Human Rights Act fails us all again

[Westy Pre-Lit]

Scraggles said:

who would employ an ex-terrorist ?

Hazel Blears

[Blue Meanie]

Yes we do... That doesn't alter the fact that it is so easily removed by whomever. When human rights are so ridiculously ignored, you will end up with a Cambodia, Germany, Burma situation. Do not be so quick to whip the rug out from under others, as you may be standing on it yourself.

[SmoothRB]

Somewhatfoolish said:

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

odyssey2200 said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

This is the meaning of human rights, chaps. Either declare him a non human, decide that you don't want human rights, or live with it.

I'll take option 1 please!

That's fine, so long as you accept it. In fact all evidence suggests that most people are fine with that idea; in effect supporting a communitarian ideal.

Which is why this general election you should support labour

As for me, I'll stick with my liber(al/tarian) tendencies and stand up for UK tradition... bill of rights, magna carter, common law and so on. Are you aware the original European Charter of Human Rights was written by a brit?

Not being able to deport foreign criminals has NOTHING to do with Magna Carter or Bill of rights. Please get a clue.

Of course not, but I mention them by way of setting a historical background for our progress... how we once led the world...

No you have no valid reason - other than propoganda - to mention them in the same breath as the euro rights crap.

Modern 'human rights' are about entitlement...what the state can do for you it clients...'right to holiday', 'right to food' and other total BS. Otoh magna carta and bill of rights deliniated lines between state and citizens and limited gov power...also implied responsibilities to free citizens.

Modern human rights are actually about MORE state power not less.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Just rereading the rights and isn't it funny when the HRA says you have the right to a fair trial labour remove trial by jury.

[SmoothRB]

Blue Meanie said:

Yes we do... That doesn't alter the fact that it is so easily removed by whomever. When human rights are so ridiculously ignored, you will end up with a Cambodia, Germany, Burma situation. Do not be so quick to whip the rug out from under others, as you may be standing on it yourself.

Metropolitan liberals do not ensure less state power by pieces of paper 'guaranteeing' rights..can't you see? They just reinforce state power, more state control, more centralization, more spending etc. You need more government to have less government! Stupid. It's a contradiction. What is freedom guaranteed by? The gun is the answer. All these totalitarian regimes took power by bullying and coertion. Bits of paper does not stop bullets.

Edited by SmoothRB on Sunday 2nd May 23:03

[Somewhatfoolish]

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

odyssey2200 said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

This is the meaning of human rights, chaps. Either declare him a non human, decide that you don't want human rights, or live with it.

I'll take option 1 please!

That's fine, so long as you accept it. In fact all evidence suggests that most people are fine with that idea; in effect supporting a communitarian ideal.

Which is why this general election you should support labour

As for me, I'll stick with my liber(al/tarian) tendencies and stand up for UK tradition... bill of rights, magna carter, common law and so on. Are you aware the original European Charter of Human Rights was written by a brit?

Not being able to deport foreign criminals has NOTHING to do with Magna Carter or Bill of rights. Please get a clue.

Of course not, but I mention them by way of setting a historical background for our progress... how we once led the world...

No you have no valid reason - other than propoganda - to mention them in the same breath as the euro rights crap.

Modern 'human rights' are about entitlement...what the state can do for you it clients...'right to holiday', 'right to food' and other total BS. Otoh magna carta and bill of rights deliniated lines between state and citizens and limited gov power...also implied responsibilities to free citizens.

Modern human rights are actually about MORE state power not less.

Absolute rubbish.

[Blue Meanie]

SmoothRB said:

Blue Meanie said:

Yes we do... That doesn't alter the fact that it is so easily removed by whomever. When human rights are so ridiculously ignored, you will end up with a Cambodia, Germany, Burma situation. Do not be so quick to whip the rug out from under others, as you may be standing on it yourself.

Metropolitan liberals do not ensure less state power by pieces of paper 'guaranteeing' rights..can't you see? They just reinforce state power, more state control, spending etc. You need more government to have less government! Stupid. Ot's a contridiction. What is freedom guaranteed by? The gun is the answer.

You're a crazy Christian militia type survivalist, aren't you? Rights as I see then allow fair trials, justice, and equality. What rights do you think are brought to bear with a gun?

[SmoothRB]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Absolute rubbish.

That is a weak argument.

You don't get more freedom by more and more powerful layers of government, more laws.

[Blue Meanie]

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Absolute rubbish.

That is a weak argument.

You don't get more freedom by more and more powerful layers of government, more laws.

Sorry, but you will have to explain what layers, and massive government you are on about? Rights are not dependent on huge government.

[Somewhatfoolish]

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Absolute rubbish.

That is a weak argument.

You don't get more freedom by more and more powerful layers of government, more laws.

Human rights are the polar opposite of big government.

[SmoothRB]

Blue Meanie said:

SmoothRB said:

Blue Meanie said:

Yes we do... That doesn't alter the fact that it is so easily removed by whomever. When human rights are so ridiculously ignored, you will end up with a Cambodia, Germany, Burma situation. Do not be so quick to whip the rug out from under others, as you may be standing on it yourself.

Metropolitan liberals do not ensure less state power by pieces of paper 'guaranteeing' rights..can't you see? They just reinforce state power, more state control, spending etc. You need more government to have less government! Stupid. Ot's a contridiction. What is freedom guaranteed by? The gun is the answer.

You're a crazy Christian militia type survivalist, aren't you? Rights as I see then allow fair trials, justice, and equality. What rights do you think are brought to bear with a gun?

Guns don't assert rights, they assert coertion. They are the last line of defense against a tyranical goverment.

OTOH you would rather put faith in human rights laws which are the state itself. You trust the government to self-regulate.

[SmoothRB]

Blue Meanie said:

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Absolute rubbish.

That is a weak argument.

You don't get more freedom by more and more powerful layers of government, more laws.

Sorry, but you will have to explain what layers, and massive government you are on about? Rights are not dependent on huge government.

More rights = more govenment.

Brussels talks about 'rights to food', 'rights to holidays'. A gov which is big a powerful enough to ensure these rights is surely one too big by far. What can be given can easily be taken away.

[Somewhatfoolish]

SmoothRB said:

Blue Meanie said:

SmoothRB said:

Blue Meanie said:

Yes we do... That doesn't alter the fact that it is so easily removed by whomever. When human rights are so ridiculously ignored, you will end up with a Cambodia, Germany, Burma situation. Do not be so quick to whip the rug out from under others, as you may be standing on it yourself.

Metropolitan liberals do not ensure less state power by pieces of paper 'guaranteeing' rights..can't you see? They just reinforce state power, more state control, spending etc. You need more government to have less government! Stupid. Ot's a contridiction. What is freedom guaranteed by? The gun is the answer.

You're a crazy Christian militia type survivalist, aren't you? Rights as I see then allow fair trials, justice, and equality. What rights do you think are brought to bear with a gun?

Guns don't assert rights, they assert coertion. They are the last line of defense against a tyranical goverment.

OTOH you would rather put faith in human rights laws which are the state itself. You trust the government to self-regulate.

The opposite. I don't trust the government one bit. Hence human rights laws, constitutionally enshrined, to force it to regulate... or if it doesn't, at least to assert its hypocrisy and ones moral superiority.

[SmoothRB]

Somewhatfoolish said:

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Absolute rubbish.

That is a weak argument.

You don't get more freedom by more and more powerful layers of government, more laws.

Human rights are the polar opposite of big government.

No.

Gov needs power to assert rights, the more rights the more powerful said gov needs to be.

[Blue Meanie]

Younreallyndo sound quite the paranoid type.

[SmoothRB]

Somewhatfoolish said:

SmoothRB said:

Blue Meanie said:

SmoothRB said:

Blue Meanie said:

Yes we do... That doesn't alter the fact that it is so easily removed by whomever. When human rights are so ridiculously ignored, you will end up with a Cambodia, Germany, Burma situation. Do not be so quick to whip the rug out from under others, as you may be standing on it yourself.

Metropolitan liberals do not ensure less state power by pieces of paper 'guaranteeing' rights..can't you see? They just reinforce state power, more state control, spending etc. You need more government to have less government! Stupid. Ot's a contridiction. What is freedom guaranteed by? The gun is the answer.

You're a crazy Christian militia type survivalist, aren't you? Rights as I see then allow fair trials, justice, and equality. What rights do you think are brought to bear with a gun?

Guns don't assert rights, they assert coertion. They are the last line of defense against a tyranical goverment.

OTOH you would rather put faith in human rights laws which are the state itself. You trust the government to self-regulate.

The opposite. I don't trust the government one bit. Hence human rights laws, constitutionally enshrined, to force it to regulate... or if it doesn't, at least to assert its hypocrisy and ones moral superiority.

That is self-regulation.

[wagon and horses]

odyssey2200 said:

Sorry if a repost but my Urine sublimated

Went from solid to gas? I'd see a doctor.

[Somewhatfoolish]

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

SmoothRB said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Absolute rubbish.

That is a weak argument.

You don't get more freedom by more and more powerful layers of government, more laws.

Human rights are the polar opposite of big government.

No.

Gov needs power to assert rights, the more rights the more powerful said gov needs to be.

You're getting confused... almost all human rights are rights from government.

Edit: In the sense that they limit the power of government.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Sunday 2nd May 23:53

[Blue Meanie]

I think smooth lays awake at night dreaming of a Mad Max world.

[BrassMan]

SmoothRB said:

Metropolitan liberals do not ensure less state power by pieces of paper 'guaranteeing' rights..can't you see? They just reinforce state power, more state control, more centralization, more spending etc. You need more government to have less government! Stupid. It's a contradiction. What is freedom guaranteed by? The gun is the answer. All these totalitarian regimes took power by bullying and coercion. Bits of paper does not stop bullets.

For an extreme example, you mean like Afghanistan? Lots of guns, tiny government, free? No.