Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:36

Sorry Danand I must have missed it, it's a fast moving thread!

Please repost it and I will reply.

I'm not ignoring anything, so I didn't "deign to not reply", just missed it.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 10:36

I'll ask again:

What Human Rights are those advocating change willing to give up themselves ? Remember, they are Human rights, so you are taking them away from everybody - yourselves included.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:39

Maybe
I read lots of papers, and get my news from a wide range of sources, so am pretty well informed, thank you.

I don't care what other countries have done, they don't have our particular type of Government right now.

I don't trust TM with this sort of thing, at all.

Artisanjam · 07/06/2017 10:39

The government signed up to the HRA as a necessary pre-requisite to the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. The GFA is not sustainable without the HRA.

We could find that we add a whole new set of terrorists into the mix by getting rid of it, and we don't actually benefit from a reduction in Islamist terrorists as most of them are

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 10:39

'What Human Rights are those advocating change willing to give up themselves '

as Beyond said :

'holding potential T for a little longer....stuff like that. Seems logical to me!'

Carolinesbeanies · 07/06/2017 10:40

I think people are confusing what they believe to be 'human rights' with the laws we have chosen to live under, laws that have adapted over 1000 years. To imply that pre EU, we lived in an unfair, utterly lawless society is ridiculous. Our laws quite simply exist as UK law.

What people are ignoring is that the EU are wishing to enforce what is in effect a 'League of Democratic Nations'. Who are we to say how any other nation choses to govern themselves? The United Nations dont demand that as a criteria for being a member?
The UK is, and should be as equally entitled to decide how they govern and decide their own laws, as any other nation in the world.
The UN dont demand that nations must live under one political, religious, legal ideology, and they are right not to.

Oakmaiden · 07/06/2017 10:42

CAoline - what the jeff does this have to do with the EU?

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:43

Caroline what the hell are you banging on about??

We have always been able to make our own laws, even when in the EU.

In fact we shot down a lot of things that other countries took on wholesale.

I am not confused, just looking at the solutions to terrorism without a knee jerk law that we don't need, and won't work.

The EU is irrelevant t this conversation.

Carolinesbeanies · 07/06/2017 10:43

"CAoline - what the jeff does this have to do with the EU?"

What 'human rights' do you believe wer all going to lose?

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:45

But we can already do that Maybe.

What we need is to stop terrorism before it starts, at the source of schools and mental health.

We already have laws that let us hold terrorists for longer, follow them closely, monitor their communications.

What we don't have is the manpower and funds to enact laws we already have in place.

makeourfuture · 07/06/2017 10:45

Theresa May has starved the police forces of resources needed to keep us safe.

Our human rights are not the problem.

Babywontsleep12 · 07/06/2017 10:46

Lurking were there laws to prevent people such as Arnis Zalkans coming here?

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 10:46

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.

Did you miss the point? You don't need to legislate about this. Just get media organisations to see why the fuck what they are doing is destructive. Suicide guidelines are not legally enforceable. They work.

People doing interviews on the BBC on key political programmes is easy to stop. The Daily Mail shit is more the problem because the government won't stand up to those who prop them up. Do you think that the government will legislate against them when they won't bring guidelines first? And the media just ignore anyway, citing the public's right to know.

The trouble with the law is it actually tends to be used for other purposes other than it was intended for.

What happens if being 'extremist' suddenly becomes defined as being liberal? This is the case in other places around the world.

This is what troubles me. Especially given the political directions of the UK and US at the moment.

Another example is terming doctors who have performed abortions as being guilty of genocide. And yes this is a thing in the US.

If the law is needed and used, it has to be very narrow and explicit in scope. Which for the most part it already is.

The other problem is you can't enforce laws outside the UK and with the internet this hold particular problems if you introduce censorship laws.

In reality and on a practical level it is much better to put pressure on what society accepts in terms of what can be publically discussed and then prosecute under other laws domestically. This requires a proper honest conversation led by politicians of all colours and not the propaganda of the media from political factions who need it for their own power.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:47

Oh I don't know, things like freedom from torture, freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom to speak out.

Once we've decided its ok for those guys over there to be tortured/silenced. How long is it before we decide those other people might deserve it too??

Who can we trust to draw that line?

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 10:48

'We already have laws that let us hold terrorists for longer,'

Ok, even longer then. Also, at the risk of sounding like a broken record to not allow programme like the jihadi next door to be aired or radicals to have rallies in the guise of 'political speeches'.

SexTrainGlue · 07/06/2017 10:49

She's probably banging on about EU because if you want to talk about GFA, the Human Rights section is framed in terms of legislation enacting ECHR.

So it's going to have to be redrafted on Brexit anyhow. A new version doe so not have to depend on the current wording of the HRA. It could use UDHR or an amended HRA which remains compliant with UNDHR.

Babywontsleep12 · 07/06/2017 10:51

Agreed we need more funding not just police but NHS etc. but I just don't see where that money is going to come from.

Even if we do get the money that will help reduce the risk for future generations, grassroots etc.

But what do we do about this 3000, is there a way of doing more without changing human rights. Is there legislation there that the government has not used?

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:52

Also, at the risk of sounding like a broken record to not allow programme like the jihadi next door to be aired or radicals to have rallies in the guise of 'political speeches'.

But we can already do that!
Choudary as a prime example......the authourities were told time and time again, by his own community that he was dangerous.
THEY DID NOTHING UNTIL IT SUITED THEM.

Neat bit of spin and suddenly its the Muslims fault for not speaking out, and the lefties fault for "protecting" him, despite both lefties and the Muslims being the most practive in pointing him out as a threat.

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 10:53

Lurking were there laws to prevent people such as Arnis Zalkans coming here?

eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/free-movement-of-murderers-eu-law.html
Free movement of murderers? EU law aspects of the Alice Gross case

First of all, how could a convicted murderer move to the UK? He had served his (absurdly short) sentence under Latvian law, so was not a fugitive from justice. But that doesn’t mean that he had the right to move to the UK, or any other Member State. Although UKIP leader Nigel Farage has claimed that ‘We can’t stop people like this entering the country’, this is simply not the case.

The starting point here is the EU’s citizenship Directive, which governs the free movement of EU citizens between Member States. Free movement is not unlimited. Among other things, the Directive provides that free movement can be denied on grounds of ‘public policy, public security or public health’. This applies to entry, exit and stay in a country. The law states that a criminal conviction cannot automatically justify blocking free movement rights, but there is a proportionality test to be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Given that murder is the most serious crime, and that Mr. Zalkalns’ conviction was quite recent, there is obviously an extremely strong case that he could have been refused entry. If he challenged the refusal, it’s hard to imagine that any British court, or the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), would have been sympathetic.

So why wasn’t he refused entry? Presumably because the UK authorities weren’t aware of his murder conviction. There are EU laws on the sharing of criminal records, but they applied only from 2012, some time after he entered the country. In any case, they wouldn’t have helped, since they only oblige the Latvian authorities to inform the UK about any convictions of British citizens in that country.

BertrandRussell · 07/06/2017 10:54

As a point to ponder, the Hillsborough enquirers only happens because of Human Rights legislation...........

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 10:57

but I just don't see where that money is going to come from

Being a bit over simplistic here, but if TM and her ilk really gave a shit about funding, us and stopping terrorism, how about they all give up the tons of perks we as a taxpayer fund.

Say the massively subsidised bars in the HoC, the extra, completely unnessecary second homes, the paying of things to them that the rest of us have to pay for ourselves??

If they cared that much could they not voluntarily decide to put that into a pot?

How about they stop wasting money tendering out contracts to private firms, and bring everything back into public hands?

Why not stop wasting money on IT projects?

How about instead of a draconian disability "check" system we pay a fortune to private comanies to run, then a further fortune fighting appeals for, we actually assess decently and properly, in house, using medical people instead??

God so many things....

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 10:57

'Neat bit of spin and suddenly its the Muslims fault for not speaking out, '

Who in earth has said that here?

tabbymog · 07/06/2017 10:58

The EU has ideals that it knows are unworkable, like the requirement for nations that have observer status at the EU institutions, to work towards abolishing the death penalty. That's a treaty obligation on observer nations, of which the USA is one. Is the USA working towards abolition of the death penalty? No. Is the EU doing anything about it? No.

Should the EU dictate to other nations how they should govern themselves? Do you mean, places like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Myanmar, Venezuela, The Philippines? The EU absolutely has the right to tell those, or any other nation that if they carry on behaving the way they are, they will not trade with the EU. The current 28 members of the EU constitute by far the largest trading bloc on the planet, approx. 460 million people, with the biggest industrial diversity. If it wants to use that influence to try to improve human rights and social conditions in other countries, I'm in favour of it.

I'd love to see a European Union that can speak with one voice on issues like this. Even more I'd love the UK to be part of it. OTOH, EU pols are as pragmatic when considering their own interests as anyone else.

LurkingHusband · 07/06/2017 10:59

What Human Rights are those advocating change willing to give up themselves '

'holding potential T for a little longer....stuff like that. Seems logical to me!'

So, how long are YOU prepared to be locked up without trial for ?

Remember, they are your rights too.

HardcoreLadyType · 07/06/2017 10:59

She's probably banging on about EU because if you want to talk about GFA, the Human Rights section is framed in terms of legislation enacting ECHR.

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU.

Swipe left for the next trending thread