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.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?
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.
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?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?
Freedom of speech is not some kind of joke, neither is the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.
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.
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.
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.The terrorists are already winning LG.
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.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.
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.
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?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?
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.
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.Realistically, how will it effect me for example?
perhaps we should have the right to bare arms to protect ourselves and homes aswell ?I think it was Ban Franklin that said those who give up their liberty for security deserve neither liberty or security.
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.
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 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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.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?
Again you can stop that by making anything like that illegal. You don't have to remove an entire nation's human rights.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?