I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win
Discussion
LDN said:
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.
She does indeed.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.
But to be fair, she's not the first, Labour had a crack at it first, they're all chipping away at it. Labour also had a damned good try at 90 day was it? detainment etc.
It's just a matter of time really, same in the US.
loafer123 said:
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.
TooMany2cvs said:
So which bits are so terrible...?
Hate speech isn't good, and the freedom for people to spout it.It's one thing disagreeing with Labour on some of their policies, or the Tories on some of theirs. But wanting the whole way of life in your country (adopted or otherwise) to be changed, and wishing death on people who don't agree with your preferred way of life is not on. (And that goes for the EDL type bile as much as the extremist Islam variety).
Being able to propagate that on the internet now just makes matters significantly worse.
I tend to agree that dealing with the root causes of why people feel the need to do that here, educating rather than legislating etc would be best. But that's idealistic.
It seems we're in a position now where it's nothing to do with being underprivileged or victimised etc (though I do have some sympathy with the view that our meddling in the Middle East hasn't helped). It's simply an ideology that the extremist way of life is somehow better and everyone should follow it. It's not compatible with our way of life and tolerance should only go so far.
If (and it's a big "if") changes to our laws are needed to make it easier to cut this out of our society then I'm fine with that. If it means there's some stuff on the internet I cannot freely surf, I'm OK with that too. And if it means I'm at more risk of being stopped and questioned by the authorities, that's OK as well. There are all sorts of constraints to what you can and cannot do here. We accept the vast majority as necessary and the vast majority of us self police them. Anyone thinking we are currently free to do as we please is kidding themselves. It's simply that we accept the boundaries and more often than not we're so far away from them that it's not noticeable. I'm absolutely certain the additional controls being proposed won't even be noticed by the vast majority of people living here too.
Murph7355 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
So which bits are so terrible...?
Hate speech isn't good, and the freedom for people to spout it.I presume you're thinking of...
ECHR said:
ARTICLE 10 - Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 26th June 09:40
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff