Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
PlinkyTheFairyWitch · 08/06/2017 10:24

In the UK, who does the Human Rights Act actually benefit? Genuine question.

Here you go Logical. Also here and here. That's a quick google for you.

Peregrina · 08/06/2017 11:46

"I know I murdered several people, but I've just had a baby with a British woman and you can't send me away from my child- it's my Human Right to see them grow"

I personally know of one case where the man was deported despite having a child in the UK. I don't know what his crime was, but if it's possible for one person, it must be possible in other cases.

LogicalPsycho · 08/06/2017 11:46

Plinky thank you for the links.
They actually serve to prove the point that the HRA really does need amending where terrorism is concerned.

As I mentioned in my first post, all a terrorist has to lie and say is, "I'm gay", or "I was forced to do it", and hey presto, they're welcome to stay forever.
Because these are social situations covered and subsequently abused by people claiming exoneration under the HRA.

Peregrina · 08/06/2017 11:47

Substitute the word Jew for Muslim and it might just make one or two of you stop to think - yes, a civilised society once trod this path before us. That is why we have the ECHR legislation.

Carolinesbeanies · 08/06/2017 11:52

"Substitute the word Jew for Muslim and it might just make one or two of you stop to think - "

Is this the last flailing attempt when losing an argument? I have no idea what your point is Pregrina, can you spell it out please?

BertrandRussell · 08/06/2017 11:54

"As I mentioned in my first post, all a terrorist has to lie and say is, "I'm gay", or "I was forced to do it", and hey presto, they're welcome to stay forever."

It doesn't work like that. But I presume nothing I say will convince you otherwise, so fill your boots, as they say.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 11:59

Non EU National commits an act of terror-
"Oh but I can't be extradited to my birth nation..I'm gay and it's against my Human Rights"

Far Right and Islamic Terrorists. Those well known gay icons and activists.

If you must use and example, try and use a real one not a ridiculous made up one.

In most cases, if they argued this, it would be thrown out of court based on evidence to quite the contrary. You have to demonstrate that you are at risk.

Illegal immigrants have enough trouble demonstrating this. The UK Border Agency has plenty of previous in rejecting claims on these grounds.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ugandan-man-deportation-lgbt-asylum-seeker-home-office-amber-rudd-abbey-kyeyune-a7624901.html
Ugandan man faces deportation after 'failing to prove he’s gay'

The Home Office has previously claimed that a lesbian woman could not be gay because she had children, while a bisexual man has said he felt compelled to submit intimate photos of himself to help prove his case.

Also see:

"I know I murdered several people, but I've just had a baby with a British woman and you can't send me away from my child- it's my Human Right to see them grow"

The Home Office has had no problem in deporting people in the past. They are known for deporting individuals who have families here. They do have the power to revoke indefinite leave to remain / residency and even citizenship.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mother-of-three-sophia-uk-deported-jamaica-charter-flight-25-years-a7615661.html
Mother-of-three to be forcibly deported on Jamaica charter flight - after 25 years in the UK
Sophia says her 13-year-old son, who suffers from Sickle-cell disease, aserious inherited blood disorder,will suffer

What you are saying is an ill informed regurgitation of incorrect propaganda.

I will say again.

You can do everything under current legislation without repeal of the HRA or the ECHR.

makeourfuture · 08/06/2017 12:02

Fight the bad guys Theresa, not the people!

Peregrina · 08/06/2017 12:08

Is this the last flailing attempt when losing an argument? I have no idea what your point is Pregrina, can you spell it out please?

It's because we are now 'othering' Muslims and trying to blame them for society's ills, when the vast majority are honest law abiding people. Hitler's Germany did the same with the Jews. It is so obvious to me, it does not need spelling out.

We have laws to control terrorism - that the current Government chose not to use them effectively is not a reason for turning against a whole group in Society.

PlinkyTheFairyWitch · 08/06/2017 12:12

What Red said ^

Also, pp have said things like you'd need hard evidence to lock up/tag/detain without charge or fair trial people under 'relaxed' terrorism-related HR laws. This is their reason why it won't affect them personally.

Yet they also seem to assume that you don't need hard evidence to make a claim under current HR laws. Judges are apparently merrily accepting HR claims of homosexuality, or family life, or pet ownership without a shred of proof or due process.

That's a bit of a skewed view IMO. I think it speaks of a deep distrust of our judicial system and over-reliance on our political system.

Carolinesbeanies · 08/06/2017 12:15

Plinky, many of those 'examples' (though Im not clear as theres something about how much the HR act has 'infuenced' those situations, does half a dot mean its hardly influenced at all? But I cant get the 'read more' links.) are extremely subjective. Shoot to kill policy, 'unless theres good reason'? Well thats OK then.

For me this is the whole CCTV argument all over again. I believe CCTV has been an excellent move, identifying offenders, enabling rapid response etc etc etc. Im more than happy to be CCTVd when Im out and about. HR supporters believe its a breach of HRs and personal right to privacy. Ive lived under stringent CCTV for possibly a decade now, not only have I not been randomly picked up by the state nazi police, I view them now as my right as a potential victim.

HR activists seem only to view such things from the POV of potential offenders.

When will HRs activists start to address the rights of victims? We have a right to be safe in our own homes and on our own streets. How does holding high profile and active extremists for 28 days, threaten my safety? Id argue, not holding them for that period of time, (which allows full investigations into whatever links and actions has prompted the temporary incarceration), diminishes my HR to live safely and without fear or threat of harm.

Hillingdon · 08/06/2017 12:21

Hitler!! Really some are scraping the barrel with this example!

We haven't had the HRA for that long. What on earth happened before hand? It doesn't make a bit of difference to be personally but if it stops the nutters coming back into this country or using the UK for their own ends lets get it amended.

I see on other threads that even die hard Labour supporters who are effectively wanting to keep the freebies for themselves whilst others pay for them are concluding that Teresa is on for a majority.

I guess the question is by how much (I know there is another thread on this exact question!)

Carolinesbeanies · 08/06/2017 12:22

"It's because we are now 'othering' Muslims and trying to blame them for society's ills, when the vast majority are honest law abiding people. "

Whose said that? I think most normal people know the vast majority of muslims are hinest law abiding people. The issue comes from the minority who arent. Are you preparing the ground Peregrina, to argue that possible internment of muslim extremists, is simply in fact a racist act?

Hillingdon · 08/06/2017 12:24

Hear hear Caroline. All these liberals saying its the end of the world is coming!

PlinkyTheFairyWitch · 08/06/2017 12:24

Caroline

The size of the dot corresponds with the influence its had in that site's opinion, I think.

These are the links you get by clicking on the shoot to kill dot story here and the HR article.

That explains more about the 'good reason' and 'necessity' issues.

Again, HR protect the people from the government, not the people from criminals, or criminals from justice. Arguments about CCTV and so on are muddying the waters here.

PlinkyTheFairyWitch · 08/06/2017 12:25

All these liberals saying its the end of the world is coming!

Nobody's said that, either.

mimishimmi · 08/06/2017 12:33

"Substitute the word Jew for Muslim and it might just make one or two of you stop to think"

Sadly, for some I don't think it would Peregrina. They'd probably justify what happened or deny that too. Sad

makeourfuture · 08/06/2017 12:35

Give the police the resources they need instead of stripping citizens of rights!

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 12:39

Remember the time Theresa deported 4000 people illegally?

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/03/23/disaster-for-theresa-may-as-legal-ruling-brings-student-depo
Disaster for Theresa May as legal ruling brings student deportations to a halt

The story starts on February 10th 2014. That evening, Panorama broadcast a programme on fraudulent language tests being taken at a single school in east London. The language tests are part of a system requiring immigrant students to prove their English is up to the required standard.

The Home Office response was extraordinary. Instead of treating this as evidence of cheating in one school, it claimed that everyone who had taken the TOEIC test, written and conducted by American Firm ETS, had committed fraud

and

These students were not entitled to see the evidence against them. They were not entitled to appeal, except out of country. They were branded liars and cheats and thrown out without their day in court

There is a good reason the Home Office would not show them the evidence: it did not have any which was reliable enough to withstand even the most superficial level of legal scrutiny

48,000 people this affected. 48,000.

Not satisfied with the original court judgement May appealed the decision.

www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/may-s-student-deportation-programme-in-tatters-as-legal-appe
May's student deportation programme in tatters as legal appeal falls apart.

The appeal court ruled that the decision was 'fundamentally misconceived.

The Home Office appeal originally claimed that the case was unfair, that the deputy judge was biased, that witnesses had not been given an opportunity to explain evidence properly and that the tribunal had misunderstood expert evidence.

But lawyers for the student in the case say they received a surprising letter from the Home Office suddenly capitulating and admitting there were "no compelling reasons to pursue the appeal". It also offered to pay costs if the appeal was withdrawn.

In a hearing today, the court decided to pass a judgement, regardless of the Home Office's attempt to withdraw its own appeal

That appeal was launched with some pretty serious accusations against the legal system, that suddenly just disappeared.

This IS NOT a human rights case as such. But it does show something about May's regard for the law and for evidence. It certainly shows her contempt for judges and her lack of regard for the human impact of her decision.

Its worth pointing out, because the EHCR and HRA currently provide some protection for EU citizens resident here. The idea that they won't 'just be thrown out' seems reasonable. But is Theresa May reasonable?!

Her track record might well suggest otherwise.

The Courts made a damning ruling against her decision, and essentially refused to let the Home Office just quietly drop the case.

Let me repeat: Theresa May was responsible for the illegal mass deportation of thousands of students with no evidence.

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 12:42

Sorry that should read 'Remember the time Theresa deported 48000 people illegally?'

www.independent.co.uk/student/news/theresa-may-wrongly-deported-48000-students-after-bbc-panorama-exposes-toeic-scam-a6958286.html

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2017 12:56

Also remember May was returning from the US just as the 'Muslim Ban' was announced. There is some speculation that she was informed about it before leaving.

Remember May's 'Go Home' vans. Which she was forced to admit, didn't work.

Remember May was responsible for immigration centre Yarl's Wood. The chief inspector of prisons called it a 'place of national concern' in 2015. May refused to reveal how many women had been assaulted or raped there. She refused UN inspectors access to the site. The UN rapporteur on violence against women described this as being similar to when Bangladesh had blocked her from visiting a notorious refugee camp.

But yes. We should let this politician remove Human Rights. For the greater good.

LurkingHusband · 08/06/2017 13:18

Hillingdon

We haven't had the HRA for that long. What on earth happened before hand?

Why ask that question, if you have been reading the thread. You have the answer to that, plus a rebuttal of your incorrect assertion.

How much do you usually bother to find out about something before you decide it's of no great importance ?

Carolinesbeanies · 08/06/2017 13:59

Oh dear Red, source please?

Id be highly impressed if TM managed to efficiently deport 48k people in a smooth, uneventful and peaceful manner in less than 6 months. Wheres your source for deportation numbers?

PlinkyTheFairyWitch · 08/06/2017 14:27

What's wrong with the links Red provided?

Sunfun11 · 08/06/2017 14:30

"May refused to reveal how many women had been assaulted or raped there. She refused UN inspectors access to the site." Bloody hell Angry