I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win
Discussion
I wish we could do away with any laws that stop us dealing with threats, in the appropriate way... whilst not giving away all of our privacy along with it.
There is a balance to be struck but May seems, nigh-on, obsessed with snooping on everyone's online activity; if my memory serves; it's always been a thing of hers.
There is a balance to be struck but May seems, nigh-on, obsessed with snooping on everyone's online activity; if my memory serves; it's always been a thing of hers.
BlackLabel said:
From that article...Telegraph said:
It is understood just 12 foreign-born terrorists have been deported under the DWA (Deportation with Assurances scheme). By contrast, France has deported more than 120.
France is also a signatory to the ECHR. So why are they deporting 10x as many, with the exact same restrictions...?TooMany2cvs said:
BlackLabel said:
From that article...Telegraph said:
It is understood just 12 foreign-born terrorists have been deported under the DWA (Deportation with Assurances scheme). By contrast, France has deported more than 120.
France is also a signatory to the ECHR. So why are they deporting 10x as many, with the exact same restrictions...?Don said:
TooMany2cvs said:
BlackLabel said:
From that article...Telegraph said:
It is understood just 12 foreign-born terrorists have been deported under the DWA (Deportation with Assurances scheme). By contrast, France has deported more than 120.
France is also a signatory to the ECHR. So why are they deporting 10x as many, with the exact same restrictions...?Don said:
TooMany2cvs said:
BlackLabel said:
From that article...Telegraph said:
It is understood just 12 foreign-born terrorists have been deported under the DWA (Deportation with Assurances scheme). By contrast, France has deported more than 120.
France is also a signatory to the ECHR. So why are they deporting 10x as many, with the exact same restrictions...?wst said:
Humans Rights are, by their inherent nature, not something that can be selectively applied. They apply to everyone. In saying that she would change human rights laws for some individuals, Theresa is conveniently omitting that this changes human rights laws for everyone.
Combine that with her deep seated love of data collection and you're in for a recipe for insanity.
"Oh but I have nothing to hide". Well guess what, sunshine? It wasn't illegal to be Jewish in Germany for a while (why would it be? It's literally of no consequence as to your worth as a human being), and then someone arbitrarily decided to chuck them all into ghettos, and later on arbitrarily decided to do a whole lot elsewise. What arbitrary part of your character might a malicious government with "no human rights for ~~terrorists~~ anyone they want" and your internet history decide?
It was legal to be gay in Russia in the mid-90's, nowadays it lands you in a camp in Chechnya.
It was legal to go to wear glasses in Cambodia until Pol Pot came along and decided that being intellectual or even looking intellectual was reason to execute you and your family.
But oh, let's just cut back on what all humans are legally entitled to in the UK, just because 40 people didn't get sent to their developing country of origin to get tortured in a s
tty developing justice system.
I've read some stupid stuff on PH but those last couple of comments are taking some kind of bloody biscuit.
Well, you started it with associating terrorism with 70 million innocents, and are still trying to justify it with the ridiculous anologies and condescending claptrap above.Combine that with her deep seated love of data collection and you're in for a recipe for insanity.
"Oh but I have nothing to hide". Well guess what, sunshine? It wasn't illegal to be Jewish in Germany for a while (why would it be? It's literally of no consequence as to your worth as a human being), and then someone arbitrarily decided to chuck them all into ghettos, and later on arbitrarily decided to do a whole lot elsewise. What arbitrary part of your character might a malicious government with "no human rights for ~~terrorists~~ anyone they want" and your internet history decide?
It was legal to be gay in Russia in the mid-90's, nowadays it lands you in a camp in Chechnya.
It was legal to go to wear glasses in Cambodia until Pol Pot came along and decided that being intellectual or even looking intellectual was reason to execute you and your family.
But oh, let's just cut back on what all humans are legally entitled to in the UK, just because 40 people didn't get sent to their developing country of origin to get tortured in a s
tty developing justice system.I've read some stupid stuff on PH but those last couple of comments are taking some kind of bloody biscuit.
Theresa May said:
And I mean doing 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.
If you haven't got enough evidence to prosecute someone in court, you haven't got enough evidence to detain them at all. You can't just go arbitrarily detaining anyone without evidence. What's the point of having a justice system at all if you can just detain them forever while scrabbling for evidence?Ooh can I put anything here?
Edited by wst on Sunday 25th June 04:57
Can you imagine what our lefty comrades would do it we started to take the piss with human rights law against innocents and in an unjustified way against terrorism suspects? It's bad enough when accidents happen let alone deliberate acts of persecution by the government.
Many people are detained on a daily basis whilst evidence is gathered in a multitude of criminal scenarios. Some are released without charge, others go further through our justice system. I don't see anyone up in arms over their rights in most cases. Ask Cliff Richard or Jimmy Tarbuck about the consistent application of the accused rights versus accusers rights to remain anonymous in such cases.
So do you wan't terrorists and hate preachers to remain above our laws because of their human rights? I assume that you agree with keeping the restricting difficulties in human rights law that prevented Hamza, Choudray and their like being stopped from spouting their bile and inciting others to do their dirty work against us?
Don said:
TooMany2cvs said:
BlackLabel said:
From that article...Telegraph said:
It is understood just 12 foreign-born terrorists have been deported under the DWA (Deportation with Assurances scheme). By contrast, France has deported more than 120.
France is also a signatory to the ECHR. So why are they deporting 10x as many, with the exact same restrictions...?It is not the first time and when challenged before by Luxembourg they simply asked how many of ours do you want and the protest was dropped.
They have a legal system, they have legal aid but as soon as a decision is made they are gone. None of the endless time delaying methods they use here. Even when they are being put on a plane in the UK if the kick off enough they get taken off as they are a danger to others.
Anyone would think she wants to rip everything up, but if a change allows us to rid ourselves of 40 who want to do us harm then fine by me. Alternatively re categorise all terror offences so they carry automatic whole life tariffs with no appeal at least we will be safer.
There may only be 40 in this class, but it only took one to kill kids in Manchester, one to kill on London bridge, we need to get a grip on what is right and wrong to protect the majority.
JagLover said:
TooMany2cvs said:
If that was the case, then the French government would be up in front of the exact same ECourtHR...
Usually the UK courts stopping deportations I think. So if there IS a problem here, is it that the UK courts (which are the same ones would rule on any "British bill of rights") are somehow incompetent or obstructive?
SeeFive said:
Well, you started it with associating terrorism with 70 million innocents, and are still trying to justify it with the ridiculous anologies and condescending claptrap above.
The thing is, I didn't associate terrorism with 70 million innocents. I associated human rights with 70 million innocents. Given that very basic flaw in your understanding, the most basic premise of the whole little debate we are having, is anything else you have to say actually building off of the correct premise?And yes, I used some very extreme examples of when it goes wrong! but I was just highlighting that we don't have to look back centuries to see Governments go and do some crazy, vicious things to innocent people, and so efforts by any Government, big or small, to categorise people so thoroughly should not be considered A Good Thing, because no-one has "nothing to hide".
wst said:
The thing is, I didn't associate terrorism with 70 million innocents. I associated human rights with 70 million innocents. Given that very basic flaw in your understanding, the most basic premise of the whole little debate we are having, is anything else you have to say actually building off of the correct premise?
And yes, I used some very extreme examples of when it goes wrong! but I was just highlighting that we don't have to look back centuries to see Governments go and do some crazy, vicious things to innocent people, and so efforts by any Government, big or small, to categorise people so thoroughly should not be considered A Good Thing, because no-one has "nothing to hide".
Perhaps if you hadn't picked on such extreme examples you might have come over as a more balanced individual.......And yes, I used some very extreme examples of when it goes wrong! but I was just highlighting that we don't have to look back centuries to see Governments go and do some crazy, vicious things to innocent people, and so efforts by any Government, big or small, to categorise people so thoroughly should not be considered A Good Thing, because no-one has "nothing to hide".
Robertj21a said:
Perhaps if you hadn't picked on such extreme examples you might have come over as a more balanced individual.......
So I don't have a valid point, because "I don't come over as a more balanced individual". That is incredibly intellectually dishonest of you.And they're not "extreme examples", I even addressed that in the comment you quote. I could have talked about stuff that happened centuries ago, the reformation, etc, but no, I picked examples of insanity from which you can meet some survivors and some perpetrators still walking around, because it's all within living memory.
Mr GrimNasty said:
The whole premise of the thread is deliberately misleading.
No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
So how come it's been good enough since the early '50s, and is only being exploited now?No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
A reminder - here's the actual convention text... What's wrong with it?
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.p...
And before you say "Well, it's down to the judges interpreting", let me remind you that the Human Rights Act means that it's the same UK judges as would be interpreting any British Bill of Rights...
TooMany2cvs said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The whole premise of the thread is deliberately misleading.
No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
So how come it's been good enough since the early '50s...No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
turbobloke said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The whole premise of the thread is deliberately misleading.
No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
So how come it's been good enough since the early '50s...No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
The UK became a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights on 4th Nov 1950, and it came into effect on 3rd September 1953. The Human Rights Act 1998 simply means UK courts can rule on breaches by the UK government, rather than the cases having to go to the European Court.
TooMany2cvs said:
turbobloke said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The whole premise of the thread is deliberately misleading.
No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
So how come it's been good enough since the early '50s...No one's human rights are going to be thrown under the bus.
The law does however clearly need to be re-balanced to avoid exploitation by proven pond-scum.
That is all May meant.
The UK became a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights on 4th Nov 1950, and it came into effect on 3rd September 1953. The Human Rights Act 1998 simply means UK courts can rule on breaches by the UK government, rather than the cases having to go to the European Court.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff