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.

Cantbelievethisishappening

Hense why he had the tag in the first place

What on earth are you on about ?

Only courts of law can decide innocence or guilt. And a good job too.

So what court of law found this person guilty ?

I wonder if people who feel qualified discussing human rights have a sideline explaining quantum mechanics ? It seems there's as much understanding of either in MN debates.

For the love of all that is holy, human rights are to protect humans (i.e. us all) against the powers of the state (the government). The reason we all need them, is without them, we could all find ourselves

• locked up without trial,
• losing our property on the say so of any politician
• having our families split up, as above

for a start.

So, if people who despise human rights are quite willing to suffer the above, then whoopee - let's dump these pesky human rights. However, if (as I suspect) they feel they would rather be protected against these things, then perhaps they should pipe down.

We don't have any problems with human rights in the UK. However, we have a big media problem.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51

He has never been convicted of anything.

DING.

The right to family life is nothing to do with the right to provide people with children

Children are not a "right" and have not ever been and should never be.

What on earth.

Oh Jesus I just read the rest . Jean Charles Menezes was murdered by the Met, who then LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH about what had happened to try and make it look like he deserved it. Quite rightly there was a lot of outrage.

Anyone who thinks that the Met should go around shooting people with impunity, and is unbothered by the fact of their attempted cover-up, is not someone who's opinion I have much interest in really.

p.s. Maybe MN needs a special "human rights" section, for in depth informed debate and analysis ....

"It's sad it happened"

His family will be very moved to hear of your deep concern.

Oh yes and the fact you think it was absolutely dead right that they shot him stone dead when he had done nothing wrong, and was going to do nothing wrong.

What lurkinghusband said

I just sit here shaking my head.

That there are people who are so utterly trusting of "the authorities" even when "the authorities" are never NEVER spotless, and in the case of eg the Met have been proven time and again to be corrupt etc.

This is how totalitarian regimes get a toehold I guess, is through people like this? I never really thought about it before.

I too had my doubts If that makes me ignorant then I would rather be ignorant than blown up.

But how far are you going to take that argument? I would rather innocent people be locked up than take the risk that they might be thinking of blowing me up? I would rather innocent people die than for me to take the risk of being blown up? It is justifiable to take action to restrict someone's freedom if there is proof that he is planning on blowing people up. The mere fact that the Home Office's lawyers turn up in court and say that they think that that is a risk does not amount to proof.

Oh and whirlpool as well, what they said.

I thought everyone would understand why dumping the human rights act was a bad idea. Er clears not if this thread is anything to go by.

As for the idea that human rights aren't for the use of the law-abiding - people simply cannot be paying attention. The Human Rights Act has been used in, for example, cases about the right to go to Dignitas without your relatives being prosecuted for helping you; about the right to use a husband's sperm to conceive after his death; about the right to wear a crucifix at work; the right to a fair school admission process; and, very recently, in the case where a woman who was raped got prosecuted for making a false report when the police hadn't bothered to check the DNA samples.

The trouble is that it is, as usual, the right wing press which feeds these persecution fantasies. They could do so much to educate people in basic truths, but it is not in their proprietors' interests for them to do so.

It's depressing there are people as ignorant (and I suspect some are wilfully ignorant) as in this thread, when it's massive news about the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

In no other country in the world, would you have people whinging about the surfeit of human rights, except the UK. I guess it's the downside of free speech. Not something we'll have to worry about too much longer, when OberGruppenFurher May has her way.

In the US, not only to they generally revere their human rights, they actually have to pledge to uphold them in any public office. They call theirs "the constitution", and they are very attached to it. Maybe the OP should pop over to a US forum, and start banging on about criminals having too many constitutional rights - they may not make it back alive.

So while David Cameron took office declaring an intention to piss all over our human rights, Barack Obama took office promising to uphold those of the US. Food for thought ?

Aermingers, the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes was anything but a calculated risk. Check your facts.

Remember, history tells us ...

It's not this government you need to fear.

It's the next.

The human rights act is also one of the strongest pieces of legislation protecting the disabled from the cuts.

Its a bit like in the US where the population has the right to bear arms.

Oh are they the same guns that they use to shoot innocent people?

With rights come responsibilities so how do we protect peoples rights whilst ensuring they accept their responsibilities?

Its a bit like in the US where the population has the right to bear arms.

An oft quoted observation goes :

"Do you know why there's a second amendment ?" [The right to bear arms].

"In case the government forgets the first." [Right to free speech].

Which demonstrates that unlike some of their UK brethren, US citizens definitely understand human rights are there to protect us from THE GOVERNMENT.

What the UK missed, not having a revolution.

I'm constantly baffled by the views if some people

Oh, and even without abolishing the human rights act the last parliament (including the majority of labour mps) voted in legislation that means it is possible to be tried, convicted and imprisoned for an offense without you ever being told the charges or seeing the inside of a court room and represented by a barrister of the courts choice. (On phone, so can't link but Google "secret courts act")

I don't care about the justification of "national security" this shouldn't be acceptable in any civilized society.

Also, I heard somewhere that the American constitution only applys to Americans, so if you aren't legally an american you have no rights at all. Hoping this isn't true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Sorry for the long post, but in my view we don't have enough rights as it is, so nobody should be lining up to have them removed!

The UK has not had a revolution...

Go on ladies, I bet you can name 3 without even having to Google (I'm not expecting dates, but you know the people I mean).

With respect Whirlpool, these are things that can be treated with medication and controlled. This persons right to refuse medication does not trump the right to other's safety.

with respect there are also things that can't - mental health problems don't tend to have simple magic pill solutions

Aermingers, precisely what medication would have treated this man, and what evidence is there either that it has been prescribed or that it has been refused by him?

It's interesting that the Home Office isn't appealing. Either they don't think he's that much of a risk, or they reckon that the risk can be contained by other means. You have to wonder why they wanted the tag at all.

"With respect" Aermingers, what makes you think that you know better than the two doctors who gave evidence in court and the judge who ruled?

Are you the man in question? Or someone involved closely in his care?

You find the risk of self harm which it doesn't take much imagination to realise is not unlikely to involve him trying to remove his own foot at the ankle with a breadknife or similar, is more appropriate than removing it, as the doctors advise, and monitoring him through other means?

Well, that says a lot about what sort of person you are, really.

I suppose that, in general, a lot of the population are quite bloodthirsty, and pro-torture and so forth.

It isn't so long ago that people used to turn out for public executions as a fun family day out, and of course in some parts of the world it still happens. Public floggings and the like.

It is a thin veneer of "civilisation" that we have, and I think it is important to protect it, and not to backslide into more vicious times, even when faced with a new threat.

But like I say, reading some of these posts does make me realise who totalitarian regimes get a toehold, and how it is hard to "progress" away from the more grotesque acts that "civilisations" are capable of.

Lurking
I am entitled to my opinion as are you. My opinions can be directly linked to personal experience. Do me a favour and stop lecturing and rubbishing and belittling my opinion because you have an axe to grind about human rights.

Someone is NOT always innocent until convicted in a court of law. Not sure why that is so hard to grasp.

You are not party to all the details of this case

I wonder how you would have felt if one of your family members had been on one of the transatlantic planes that were being primed for destruction to the point that the plan was on the cusp of being executed. Thankfully intense surveillance of those responsible, some of which had 'loose' links to terrorist organisations ensured this atrocity did not come to fruition.