Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not want my human rights torn up?

576 replies

futuristic1 · 07/06/2017 07:19

I thought we weren't going to let them change the way we live?

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 10:12

I'm guessing the YANBUs don't live in major conurbations

I suspect you'll find quite the converse in reality actually.

(FWIW I'm not in a city, but I do spend a fair proportion of my socialising in a major city).

makeourfuture · 07/06/2017 10:13

But of course they did not, they ran (among other things) on policies of national sovereignty, greater home security, and improved industry.

We are like old Sisyphus aren't we? Roll the boulder up the hill over and over and over....never learn a damned thing.

Why don't we just try giving the police the resources they need?

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 10:13

Hillsborough Inquiry. Not possible without human rights. About the abuse of the state and the police.

Dandandandandandandan · 07/06/2017 10:13

Lana, it's not all about you!! Make infiltrates all the political posts, refuses to answer any questions, just spouts a load of soundbites. That is why he is a mindless labourbot with no views of his own.

DeadGood · 07/06/2017 10:15

"comments like that want to make me vote conservative. All the slagging off of people who might vote conservative, just makes me want to vote for them."

This makes you sound like a 7 year old, you know that, right fedup?

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 10:17

(referring back to US constitution)

It would be a great help if the UK formally enshrined Human Rights to be above the everyday laws of the land, with any changes being made via referendum (like Ireland).

Currently, a lot of people who are arguing against them don't actually understand them.

That said, in the spirit of conciliation, if anyone does have a problem with a Human Right, it would be a good idea to say which right, and why they don't want it for themselves either.

People do realise that taking away a Human Right takes it away from themselves too, don't they ?

jellyfrizz · 07/06/2017 10:19

*I am frankly worried by any calls to erode human rights. And it's not lefty hand-wringing, it's self-interest to be perfectly honest. If we say one human being is worth more or less than any other, we can torture them because they're less than fully human, we can lock them up without trial because they're less than fully human, what's to stop them coming after me when the government decides I've committed some crime or other?

Humans have always been murderous arseholes. Just look at history. #Notallhumans, sure, but we have to face facts. We have not yet found a way to stop humans killing other humans. Calling one set of people less than fully human is precisely what ISIS are doing when they call fellow muslims and non-muslims infidels and crusaders. Why on earth should we emulate them?*

Nicely put Plinky I completely agree.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:20

Danand
But why resort to insults?
Why not engage with the points others are making as well?
Why not engage in the actual heart of the debate?

It just doesn't help, at all.

Oakmaiden · 07/06/2017 10:21

"we're going to be able to deport proven terrorists"

We can already deport proven terrorists. What we can't necessarily do is deport someone because of what they think or what they might do. And if you don't think that stripping away people's rights based on what we think that they might think or do is dangerous ground, then I despair.

Additionally - hate speech is already illegal. So removing the "right to free speech" won't change anything for people who preach hate - they are already breaking the law. Although it will, theoretically, allow the Govt to widen the definition of "what is not allowed to be said".

As said by a PP above - I am fairly sure that what TM really has her sights on is allowing evidence obtained by torture. The thought that may then extend to UK sponsored torture of suspected terrorists appauls me. And then once that becomes "normal" who else might be forced to confess to what else via torture? Conjecture, I know, but still - this is one of the things that Human Rights prevents.

And goodness knows what other of OUR rights may be trampled over in the rush...

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:23

Bloody excellent post @Seqkat.

Beautifully put.

With your permission I am going to copy it, and use it whenever someone uses the line "this isn't Nazi Germany".

And for posterity and in case people missed it, I am going to repost itin bold on this thread, and I hope all those who see nothing wrong with this read it and think a little on it, please?

I really worry about the "This is not Nazi Germany, no one's going to start locking up disabled campaigners all of a sudden" rhetoric. It seems as though the way we teach history has given some people the impression that the Nazis ran on a "kill all the Jews!" Platform - so as long as we don't vote for the "Kill all the Jews!" party, it could never happen again. Easy, obvious solution!

But of course they did not, they ran (among other things) on policies of national sovereignty, greater home security, and improved industry. Once they were elected, they didn't suddenly begin programmes of mass murder, it happened incrementally, with legally passed restrictions to particular rights, benefits and freedoms which were less objectionable. Protests against these restrictions were an excellent excuse to begin clamping down, with bonus convenient scapegoats (a process which plenty of ordinary Germans bought into too), and once that becomes normalised and legalised, you can extend the scope and results. This kind of thing never happens all at once - it would be far far easier to guard against if it did. It's a process of multiple steps, and it's absolutely right to recognise here the potential for one of those steps being taken and push back NOW with our votes and voices while we still have them, rather than waiting to see how far down this path we get. Flattening out that process into just an easy Nazi vs not Nazi choice where we avoid voting for the mass murder party is a trap based on learning an over simplified version of the complexities of history and society.

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 10:23

"This is not Nazi Germany, no one's going to start locking up disabled campaigners all of a sudden" rhetoric.

Perhaps they won't but you might want to look up why they feel the need to protest in the first place...

www.disabilitynewsservice.com/election-2017-tory-disability-minister-endorses-forced-institutionalisation/

Fleur Perry, editor of Disability United, had asked the question in the wake of research she carried out earlier this year which showed how many NHS primary care organisations had quietly introduced policies that could see disabled people with complex healthcare needs shunted into residential or nursing homes against their wishes as a cost-saving measure.

But instead of defending disabled people’s right to live in their own homes, Mordaunt said: “The decision about whether to institutionalise somebody against their will is rightly a matter for medical professionals, and decisions should be made on the grounds of individual safety and health.”

I believe this would probably, quite rightly, fall foul of human rights legislation.

CatsAndCandles · 07/06/2017 10:25

OP, YANBU. This has been planned a while and is very concerning. Of course it will affect all of us, it's naïve to think otherwise - you've only got to look at history.

Dandandandandandandan · 07/06/2017 10:27

Lana - because it gets old, debating with someone who just replies, MUH TORIES HURT to everything, all over every thread. When there is a decent response and a reasoned answer, then it will be worth it!

WeakAndUnstable · 07/06/2017 10:29

From April 2016, but still extremely funny and even more relevant today...

Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:30

OK, so why haven't you engaged much with anyone else then?
There is plenty of reasoned debate on this thread.

If you really believe that he/she is a Labourbot, then engage with the others who aren't, right?

It just reduces the level of debate to playground insults when you start having a pop at people.

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 10:30

'the jihadi next doorNot kidding this time.Press the off button. You will be better off for it.'

Yes yes we can all turn off. Impressionable young jihadi wannabes will have lapped it up. The point is they aired it in the first pace to allow the 'free speech'. We have tolerated this warped 'free speech for far long long. If TM's changes include a judicial process to stop this stuff being circulated then good.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 10:31

However on the flip side we do seem to take a long time to deport criminals (not just terrorists) & you also hear of murderers from other countries being allowed in & then going on to murder here. Are there laws to prevent this? Why does deportation take so long?

We can't deport anyone to a country where it's known their Human Rights would not be honoured. (People do realise we have refused to deport a criminal to the US on this very reason ?). Otherwise there's no point in having Human Rights, really. I think it's probably OK to outsource IT departments. I am much less comfortable with the idea that we outsource torture and executions to other countries.

makeourfuture · 07/06/2017 10:31

I really worry about the "This is not Nazi Germany, no one's going to start locking up disabled campaigners all of a sudden" rhetoric. It seems as though the way we teach history has given some people the impression that the Nazis ran on a "kill all the Jews!" Platform - so as long as we don't vote for the "Kill all the Jews!" party, it could never happen again. Easy, obvious solution!

But of course they did not, they ran (among other things) on policies of national sovereignty, greater home security, and improved industry. Once they were elected, they didn't suddenly begin programmes of mass murder, it happened incrementally, with legally passed restrictions to particular rights, benefits and freedoms which were less objectionable. Protests against these restrictions were an excellent excuse to begin clamping down, with bonus convenient scapegoats (a process which plenty of ordinary Germans bought into too), and once that becomes normalised and legalised, you can extend the scope and results. This kind of thing never happens all at once - it would be far far easier to guard against if it did. It's a process of multiple steps, and it's absolutely right to recognise here the potential for one of those steps being taken and push back NOW with our votes and voices while we still have them, rather than waiting to see how far down this path we get. Flattening out that process into just an easy Nazi vs not Nazi choice where we avoid voting for the mass murder party is a trap based on learning an over simplified version of the complexities of history and society.

Wise words, yes.

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 10:31

The British Bill of Rights was first proposed by the Cons in 2010. It was dropped for this election.

Why haven't they made any progress? In part because they have been unable to come up with a better alternative.

Sure there might be things in our Human Rights that don't look as if they protect us all the time. The reality is they protect us in the best way available considering the alternative which would do more harm. Stuff that doesn't grab the sensationalist headlines but affects day to day life and under pins the values in our society. And yes this does mean more deaths. People don't just die from terrorist attacks.

Amanduh · 07/06/2017 10:31

They DO need to change though

BeyondDespairandRepair · 07/06/2017 10:31

Someone mentioned this on TV this am - apparently the part she wants to deal with has already been action ed by Germany and France after exceptional circumstances thats all - holding potential T for a little longer....stuff like that. Seems logical to me!

Dandandandandandandan · 07/06/2017 10:32

Um, Lana, I asked YOU a very serious question a couple of pages back. You didn't deign to reply to it!

BeyondDespairandRepair · 07/06/2017 10:33

The flip side is - looking at ISIS like they are the modern day Nazis....which they are - and we are allowing them to flourish here with our utlra liberal laws....should we allow the Nazis to flourish? I would say if the Actual Nazis started up here in large numbers, organised themselves and started to Kill....there would be far more targeted hard line response.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:34

We need to be grown ups about this.

We need to lay out our opinions carefully and reasonably.

We need a proper conversation about this.

Calling someone names never, ever helps contribute to that debate, it just derails and minimises it.

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 10:34

'apparently the part she wants to deal with has already been action ed by Germany and France after exceptional circumstances thats all - holding potential T for a little longer....stuff like that. Seems logical to me!'

Yes, all the alarmists on here will have people really do need to calm down, read a paper or watch the news. Its a right band wagon.

Swipe left for the next trending thread