to think some people have more human rights than others

[Moreshabbythanchic]

BBC news, a suspected Somalian terrorist has had his tag removed as it is against his human rights. Apparently he thinks it is a bomb that could be detonated by MI5.

I think I've heard it all now.

this is a good place to start rightsinfo.org/infographics/the-14-worst-human-rights-myths/

Terrorist or not, psychosis is hideous.

I have been psychotic in the past and although I didn't want to become a terrorist, I had some pretty awful intrusive thoughts of an extremely violent nature which chill me to the bone whenever I think about it.

I can see how somebody who is already mentally ill could be attracted to a terrorist group but have no idea if this is the case here or not.

And I totally understand why this guy would be paranoid about his tag. These intrusive thought are so real to the sufferer and to me, they felt like an absolute truth.

In an ideal world, this guy should be receiving appropriate treatment no matter what may or may not have done and I understand why appropriate treatment could include removal of the tag.

Beat me to it, ghosty- I was just coming on to link to that!

it's such a good illustration of the facts isn't it?

If this man is deemed so dangerous that he needs constant surveillance he should not be allowed to stay here and should be deported for the protection for other citizens. I have only heard this story on the radio news, but suspect it is a cleverly constructed argument from by his lawyer, (paid for by whom?).
Yet another reason for replacing this Bill of Rights.

Goblin neither you nor I know anything about this man's immigration situation.

My best guess is that he has been/is a refugee and therefore, again (damn those Human Rights) returning him to Somalia would likely breach Article 3 again.

I seriously doubt there is any mental health care worth its salt in Somalia.

Also, erm, he hasn't actually done anything.

everyone has the right not to be made mentally ill

I'm sure he's more likely to feel this way because of a mental illness rather than the tag causing one

Well said mawbroon

For those who think he should've had to keep the tag, don't you see that forcing him to wear something he thinks is a bomb could result in behaviour he might otherwise have not exhibited? Exactly what you fear from him NOT wearing it?

Lawyers for Home Secretary Theresa May told the court there was evidence the man had provided important support for Somali militant group al-Shabaab for many years.

"But the court found there was sufficient evidence to support the national security case to impose and keep in place a TPim notice and restrictions on this individual's activities to protect the public remain in place."

Personally I dont really care about his human rights, his health or his status, I dont want him, or anyone else that is willing to radicalise or cause harm to the population of this country living here. I just hope he never gets the chance.

not caring about human rights makes you sound more like al-shabaab and IS than you know - the irony!

Huh, this guy is Islamic, non-white, and mentally ill. Is he also overweight and on benefits? That would tick every box for the Daily Mail and its believers.

What a ridiculous statement! I care only about the human rights of the innocent people who could suffer at his hands, and that includes you!

lol I read the OP title and was going to come on and say yes, for sure, good example in the west being rich white male people etc have and have always had more "human rights" then everyone else

but the thread isn't interesting about that at all

I've not read the link can't be arsed

Oh and also WTF teh govt looking to remove us from the european convention of human rights that we wrote in the first place. Hell yeah totes great idea I am sure the UK authorities have the best interests of everyone at heart oh no wait hold on, see original point again...

Where does it say he is Muslim?

yes al-Shebaab ... who have never targeted the UK ever

I fear people who are anti human rights more than them

(on an individual level - not diminishing the atrocities they have committed abroad)

Again. The whole point of human rights is that they apply to ALL humans. If he is a human, then he gets these rights protected.

You don't get to pick and choose who is "human enough" to deserve protection. And so it should be. Otherwise the whole Convention is pointless.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, this person IS AS INNOCENT as anyone else reading this thread.

So hurrah for "human rights" protecting the innocent from persecution. It's a triumph for civilised societies everywhere.

Right, what was the AIBU about ?

Oh, and to answer the OP: YABU. Unless you can list which human rights you are willing to give up ?

Just for the avoidance of doubt, this person IS AS INNOCENT as anyone else reading this thread

Hense why he had the tag in the first place

You are angry that his irrational fear of being blown up has led to him being de-tagged and monitored using alternative methods... and your reasoning is that your fear of being blown up is made worse by the facet that he doesn't have a tag and you don't trust the other forms of surveillance despite having no evidence that they are less effective.

The herd have no human rights. If you're just a general everyday person you have absolutely no way of enforcing your own human rights. Look at the 'right to family life'. Despite the fact that people with fertility problems are routinely denied the treatment recommended by NICE that right is never enforced. People just pay for IVF if the can afford it or give up if the can't. Or take up a legal battle on legal aid if they're in prison.

Rights do not apply to normal people until they are blown up. Look at Jean Charles De Menezes. They didn't know who he was. They shot him because they thought he was about to kill loads of people. It's sad it happened, but at the same time it was a calculated risk where one person died rather than 50 other passengers. But those 50 other passengers apparently had no right to protection. The genuine terrorists had a human right to get on a tube and kill them.

I just read the link, and am really shocked at the OP and some others on the thread. The man is delusional, he is hearing voices, he things that people are watching him and have attached something to his body that they can kill him with at any moment.

He has never been convicted of anything.
He is obviously really quite ill indeed (the judge and 2 doctors all agreed)
They said he was at risk of self-harm if the tag was left on (I would imagine either suicide or trying to cut his own foot off)
And that his mental illness is worsening due to the presence of this device

And people say he should be forced to keep it on? When there are other ways of monitoring him, and anyway he's never been convicted of anything (innocent until proven guilty anyone?).

There is a lot wrong with something here and it's not the judge's decision.

What is the matter with people.

Someone who has to wear a tag and have all his movements monitored actually has considerably fewer human rights than the rest of us.