the suspected communists

[del mar]

Stickyfinger said:

Some open questions:

Would this be allowed in London/Uk ?

and should it be allowed

why does it offend

Edited by Stickyfinger on Thursday 8th June 09:28

Doesn't this then fall into the category of whose rights are deemed more important ?

The sign owners rights to put up what maybe accurate facts / statements

or

Believers rights to not - infact I am not sure what they are complaining / offended about. in this instance, but the logic applies.


If I want I can burn a Union jack, but I am potentially in trouble for burning a book.

[TooMany2cvs]

CrutyRammers said:

TooMany2cvs said:

The short answer is... it's complicated. But my basic point stands - the EConvHR/ECtHR/HRA aren't directly related in any way to the UK's EU membership, and brexit won't affect them in any meaningful way.

Isn't it the case that EU membership requires being signed up to the convention and the court, and the HRA implements that in UK law? Hence the HRA can't really be fundamentally changed while we are a member of the EU.

Yes...

But you forget that the UK is also a member of the Council of Europe, and is bound to the EConvHR as a result of that. The UK was one of 10 founder members of the Council of Europe in the late 40s.

The EU is also a member, so as an EU member, we are doubly a member of the Council of Europe. It's not possible to be an EU member without being a Council of Europe member - so we couldn't leave the Council of Europe while being an EU member, but leaving the EU does not stop us being a Council of Europe member. There are 46 other countries which are Council of Europe members, and so bound to the EConvHR - 19 of which are not EU members.
http://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/our-member-stat...

CrutyRammers said:

When we leave the EU, it can be.

So far, nobody appears to have suggested we leave the Council of Europe. I don't think there's any formal resignation method, along the lines of Article 50.


That diagram's slightly outdated - Croatia's shown outside the EU, but it's been a member since 2013. Brexit is probably going to take the UK out to that uppermost group, on the pink background, with Albania - Bosnia - Macedonia - Georgia etc.
Members of the Council of Europe, not members of the EEA, EFTA, EU, Schengen, Customs Union, Euro.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 8th June 13:58