To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

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

WalkingOnLeg0

Not a believer in the principle of law then:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

The removal of human rights would help exactly how?
What law is there, that is not already there? Exactly?
And what side effects might that law have?

If you can't answer these questions don't touch human rights. 99% of the time the reality is that the ability to use and enforce the laws we have is the key. We are not using this to its full potential. Where we find gaps in this that's where we need to work. Not remove human rights. It usually comes down to information sharing rather than the measures we have in place.

Attacking human rights is a 'quick fix' to a complex problem. May doesn't want to do that. She's got an election to win tomorrow.

Ah right lurking got you. Thanks for clarifying.

'Because human rights are either universal or meaningless'

I disagree Plinky, 'known' extremists should lose their 'human rights' which in this country should mean internet prohibitions, freedom of speech restrictions, tags, withholding passports, for example. It wouldn't mean 30 years of hard labour without a trial.

the ability to use and enforce the laws we have is the key

Spot on.

Lock em up!!!

That won't work. As I've said on the thread previously, the prison service is massively already stretched to the point that prisons are hot beds for radicalisation. They can not manage to supervise the inmates they already have.

On a very practical note, where exactly do you intend to house these extremists in the prison system? Before you even talk about the staffing levels.

If you add a load of extremists into the prison population when they are struggling to supervise now, what do you think will happen?

House them separately? Great! Where? How? Shift prisoners from an existing prison into others to make way for an extremist only prison? (This won't work by the way). Add to the over crowding situation.

Putting a bunch of extremist together in a situation where they can brainstorm, network and come up with much more complex and sophisticated plans which they can potentially think about coordinating with others sounds fab. Are you proposing they stay in for life or just until they appear 'reformed'?

What's the plan?

Maybenextweek - the relevance of the case is that this is how terrorism was dealt with the last time it was prevalent. May is proposing a return to the knee-jerk, ineffective response that was used against the IRA.

Basically, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so looking at, and learning from, the past will hopefully prevent the same thing happening again. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like much has been learnt.

'Because human rights are either universal or meaningless'

I disagree Plinky, 'known' extremists should lose their 'human rights' which in this country should mean internet prohibitions, freedom of speech restrictions, tags, withholding passports, for example. It wouldn't mean 30 years of hard labour without a trial.

But it could !

What those that shout loudest and think least fail to grasp is that with the exceptions of torture and the death penalty, Human Rights are not inviolable. They can be amended. The most obvious being our freedom of movement). Freedom of movement - the right to go (or not go) where we choose is a human right. However, it can be taken away from us. How else do we manage to lock criminals up every day ?

It's a Human Right which protects our property from being stolen by the state. But try arguing that when a court has fined you.

There is a Human Right to family life. Yet we have courts everyday denying unfit parents access to their children.

If you remove these Human Rights, you remove the oversight of the courts in our lives. It really is that simple.

Historians might care to comment on my observation that pre-1066 Anglo-Saxon law was probably far more liberal than the feudal imposition of the Normans. And we've spent nigh on a thousand years to get to where we are, against every obstacle our former overlords have rallied in their defence.

(I am not an historian, nor do I play one on TV).

...Human Rights serve us that we can take them for granted or think they are a "nice to have". There are many places around the world where that isn't the case, and invariably they are not very nice places at all. China and North Korea spring to mind.

China and North Korea are unpleasant places not because of their lack of Human Rights laws, but because they are corrupt autocracies.

HR laws do not create a reasonable society, they are the product of it, and reflect what is already generally accepted.

Some countries that have specific human rights laws actually have a pretty poor HR record, while others who do not have specific legislation actually have a rather good record.

So it's really rather less to do with legislation, and more to do with the countenance of the government.

Lana you make a really important point about Religious Education in schools directly contributing to social cohesion and mutual understanding and critical thinking for young people.

Back when Gove rejigged the national curriculum to massively downgrade RE as a compulsory subject, the RE teaching community made exactly this point warning about it being a key part of educating future citizens.

This is one of the campaigning websites about Gove downgrading RE
www.rethinkre.org/what-do-we-want

I disagree Plinky, 'known' extremists should lose their 'human rights' which in this country should mean internet prohibitions, freedom of speech restrictions, tags, withholding passports, for example. It wouldn't mean 30 years of hard labour without a trial.

You mean like you can already do under existing law. But its down to how you enforce this that's the problem...

Pentapus

All good points.

The UK has seen some terrible abuses by the state in spite of the ECHR.

Similarly, despite having the US Constitution (nod to HoC viewers about the 12th amendment )

HR laws do not create a reasonable society, they are the product of it, and reflect what is already generally accepted.

The UK is a weird place, because we have the situation that parliament is in and of itself supreme. Which is all very well, if you trust tomorrows politicians. Returning to the US, it is very clear that their Founding Fathers did not trust politicians - nor anyone who sought to weild power. So they created fetters on their government. And the fact those fetters are being tested 241 years after they were written is proof they are as relevant today as ever.

A lot of people voted to leave the EU because they wanted to see their parliament "supreme" (although it has never been anything but). But "supreme" in this case means "having no higher power".

Now I for one do not like the idea of an unfettered parliament, because I have no idea (and neither does anyone else) what they might rule in the future.

I disagree Plinky, 'known' extremists should lose their 'human rights' which in this country should mean internet prohibitions, freedom of speech restrictions, tags, withholding passports, for example. It wouldn't mean 30 years of hard labour without a trial.

Maybe - I can see why you'd say that, believe me.

I think we already have some of those restrictions in place (does freezing assets not also include passports?). I think hate speech laws already cover what you mean by freedom of speech restrictions. I think tagging is a bit more problematic and would create more problems, personally. I don't think access to the internet is a human right. Would they need a trial before you place these restrictions on them? What evidence would you deem sufficient to do this to someone? How would you enforce it?

Which human rights don't you want? I don't want the government to be able to incarcerate me for saying Theresa May's shoes are shit, or that Jezza's a loon. As Lurking is saying, if you remove it for one subset of people, then as soon as the government changes its mind on what is or is not illegal or terrorism, you could very quickly find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

'You mean like you can already do under existing law. But its down to how you enforce this that's the problem...'

No, it's down to how you define a radical that's the problem. There has been too much tolerance and allowing 'free speech'.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06820/SN06820.pdf
House of Commons Library Briefing:
Deprivation of British citizenship and withdrawal of passport facilities

^In recent years there has been an increasing use of powers to deprive people of their British citizenship and withdraw British passport facilities, particularly in respect of those who may be involved in fighting, extremist activity or terrorist training overseas.

Under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended), an order to deprive a person of their British citizenship can be made if the Home Secretary is satisfied that:^

- it would be conducive to the public good to deprive the person of their British citizenship status and to do so would not render them stateless; or
- the person obtained their citizenship status through naturalisation, and it would be conducive to the public good to deprive them of their status because they have engaged in conduct “seriously prejudicial” to the UK’s vital interests, and the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that they could acquire another nationality; or
- the person acquired their citizenship status through naturalisation or registration, and it was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact.

In the second and third scenarios, a person may be deprived of their British citizenship even if this would leave them stateless. “Conducive to the public good” means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours.

The power to deprive a naturalised person of their citizenship status and leave them vulnerable to statelessness due to “seriously prejudicial” conduct derives from section 66 of the Immigration Act 2014, which came into effect on 28 July 2014. Some commentators have questioned how this controversial power will be applied, and whether it undermines the UK’s international obligations.

The Home Secretary also has powers to issue, withdraw and refuse to issue British passports under the Royal Prerogative (an executive power which does not require legislation).

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill of 2014-15 seeks to strengthen powers to seize passports and exclude British nationals from the UK (without extending citizenship deprivation powers).

Look who the responsibility of this is: The Home Security.

Oh.

How about we call it out for what it is now and take away their rights.

You do that by resourcing the police so they can enforce existing laws. Not by taking away human rights, because here's the thing: the human rights are taken away from all the humans, not just the terrorists.

That is not something that I want happening. It's not something I want for my children.

Which human rights don't you want? I don't want the government to be able to incarcerate me for saying Theresa May's shoes are shit, or that Jezza's a loon. As Lurking is saying, if you remove it for one subset of people, then as soon as the government changes its mind on what is or is not illegal or terrorism, you could very quickly find yourself on the wrong side of the law.

Remember: it's not this government to fear. It's the next. Powers given for good, or rights surrendered for good, can easily become powers for evil, and rights lost forever.

I have an idea. Maybe we need some sort of law which enables the prime minster to make the laws we need with no need for parliament to slow things down, or confuse the debate ? After all, we already know that Jezza will oppose anything on principle anyway.

We could call it an "Enabling law", or "Enabling Act" ?

In fact the more I think about it, the more sensible it seems. With the added advantage that once we pass it, we would never need another vote in parliament again. Which would suit those people that find an election every few years so tiresome.

I wonder that it's never been tried before ?

No, it's down to how you define a radical that's the problem. There has been too much tolerance and allowing 'free speech'.

I define Katie Hopkins as an extremist. Can I make her illegal?

We have tolerated her for too long.

Remember: it's not this government to fear

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, Lurking

I am old enough to remember the bad old days - when friends of mine where hauled into the police station in the middle of the night and kept without charge, legal representation or their families knowing where they where or what the charge was

because, for example, one had paid cash for a car ...and was Irish

This happened - I do not want that happening again

and you can pretend this will only impact Muslim communities when when you ask about my children's safety - this is exactly what I thing present the most danger - blind acceptance that taking their rights away protects them!

This , the next or future governments are not the terrorists. Whilst in an ideal world this would not involve curtailing human rights we are in desperate times, other actions have been tried and failed.

Countries with a poor record on human rights do not have less terrorism. If your government do not value human rights, then I think you start a race to the bottom.

Blandings, I am Irish by descent and of course I remember the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, I also knew they were innocent.

Their framings were deliberate acts by bent policemen. The same European Human Rights laws were in effect then, broadly, but didn't protect many innocent people from internment and wrongful imprisonment.

The people being missed now aren't remotely comparable. Surveillance is a million times more sophisticated now and we also have PACE, which will stay on the statute books whatever happens.

I am a centrist and a Remainer so completely immune to being painted as something else by people who are only capable of understanding one line of reasoning.

We absolutely need to dilute the Human Rights of people we know intend us harm. I don't mean innocent people. And yes, we all know the difference. The West Midlands police in the 1970s knew the difference, they just chose to do the bad thing.

I just can't get my head around anyone voting for a party that wants to rip of their human rights. It's just beyond belief.

I just wrote somewhere else: Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Once you give up rights it is hard to get them back further down the line when suddenly you become the one who is on their radar. Look at history and what happened when those in power started taking away rights to deal with a current issue. It didn't often end well.