May will remove parts of human rights act if elected (1 Viewer)

[Sky Blue Pete]

Any thoughts?

My friend posted this on Facebook-I think he's right

I wasn't intending to write another status about our PM's behaviour today but I just can't let this one slide. Theresa May is now proposing that we withdraw from human rights laws to make us safer.

1) (This is the most important point) It absolutely will not make us safer. Negating human rights in a way that will disproportionately target muslims will be used as a propoaganda tool for terrorist recruiters. It will further alienate the "muslim community" (whatever that is) which will further undermine already struggling programmes like Prevent and make it less likely vital security information will be passed to authorities. It adds fuel to the fire of the ideology.

2) It is another change on a manifesto pledge before the election has even taken place. The Conservative manifesto says we will not be taken out of the European Court of Human Rights. Changes to human rights laws would inevitably do so. They can't just make policy up off the cuff when they have a manifesto stating what they will do. Come on chaps, at least wait until after the election before you break your pledges, otherwise it's just not cricket.

3) Human rights laws, initially forged in the aftermath of the horrors of WW2, are the absolute best and most treasured thing human beings have yet come up with. As a powerful nation trying to be a moral leader we need to be setting the standard rather than opting out of those laws we (or our government) don't agree with. That's how human rights work. The whole point is they are decided internationally, not nationally.

4) The victims of Manchester and London deserve a better legacy than a self harming slide into socially right wing populist rhetoric that restricts freedoms for all yet does not make us any safer.

 

---

[Sub]

only works if everyone abides by human rights law which they dont. So if you have one side playing by the human rights law and the other one blowing up innocent kiddies what do you do ?? These scum have no human rights as soon as they cross that line the have no rights atall and are on their own.

I think you will find also this country offers a safe place to live after they leave persucution and war and then come here and turn on the hand that feeds and protects them because this is not a muslim country? WTF is that all about if you dont like it leave and go back it is that simple.

And yes i have freinds who are muslims, hindus and from all different religions and they dont go blowing up and stabbing kids because they dont like living in a christian country. They think the exactly the same.thing.

 

[We'll_live_and_die]

We should have our own style Guantanamo on Swona - Wikipedia you'll notice it's not very big, so I guess they'll be a good fight to stay on dry land.

 

[Astute]

If I moved to another country I would respect their laws. Some parts of the human rights act allows those that don't want to the ability to get away with what they want knowing that we can't kick thwm out. It takes years and many millions of pounds while they carry on with hate preaching or whatever they are doing. We even have lawyers that make millions each year out of the legal aid system protecting these people. It is an absolute joke at times.

 

[RegTheDonk]

Its intended on getting votes and preying on our fears and want for revenge. Guy on radio this morning tyring to defend this. when put that existing hr laws are ok just being abused because we are scared to implement them properly because of upsetting people he didnt have an answer. im no lawyer and if ammendments need making to other parts of our law then thats something to consider. Need to catch the bad guys of course but protect the innocent. How many relatives and associates have been rounded up in the wake of recent events but actually been charged?

 

[Astute]

Its intended on getting votes and preying on our fears and want for revenge. Guy on radio this morning tyring to defend this. when put that existing hr laws are ok just being abused because we are scared to implement them properly because of upsetting people he didnt have an answer. im no lawyer and if ammendments need making to other parts of our law then thats something to consider. Need to catch the bad guys of course but protect the innocent. How many relatives and associates have been rounded up in the wake of recent events but actually been charged?

They are not sufficient. EU legislation and the human rights act kept Abu Hamza here for years while he carried on with his hate preaching and whatever else he was up to. Now he is trying to get back here expecting a cushy prison and not top security like he now has and deserves.

 

[Grendel]

Any thoughts?

My friend posted this on Facebook-I think he's right

I wasn't intending to write another status about our PM's behaviour today but I just can't let this one slide. Theresa May is now proposing that we withdraw from human rights laws to make us safer.

1) (This is the most important point) It absolutely will not make us safer. Negating human rights in a way that will disproportionately target muslims will be used as a propoaganda tool for terrorist recruiters. It will further alienate the "muslim community" (whatever that is) which will further undermine already struggling programmes like Prevent and make it less likely vital security information will be passed to authorities. It adds fuel to the fire of the ideology.

2) It is another change on a manifesto pledge before the election has even taken place. The Conservative manifesto says we will not be taken out of the European Court of Human Rights. Changes to human rights laws would inevitably do so. They can't just make policy up off the cuff when they have a manifesto stating what they will do. Come on chaps, at least wait until after the election before you break your pledges, otherwise it's just not cricket.

3) Human rights laws, initially forged in the aftermath of the horrors of WW2, are the absolute best and most treasured thing human beings have yet come up with. As a powerful nation trying to be a moral leader we need to be setting the standard rather than opting out of those laws we (or our government) don't agree with. That's how human rights work. The whole point is they are decided internationally, not nationally.

4) The victims of Manchester and London deserve a better legacy than a self harming slide into socially right wing populist rhetoric that restricts freedoms for all yet does not make us any safer.

I'm only concerned about the human rights of the victims to be honest.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Freedom of speech is not some kind of joke, neither is the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I'm only concerned about the human rights of the victims to be honest.

What about future victims? You know none of what she's suggesting would have changed anything in London or Manchester. You're a bright guy. What do you think could be her motive for saying it?

 

[Grendel]

What about future victims? You know none of what she's suggesting would have changed anything in London or Manchester. You're a bright guy. What do you think could be her motive for saying it?

The same motive that Mr Corbyn was trying to claim his policing policy will make us safer I would have thought.

 

[Nick]

Freedom of speech is not some kind of joke, neither is the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.

Surely it depends what the speech is? Freedom of speech is all well and good until it's to do with preaching about killing innocent people and trying to convert others into thinking that and carrying it out.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

Good

Why protect the human rights of those who are actively seeking to remove our human rights.

 

[Liquid Gold]

If you get rid of the human rights of all because of the actions of terrorists then you've lost. They want to change our way of life and by doing this they are.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

If you get rid of the human rights of all because of the actions of terrorists then you've lost. They want to change our way of life and by doing this they are.

The terrorists are already winning LG.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Any thoughts?

My friend posted this on Facebook-I think he's right

I wasn't intending to write another status about our PM's behaviour today but I just can't let this one slide. Theresa May is now proposing that we withdraw from human rights laws to make us safer.

1) (This is the most important point) It absolutely will not make us safer. Negating human rights in a way that will disproportionately target muslims will be used as a propoaganda tool for terrorist recruiters. It will further alienate the "muslim community" (whatever that is) which will further undermine already struggling programmes like Prevent and make it less likely vital security information will be passed to authorities. It adds fuel to the fire of the ideology.

2) It is another change on a manifesto pledge before the election has even taken place. The Conservative manifesto says we will not be taken out of the European Court of Human Rights. Changes to human rights laws would inevitably do so. They can't just make policy up off the cuff when they have a manifesto stating what they will do. Come on chaps, at least wait until after the election before you break your pledges, otherwise it's just not cricket.

3) Human rights laws, initially forged in the aftermath of the horrors of WW2, are the absolute best and most treasured thing human beings have yet come up with. As a powerful nation trying to be a moral leader we need to be setting the standard rather than opting out of those laws we (or our government) don't agree with. That's how human rights work. The whole point is they are decided internationally, not nationally.

4) The victims of Manchester and London deserve a better legacy than a self harming slide into socially right wing populist rhetoric that restricts freedoms for all yet does not make us any safer.

1) The same people preaching that terrorism is nothing to do with Islam are also saying if you isolate the Islamic community it will cause more terrorists to be nurtured. Which one is it? As soon as you affiliate with terrorist groups you lose your human rights. No second chances. I don't believe in discriminating against a group of people, but the victims that got murdered at a children's concert are of more of a concern to me than someone who gets a mean stare on a bus.

2) There have been a few attacks since the election was caused. I can see it as a move to win votes of course, but it is also actually the right thing to do. As for the EU, two of the three attackers in London last week traveled here on EU documentation. The media has kept that quiet though...

3) Human rights laws are great, and generally they should be upheld. However, they are clearly being abused in the UK. Look at all the hate preachers roaming the streets. Look at the ISIS fighters coming back to claim benefits (Corbyn actually supports this). They are completely taking the piss. I do not care about someone's human rights if they are a gutless wonder wanting to destroy our people and way of life. I am absolutely amazed anyone else doesn't feel the same.

4) The victims of Manchester and London, and there families will no doubt feel as if attacks like this should never happen again. This isn't about the 'evil' and 'nasty' right wing, this is just common sense. If someone has ties to terrorist organisations that is their final strike. No second chances. If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. If you have, you can get the fuck out of society.

This is all getting worse because we have pandered, because we have been soft, and because anyone that has stood up to this has been branded 'racist' or 'Islamophobic'. Letting a terrorist keep their human rights so they can organise/carry out more attacks or radicalise others is actually completely fucking insane.

 

[Liquid Gold]

The terrorists are already winning LG.

How are they winning? They've committed some heinous acts but their aim is to destroy our civilisation and they will never be anywhere near that unless we start deconstructing our own democracy.

 

[Nick]

That's the thing isn't it. If you mention terrorists or extremists people seem to think you mean every muslim as a generalisation when you say come down hard on them or fuck them off.

That's not the case at all. Nobody is saying start rounding up every muslim and pack them off to jail, it's just if there is evidence to say somebody is an extremist (this goes for all religions and races) and wants to kill people in the name of terror or preaches to others who do it then their human rights should be null and void.

To me, somebody praying to an ISIS flag in public and on TV and being reported by other muslims for their extremist views is a bit of a warning to say he shouldn't be roaming the streets freely.

 

[Liquid Gold]

That's the thing isn't it. If you mention terrorists or extremists people seem to think you mean every muslim as a generalisation when you say come down hard on them or fuck them off.

That's not the case at all. Nobody is saying start rounding up every muslim and pack them off to jail, it's just if there is evidence to say somebody is an extremist (this goes for all religions and races) and wants to kill people in the name of terror or preaches to others who do it then their human rights should be null and void.

To me, somebody praying to an ISIS flag in public and on TV and being reported by other muslims for their extremist views is a bit of a warning to say he shouldn't be roaming the streets freely.

I agree with you anybody doing that shit should be locked up but that's not about human rights it's about legislating so that this is an illegal act and then they are just breaking the law and can be imprisoned. taking away every person's human rights because of this is bollocks.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

All depends which specific bits they want to remove or adjust really...although it could easily become start of a slippery slope

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

How are they winning? They've committed some heinous acts but their aim is to destroy our civilisation and they will never be anywhere near that unless we start deconstructing our own democracy.

They are winning because they are committing more and more attacks, and we are doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

When it escalates and every day to day walk of life, be it a small village or a big city is affected then they will have won. That's what we are on course to at the moment.

They haven't won yet, but they are winning.

 

[Liquid Gold]

They are winning because they are committing more and more attacks, and we are doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

When it escalates and every day to day walk of life, be it a small village or a big city is affected then they will have won. That's what we are on course to at the moment.

They haven't won yet, but they are winning.

But you can legislate against that, the law can be altered and things can be made illegal to clamp down against certain suspicious activities. Are you honestly happy to have your human rights taken away because of these pricks?

 

[Liquid Gold]

I think it was Ban Franklin that said those who give up their liberty for security deserve neither liberty or security.

 

[Nick]

But you can legislate against that, the law can be altered and things can be made illegal to clamp down against certain suspicious activities. Are you honestly happy to have your human rights taken away because of these pricks?

Realistically, how will it effect me for example?

She said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.

“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.

“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”

The proposed measures appear to be an attempt at strengthening terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims) rather than a complete return to Labour’s control orders, which were repeatedly struck down by the courts and then scrapped by May in 2010 when she was home secretary.

They could involve further curfews, restrictions on association with other known extremists, controls on where they can travel and limits on access to communication devices.

She could even increase the period for which terror suspects can be held without trial, currently 14 days – a move that provoked clashes with civil liberties campaigners when Tony Blair attempted it after the 7 July 2005 attacks.

 

[stupot07]

Personally I don't like this idea, to me its last minute vote clinching rhetoric that won't be followed through anyway.

I'm uncomfortable with moving away from human rights act, but we must test the current law fully rather than be scared to. If they start with this, then it opens the door for the government to further exploit for different issues later down the line. Being good and decent and acting with humanity is what makes Britain and the majority of the western world good.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Liquid Gold]

Realistically, how will it effect me for example?

It could have little to no effect on you. It could mean that you're put under false suspicion arrested without being told why you're being arrested, held in captivity for an unlimited time and then tried and convicted without ever knowing what you're on trial for or even seeing a lawyer. We can fight terrorism without destroying our rights. This will be a call to arms for those susceptible to being radicalised and there will be nothing in the future for a government to decide that, for example, driving on the phone causes far more deaths than terrorism so lets just lock all these people up without trial. It's a measure that protects us against authoritarian rule. This is the shit that would happen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba or Islamic State FFS. A functioning democracy does not take away the rights of it's citizens because of a few criminals it legislates so that these people can be convicted of a crime or prevented from doing so.

 

[Sub]

I think it was Ban Franklin that said those who give up their liberty for security deserve neither liberty or security.

perhaps we should have the right to bare arms to protect ourselves and homes aswell ?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

It could have little to no effect on you. It could mean that you're put under false suspicion arrested without being told why you're being arrested, held in captivity for an unlimited time and then tried and convicted without ever knowing what you're on trial for or even seeing a lawyer. We can fight terrorism without destroying our rights. This will be a call to arms for those susceptible to being radicalised and there will be nothing in the future for a government to decide that, for example, driving on the phone causes far more deaths than terrorism so lets just lock all these people up without trial. It's a measure that protects us against authoritarian rule. This is the shit that would happen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba or Islamic State FFS. A functioning democracy does not take away the rights of it's citizens because of a few criminals it legislates so that these people can be convicted of a crime or prevented from doing so.

It's totally different mate, come on. Driving on your phone versus blowing up a children's concert...

Personally, I don't care. If I haven't done anything wrong then the authorities can do what they need to do to ensure I'm not a danger without harming me, and until they have the conclusive evidence.

Look at Tommy Robinson anyway, he has been locked up many times for no given reason and his human rights ignored. Did people care? No. All of a sudden we might take away some rights from terrorists who actually want to kill us and people are outraged. Give me a break.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

They are winning because they are committing more and more attacks, and we are doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

When it escalates and every day to day walk of life, be it a small village or a big city is affected then they will have won. That's what we are on course to at the moment.

They haven't won yet, but they are winning.

That is simply not true imo

There is absolutely everything being done - that is why loads of previously planned attacks have been thwarted over many months even years. By announcing what is being done can thwart our efforts too. A bit like following a suspected shop-lifter around the shop. They are much less lukely to shop lift when they know they're being watched.

Recent events are hopefully just a short term blip we are suffering atm, in part at least, due to Mrs May's brilliant foresight to reduce police numbers.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Liquid Gold]

It's totally different mate, come on. Driving on your phone versus blowing up a children's concert...

Personally, I don't care. If I haven't done anything wrong then the authorities can do what they need to do to ensure I'm not a danger without harming me, and until they have the conclusive evidence.

Look at Tommy Robinson anyway, he has been locked up many times for no given reason and his human rights ignored. Did people care? No. All of a sudden we might take away some rights from terrorists who actually want to kill us and people are outraged. Give me a break.

But without human rights legislation to protect you the government can change what constitutes right and wrong. You living your normal life now could be against the law and you have no right to a fair trial. Lets stop these twats and lock them up but not by trading in your rights. This is the act of an authoritarian government not a forward thinking democracy and it shows how far to the fringes acceptable debate has become.

Tommy Robinson was locked up for inciting hate speech, a crime under the public order act. An act which should be beefed up to lock up hate preachers for a longer sentence. Not take away your human rights.

 

[Captain Dart]

Many of these 'rights' are abused by people who attack society.
I have no problem for instance removing the right to a family life from an extremist who is trying to remove freedom from fear from the many.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

But without human rights legislation to protect you the government can change what constitutes right and wrong. You living your normal life now could be against the law and you have no right to a fair trial. Lets stop these twats and lock them up but not by trading in your rights. This is the act of an authoritarian government not a forward thinking democracy and it shows how far to the fringes acceptable debate has become.

Tommy Robinson was locked up for inciting hate speech, a crime under the public order act. An act which should be beefed up to lock up hate preachers for a longer sentence. Not take away your human rights.

Everything in the NOW is simply designed to win votes thanks to the fear stoked up by the reporting around long since past comments &/or mis-reporting & speculation about what will bring about results good or bad.

All about votes!

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Nick]

It could have little to no effect on you. It could mean that you're put under false suspicion arrested without being told why you're being arrested, held in captivity for an unlimited time and then tried and convicted without ever knowing what you're on trial for or even seeing a lawyer. We can fight terrorism without destroying our rights. This will be a call to arms for those susceptible to being radicalised and there will be nothing in the future for a government to decide that, for example, driving on the phone causes far more deaths than terrorism so lets just lock all these people up without trial. It's a measure that protects us against authoritarian rule. This is the shit that would happen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba or Islamic State FFS. A functioning democracy does not take away the rights of it's citizens because of a few criminals it legislates so that these people can be convicted of a crime or prevented from doing so.

I've never been stopped and searched, I've never had my house raided, I've never been dragged off the street for no reason.

If I started knocking about with terrorists and going to see people speak who encourage terrorism I couldn't really moan if that changed could I? Same if I started Googling how to make bombs or spending hours watching ISIS propaganda.

Again, I'm not talking about a random muslim guy who goes about his business the same as everybody else. I'm talking people who always seem to be "known" to agencies.

ie.

A man on TV praying to an ISIS flag who has been reported by people from his community and has history of kicking off with them for not being extreme.
The man from Italy who is also known to have terrorist links.
The Manchester bomber who was reported multiple times and nothing happened.

Should somebody who looks at child porn or has the mindset that its ok to abuse children be allowed to wander around parks even though they hadn't actually abused a child yet but are suspected and likely to?

 

[Liquid Gold]

I've never been stopped and searched, I've never had my house raided, I've never been dragged off the street for no reason.

If I started knocking about with terrorists and going to see people speak who encourage terrorism I couldn't really moan if that changed could I? Same if I started Googling how to make bombs or spending hours watching ISIS propaganda.

Again, I'm not talking about a random muslim guy who goes about his business the same as everybody else. I'm talking people who always seem to be "known" to agencies.

ie.

A man on TV praying to an ISIS flag who has been reported by people from his community and has history of kicking off with them for not being extreme.
The man from Italy who is also known to have terrorist links.
The Manchester bomber who was reported multiple times and nothing happened.

Should somebody who looks at child porn or has the mindset that its ok to abuse children be allowed to wander around parks even though they hadn't actually abused a child yet but are suspected and likely to?

Nobody is arguing against using or changing the law to stop these people. They are taking about getting rid of every single persons rights to do it.

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

I've never been stopped and searched, I've never had my house raided, I've never been dragged off the street for no reason.

If I started knocking about with terrorists and going to see people speak who encourage terrorism I couldn't really moan if that changed could I? Same if I started Googling how to make bombs or spending hours watching ISIS propaganda.

Again, I'm not talking about a random muslim guy who goes about his business the same as everybody else. I'm talking people who always seem to be "known" to agencies.

ie.

A man on TV praying to an ISIS flag who has been reported by people from his community and has history of kicking off with them for not being extreme.
The man from Italy who is also known to have terrorist links.
The Manchester bomber who was reported multiple times and nothing happened.

Should somebody who looks at child porn or has the mindset that its ok to abuse children be allowed to wander around parks even though they hadn't actually abused a child yet but are suspected and likely to?

Just to add about that Italian man, when he was stopped in an airport flying to Syria or wherever. He told authorities he was going to be a terrorist, all that was done is he was added to a watch list.

 

[Liquid Gold]

Just to add about that Italian man, when he was stopped in an airport flying to Syria or wherever. He told authorities he was going to be a terrorist, all that was done is he was added to a watch list.

Again you can stop that by making anything like that illegal. You don't have to remove an entire nation's human rights.