Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
GraceGrape · 08/06/2017 00:30

Agree with those who have said it's the thin end of the wedge. Human rights once lost are not easily regained. Should the freedoms of the while population be curtailed because of the actions if a miniscule, miniscule minority. I've posted before that TM has a bee in her bonnet about Human Rights. I'm worried it would be a "give her an inch and she'll take a mile" scenario.

In the most recent attacks, I don't see how greater snooping on the internet would have helped anyway. Security services were given copious amounts of intelligence about one of the London Bridge attackers from the Italian authorities but they deemed him no threat. This is the sort of issue that needs to be addressed more immediately.

GraceGrape · 08/06/2017 00:30

whole population

raspberrysuicide · 08/06/2017 00:34

When democracy is threatened, you must get rid of the treat, not change democracy.

Not my words, the words of Jeremy Corbyn

Carolinesbeanies · 08/06/2017 00:50

"When democracy is threatened, you must get rid of the treat, not change democracy.

Not my words, the words of Jeremy Corbyn"

Is that the same Jeremy Corbyn who refuses to allow 'one man one vote' at the National Exec, prefering the union 'block' voting that put him in power?

(For those needing an explanation, this is the removal of voting rights of individual members, replacing it with a 'block' vote by a union representative. Thats how the leadership was decided against ALL opposition from sitting MPs.
When JC recognises 'democracy', and brings it back to his own Labour party, then I may take him a tiny bit seriously.

PookieDo · 08/06/2017 00:56

I want to know where we will deport UK citizens accused of/who have committed terrorism to

Anyone? I don't think Australia are taking them anymore

Carolinesbeanies · 08/06/2017 01:00

'destroying the human rights bill'? Hmm

Gosh, the scaremongering continues. Where are you guys making this up from?

TM has discussed 28 day detention. Personally, Id support internment camps, indefinately, but I think Im in the minority, and certainly TM doesnt agree with me, mores the pity. If youve got bomb making instructions on your laptop, are part of a known network, have been back and too to Libya, you think 28 days is a HR outrage?

Peregrina · 08/06/2017 04:11

LH you missed the perennial favourites from your list of 'non humans'

Irish
Jews.

Peregrina · 08/06/2017 04:13

Personally, Id support internment camps, indefinately,

How do you KNOW that you would not end up in one? Is absolutely everything you do 100% legal?

MaryTheCanary · 08/06/2017 04:46

It is inevitable that human rights will be curtailed. That doesn't stop it from being shit, and it is inevitable that decent people will find themselves harmed as well. But there is basically no alternative. It will happen, whether we like it or not, because the nature of our society has now fundamentally changed.

Allowing individuals plenty of liberty works OK in societies where you can pretty much trust people to behave decently and where more or less everyone has a very similar set of values which are basically in accord with the values of wealthy, liberal, high-trust democracies.

When you can no longer count on this, high levels of liberty become impractical. Look at Singapore, for example. It combines high levels of diversity with wealth and a decent level of public goods, but it does this by squashing individual rights and FORCING everyone to behave and integrate. Not pretty, I agree, but probably necessary in the circumstances.

"The price of increased diversity has been diminished liberty."

NellieBuff · 08/06/2017 05:19

WalkingOnLeg0

Nope - you still don't believe in the principle of law. You can paraphrase all you like the principle is still the same.

Oh - without outing myself I live in the very real world. I have survived a bomb explosion (years ago - different terrorism) so I speak as someone who knows first hand what terrorism can do.

And before you come away with I love my children routine EVERYONE on here loves their families so do not use that an excuse for you wanting to rid the legal system of one of the leading legal principles.

mimishimmi · 08/06/2017 05:21

"It is inevitable that human rights will be curtailed. That doesn't stop it from being shit, and it is inevitable that decent people will find themselves harmed as well. But there is basically no alternative. It will happen, whether we like it or not, because the nature of our society has now fundamentally changed"

Same old, same old. Said the same when they were crushing us too... when the top dogs start feeling a bit threatened, economically and demographically, by the crap they've largely brought upon themselves they kick the boot into the rest of us.

Mysteriouscurle · 08/06/2017 06:07

This really worries me. Plenty wrongful convictions to ensure this is a bad idea. Any of us could be affectedSad. Given that there was concern about one of the attackers this just seems like a way of deflecting blame/diverting attention away from what has gone wrong

CoteDAzur · 08/06/2017 06:32

"Allowing individuals plenty of liberty works OK in societies where you can pretty much trust people to behave decently"

Bullshit.

We are talking about the rule of law, habeas corpus, "presumed innocent", freedom of thought & speech. These have nothing to do with whether everyone is "decent" - and ideal that can not be defined or attained anyway.

SmileEachDay · 08/06/2017 07:14

Can ANYONE in favour of an erosion of human rights explain why they think it is the solution to terrorisn when in countries with poor human rights records, terrorism still happens often on a much larger scale?

REcent attacks in Kabul for example.

Or why many, many terrorists are grown and made in Saudi, with its appalling human rights violations?

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 07:19

What is worrying is how easily some accept this

Let me state this again. All these measures being talked about? Can be done within the HRA and certainly within the ECHR.

The blame from Theresa simply comes because she as the home secretary didn't respect humans was too incompetent / rigid in her thinking to do things properly. When she came across a problem instead of acknowledging it she blamed human rights to look politically better in the newspapers before doing things the proper way and achieving her goal.

You don't need to remove human right laws just use the existing law properly and more wisely within its current limits.

May acts in the way she does because of her inadequacies and contempt for the people she is supposed to serve. She does not want to be a servant of the public. She wants to be it's master, controlling it.

Over the next few years we will find this out the hard way with some very hard lessons learned.

Removing human rights will also restrict our right to protest about how the state treats us.

This jeopardises even further the likelihood of a deal with the EU. Not that the Conservatives are planning for one. They think they can ride rough shot through things. They are not planning for a no deal scenario: lots of things need to be done for this and need to have already been started... This has implications.

User843022 · 08/06/2017 07:25

'When she came across a problem instead of acknowledging it she blamed human rights to look politically better in the newspapers before doing things the proper way and achieving her goal. '
I thought she just publically acknowledged that current legislation made it difficult to deal with known extremists?
I don't want all human rights eroding, no one does.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 07:38

Do read the story of Theresa and Abu up thread by David Allen Green, a lawyer. Simon Cox an immigration specialist also has a similar version on twitter. May has used the press to her political ends to twist the story. It does not reflect the reality.

makeourfuture · 08/06/2017 07:41

Hands off our freedom Tories! Be gone!

Peregrina · 08/06/2017 07:43

Removing human rights will also restrict our right to protest about how the state treats us.

And as with WW2, anti Cruise Missile protests and the Poll Tax - you will get people, some, prepared to stand up for their beliefs and go to Prison.

I am not sure if the Tories are planning anything - a no deal scenario would be planning behind the scenes for when we crash out. Apart from a couple of abortive visits to India, where it's been made clear that visas are a requirement for their citizens, there hasn't been anything of substance.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 07:45

Oh I dont appear to have posted it on this thread. Apologies.

Here's some of what Simon Cox says and I'll dig out the David Allen Green version too.

May acknowledged this saying: "if my rules dont change judges, I will ask Parliament to make a law." She wanted the image of "fighter" 8/
Immigration judges did what she knew law required them to do. Tory press claimed they had "defied" her:
9/
So, May delayed by 2 years her supposed strategy of narrowing human rights defenses for migrants. Why? 10/
Exh. 2: Othman's case. Aka Abu Qatada. May said his deportation was her top priority. But she took 3 years : why? 11/
Othman opposed deportation to Jordan bc he wd be tried based on statement from a man who'd been tortured before giving it (& later died) 12/
2008: UK Court of Appeal blocks deport: illegal to risk conviction based on torture. 2009 House of Lrds reverses 12/
Othman applies to European Court of Human Rights, so he's still in UK (locked up) when Cons win 2010 election & May becomes Home Sec. 13/
May has 2 options.
Fight case in ECHR.
Get Jordan to not use torture evid, removing factual base for Othman's ECHR case & deport 14/
May fought Othman's case. For 2 yrs. She lost (no surprise: UK courts had disagreed). So then she got Jordan to not use torture evid 15/
And Othman left, voluntarily. Everything suggests she cd have got that result 3 yrs before. Why didnt she? 16/
Was it bc May wanted to win legal pt in ECHR for future cases? Maybe: but House of Lords was on Gov side. So hardly a priority 17/
Maybe May wanted to help Jordan convict Othman on the murder charge. (Without the crucial torture evid he was later acquitted). 18/
But May's claimed priority was to get Othman out: not abstact legal pts or Jordanian conviction. She chose to delay getting Othman out 19/
Keeping Othman in UK served May's need for enemies: him and his lawyers. Bad people she can battle for the British. 20/

permalice · 08/06/2017 07:52

'When she came across a problem instead of acknowledging it she blamed human rights to look politically better in the newspapers before doing things the proper way and achieving her goal. '
I thought she just publically acknowledged that current legislation made it difficult to deal with known extremists?
I don't want all human rights eroding, no one does.

Agree - she has mentioned only changes to Control Orders (so she can legally do what Labour illegally did) and deportation procedures.

But that won't stop outrage that this is a wholesale assault beyond that. Because that fits the Tory stereotype.

Though of course Labour stereotypes are not permitted. Even though they are the ones who actually used Control Orders in breach of HRA.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 07:54

David Allen Green @ davidallengreen

  1. Here is the tale of Theresa and Abu.
  2. Once upon a time Theresa was Home Secretary.
One day she had to deal with a request from Jordan for Abu's deportation.
  1. She was not the first Home Secretary to have to deal with this request. But there was a problem.
  2. The was the prospect that the evidence to be used against Abu in Jordan had been obtained by torture.
  3. And if so, it was not lawfully open to the UK under ECHR to deport anybody if there was prospect of torture-gained evidence being used.
  4. So what did Theresa do?
She huffed and puffed at the courts, spending huge amounts of public money.
  1. Click here t.co/peO6mra3Dd and see how many QCs she instructed for one appeal.
One QC. Two QCs. Three QCs. Yes, three QCs.
  1. Those in the media who rail against "fat cat lawyers" didn't mind the government instructing three QCs at public expense, in this case.
  2. But Theresa still lost that case. She lost every appeal, however much taxpayers' money she threw at the case.
10. And the reason she lost was, well, because torture is absolutely wrong, and no one should be deported to face torture-based evidence. 11. Having lost in her attempt at shouting at the courts, Theresa tried a new tactic. She shouted at Europe. 12. It was seriously suggested that the UK "temporarily" leave the ECHR - see www.theguardian.com/law/2013/apr/24/european-rights-convention-abu-qatada 13. This idea did not get far, because it was laughed at by a Lord Chancellor called Kenneth. 14. But Theresa had got the tabloids in a frenzy at this case - she had shouted at the courts and at Europe, but none of it had worked. 15. And so Theresa quietly did a sensible deal with Jordan where they agreed never to use torture-based evidence. 16. You would say this was a Good Thing, as it meant there would be no torture-based evidence used in Jordan again. 17. But Theresa did not want to talk about it. Instead she made out she had deported him "despite" ECHR rather than in compliance with it. 18. So despite huffing and puffing and exciting the tabloids and threatening suspension and appealing, she did what the ECHR required anyway 19. Theresa ended up doing a sensible deal on Abu, contrary to the expectations and demands of the press, but then pretended she hadn't. 20. In turn, Abu in Jordan was cleared, as the supposed serious (torture-based) evidence against him was no longer admissible. 21. And Theresa got another job where she shouted at courts and at Europe, getting press into a frenzy, and then she.... (to be continued).
RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 07:56

In other words forcing Theresa to comply with Human Rights encouraged Jordon to apply Human Rights itself. And it didn't stop her doing what she ultimately needed to.

But Theresa doesn't like doing things in a way that isn't of HER choosing.

This is not healthy in a PM.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 07:58

Agree - she has mentioned only changes to Control Orders (so she can legally do what Labour illegally did) and deportation procedures

She can make these changes within the current framework.

Peregrina · 08/06/2017 07:59

Though of course Labour stereotypes are not permitted.
Don't fret about this, the Mail and Express SCREAM their heads off about Labour stereotypes. I am not a Labour supporter BTW.

Swipe left for the next trending thread