To not give a toss about Abu Qatada's human rights?

[wannaBe]

So he came here on a fake passport, is a radical suspected of plotting God-knows-what, and yet we apparently shouldn't deport him back to where he came from (regardless of the fact he is here illegally) because he might be persecuted back in Jordan?

Now if this was an innocent person who meant no harm to others who had come here illegally I would be more sympathetic.

But it's not.

Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.

It's that one word though.

Rights.

It is overused, and in the case of the Human Rights Act, I believe it should be called the Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.

I have the right to a safe and free existence. So does everyone else. It is my responsibility not to endanger that safe existence for myself and others. If I do endanger the lives of other people, I will have my freedom curtailed.

The ECHR and our own Supreme Court have certainly been a disaster for both Labour & Conservative Govts when it comes to trying to take away OUR civil liberties, though Labour managed to get some legislation through. People forget detention without trial doesn't just affect terrorists, it affects potentially everyone.

Has anyone actually read the Human Rights Act? I recommend you do, it's not a long piece of legislation but a very important one. In any event, please extend your knowledge beyond that of the tabloid press.

It's not about him though; the way we treat people, regardless of how horrible they may be, is a reflection on the kind of country we want to be. You can't just crap the concept of human rights because a few idiots try and exploit them.

EasilyBored

We did manage to have our rights protected before the ECHR rolled along. We had Common Law and the Courts and a Constitution.

I think that the codifying of these rights is as much of a problem as the EU constitution. It doesn't limit the powers of government, it defines them and limits the powers of the individual. It shackles Liberty.

Secretnutellafix, that is TRUE.

bur AFTER a trial, AFTER someone has been found guilty by a court of law, not BEFORE.

That is the whole point really.

pumpkinsweetie, what are the "terrible crimes against humanity" Abu Qatada has committed?

We did manage to have our rights protected before the ECHR rolled along. We had Common Law and the Courts and a Constitution.

You may have had your rights protected before the ECHR. Good for you. As a woman, I didn't. As someone with a disability, I didn't. As a member of an ethnic minority, I didn't. As a child, I didn't.

mrsprachett It makes me feel sick to think that a government I voted for has been complicit in the torture of terror suspects, behind closed doors.

I makes me beyond sick to think that the ECHR and the human rights act may be the only thing stopping the current government from doing the same in broad daylight, to the apparent delight of the baying masses.

Why are we even applying this law to a non-national?

So if an American came to this country illegally they should not be subject to human right laws?

What if they come from Nigeria?

The law applies to everyone regardless of age, sex, religion or race. It's a real shame we have had to waste so much money on this piece of turd but I'd fear a country where governments can ignore the laws they dislike when it suits them.

TheUnMember

Yes, you did. What you didn't have was a special category for your rights.

Snorbs Does his beard count as a 'terrible crime against humanity'?

If we don't codify Human Rights then who decides? You? Me? The Daily Mail?

What if I decide the fact that the lying, thieving gypsy illegally encamped on my family land is a despicable human and quite frankly I could get them to fess up to the police by repeatedly punching them in the face? That would be fine as they aren't nice people, they haven't stuck to their community responsibilities so therefore they lose their human rights. And if they have no human rights evidence against them gained by my torture is ok.

Good-oh

nb. I don't really have a thieving lying gypsy encampment on family land!

Yes, you did. What you didn't have was a special category for your rights.

No I didn't. My right as a child to not be physically assualted in school is a direct result of a ruling against the UK under article 3 of the ECHR.

My right to walk down the street in my native country without be shot dead on sight by UK authorities is a direct result of a ruling against the UK under article 2 of the ECHR.

My right to vote regardless of where I legally choose to live within the UK is a direct result of a ruling against the UK under article 3 of protocol 1 of the ECHR.

There have been 257 instances of the UK breaching people's human rights since the ECHR came along. If UK law was sufficient, there would have been 0.

To sum up, the reason the ECHR is absolutely essential is because too many people, as illustrated in this thread, see human rights as disposable.

Talk of rights coming with responsibilities is trite and erroneous.

You are a human being = you are afforded human rights.

Even if you piss your 'responsibilities' up the wall.

Even if you kill and maim.

Even if you commit genocide.

You remain human. It is not a subjective classification.

He is wanted in Jordan for terrorist conspiracy charges!
Terrorist meaning:1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

1. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

Basically threats to kill

"To sum up, the reason the ECHR is absolutely essential is because too many people, as illustrated in this thread, see human rights as disposable."

Agree completely.

Talk of human rights being 'deserved' is bizarre.

Terrorists are human beings, ergo they are afforded human rights.

Human rights are not a reward for being a good person.

IMO people should lose their so called human rights the day they take part or do a serious crime and also he doesn't come from our country does he?
So why is he getting all this help

It's a good point about Britain being seen to be perpetrating injustice breeding more potential terrorists, but at the same time with the olympics coming up the government must be seen to be taking a stand against terror threats. It's a delicate balance, I'm certainly no fan of David Cameron and his buddies but I really wouldn't want to be in his shoes in these coming months, if anything did happen around the olympics and it emerges that it was in any way preventable he will be absolutely crucified by the press and public.

What if this Abu whatever his name is decides to create terror in Britain ?

TheUnMember

How does your 'right as a child not to be physically assaulted in school' differ from the UK's assault laws? A school isn't a Royal Palace and thus outside the jurisdiction of British law.

I have literally no idea what your second point refers to since I wasn't aware that the UK authorities were in the habit of mowing citizens down, or that they required a law to tell them not to when there is already a law in place for such things.

And IIRC we already had electoral law before the ECHR told us we had to hold elections. I'm sure I'm not imagining all those elections.

So we already had laws which covered the three issues you raised.

Thanks goodness that is just your opinion pumpkinsweetie and I don't have to live in your distopian nightmare. The man who was shot for saying "let him have it" took part in a serious crime. He was also learning disabled and killed by the UK state. I'm glad I and every other human has rights.

"IMO people should lose their so called human rights the day they take part or do a serious crime and also he doesn't come from our country does he?"

So, you are happy for British citizens who (are suspected of) break(ing) laws in other countries to be tortured? Because they have committed a serious crime (perhaps adultery) and they no longer have human rights.