To not want my human rights torn up?

[futuristic1]

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

Do you think the Jews of Germany who fought in the First World War thought the German government would be "after them"?
The ECHR was written by mostly British lawyers to try to ensure that such a thing could not happen in Europe again. And yet, here we are, waltzing away from it, with no lessons learned.

This is the country that defeated Nazi Germany.
I was waiting for Pastor Niemoller, it's Godwin's law by another route.

Those quotes taken together show exactly the problem. The Germans were educated and cultured and law abiding but allowed themselves to drift into barbarism.

This country, with the help of others, did defeat Nazi Germany, as we constantly remind ourselves, forgetting the efforts people, who had witnessed the horrors, put in to try to ensure we would never repeat those actions.

As to Pastor Niemoeller's poem - I'd like to think that those people who get upset about it and "don't give a fuck", might stop to think that this could be them? Think of things which have changed in recent decades? Gay rights? A tolerant attitude to unmarried mothers? (It's strange even writing that last sentence now, but it was only in the 1970s that attitudes changed on this, and that their babies weren't regularly taken away for adoption). Just two areas where someone in authority could decide that this needs to change.

Where do you kick an unwanted British citizen to? The Isle of Man?

Babs I think you'll find that the banks fucked us up.

Not properly regulated, let loose to give out loans to people who couldn't afford them, then expecting us to bail them out when they fucked up.
Labour just happened to be in charge.

I think you'll find Thatcher's loosening of banking regs led directly to the crash of 08, and under the Tories that ain't gonna improve.

Love the way recent history is already being competely rewritten.

Any erosion of our rights by law have to be viewed in the long term, could it be used by a government in the same way as Hitler used The Enabling Act to shut down democracy and impose dictatorship? Remember how this current cycle of terrorism began? The invasion of lands where dictators rule? Iraq, Syria and Libya, the leaders of these countries were wrong, although our foreign policy did not help and could be said to have enabled the terrorism that followed. We 'started' the idea of Human Rights with the Magna Carta, be proud of our values, protect them and fight terrorism with funding for education, policing, border security and health provision.

Mmmm. Which PM was so proud of the human rights act?

And what did his wife do? Oh that's right. She's a barrister. And what did she specialise in? Hmmmmmmmm. How much money did she make off the back of it?

Don't think any of them give a shit about your actual human rights!

You don't round on your own people to win elections.

crumbs deport those of dual nationality obviously. British born radicals should have their right to voice their warped beliefs stopped and be rigorously monitored, the only thing is until they commit an offence people say it's harassment and they are allowed their 'political views'.

"Lets all calm down and wait to see what changes are going to made, if any before getting our outrage on?"

Please don't do the "calm down " and "outrage on" thing to try to diminish and silence people who have genuine concerns.

Have you forgotten that there is a general election tomorrow which will probably return, with a large majority, a government that has stated its intention to ignore our human rights if it feels it expedient?

"Lets all calm down and wait to see what changes are going to made, if any before getting our outrage on?" Or vote May out of Office?

I find it worrying that many posters do not appreciate the balance that is required to be maintained to ensure our rights are not infringed by ensuring that everyone has access to the same rights. Saying things like "it's not you they are after" or "get over it" because you are not the target of the removal of human rights misses the important point, that rights will be removed for everyone. You and the potential terrorist who committed some thought crime and then put it into action.

When governments and local councils pass laws that we object to, for example, reducing care for the elderly or the young through the use of legislation and statutory instruments - the only recourse we have is judicial review which has its basis in human rights law and the ECHR - the European Convention on Human Rights. It's all good and well to ask for more laws but one cannot deny the fact that we already have extensive powers to deal with terrorists but it is the implementation of these laws that are lacking and that is, to a large extent, down to the shrinking of public services, the police and the judiciary in particular.

Please do not fall for the rhetoric about human rights law protecting criminals rather than you and me. Take some time to understand what it means to have your own human rights protected before spouting off and attacking fellow mums and think about the world you want to raise your children in.

This might seem unrelated but if anyone has watched the Handmaid's Tale on C4, you might get an idea of what a society looks like where human rights have been done away with. It is terrifying.

You don't round on your own people to win elections

Until you suspend them in the name of security...

And where do we deport people who were born here?
The vast majority of the recent terrorism attacks were done by people born here.

Hence why we need to increase funding in early years/schools/young mental health/community policing.
Get in there from the beginning.

The Tories will cut all those services further, so instead of preventing this sort of thing at source, they are going to add laws we don't need, that will affect everyone and not just the terrorists.

Jean Charles de Menzes wasnt a terrorist or suspect. But he was shot dead anyway, and then vilified in the press.

Do all the 'sky is falling' brigade realise that it's not just a case of TM saying 'all your rights are gone' - it's actually saying that Parliament would look at them and decide what was necessary & working, and what needed to be changed. They'd debate it, they'd vote on it, it would go to the HoL, and that's after discussion with external sources first like the police & security services, and human rights groups. FFS try and understand that sometimes terrorists get away with staying here because we bend over backwards to avoid hurting their feelings. We're not going to suddenly start torturing everyone who 'looks funny', we're going to be able to deport proven terrorists.
I do wonder about the mentality and intelligence of some people on here.

deport those of dual nationality obviously. British born radicals should have their right to voice their warped beliefs stopped and be rigorously monitored, the only thing is until they commit an offence people say it's harassment and they are allowed their 'political views'

How do you do this exactly? "Stop their right to voice"

It makes no sense. It is impossible. We do not live in George Orwell's 1984.

Now, given that Theresa May wanted to crush any opposition to her Brexit, what happens if she wants to silence them? In the name of whatever she comes up with? What then?

Why not increase police numbers and intelligence and community interventions? I've had no real reasons why we shouldn't do this beyond cost. Which is despicable given we are talking about innocent lives here.

Yeh, Nikephorus, just like hard Brexit was debated, voted on, sent to the House of Lords after discussion with diplomats and EU lawyers before the (advisory) referendum.

"Do all the 'sky is falling' brigade realise that it's not just a case of TM saying 'all your rights are gone' "

Not sure who you are referring to. But yes, those of us who are concerned about this development are well aware of that, thank you.

What about the human rights of those affected by terrorism?
These laws need looking at. News laws are needed, as long as they are not abused. Like when councils abused surveillance laws to catch people putting their bins out too early.

If ripping human rights up and stopping the insane political correctness we live by means that scum like those who killed on Saturday are left with nowhere to hide, then so be it. What about the human rights of those killed by terrorists?! This isn't Nazi Germany, it is Great Britain 2017 and years of political correctness and fear of being called racist has got us where we are. It has to stop. For our childrens futures.

OK, JaneEyre-what do you suggest?

Star Chamber.

May needs to stop this right now. An election is not the time at all to be talking about stripping away legal protection.

British born radicals should have their right to voice their warped beliefs stopped and be rigorously monitored

How long until some other belief becomes "radical"?

Only a few years ago claiming tax credits alone was not considered "being on benefits". Now it is. Working families have been lumped in to that group of people because it suits the Tories ideal.

That is just one example of the way that a government can change a country's perception.

What if "radical" beliefs begin to include other things, like protests or strike action or any religion that differs from what the government approves of?

It can happen, it does happen. The Tories have pitched the country against each other already through a media campaign against the poor and the disabled. Taking away Human Rights laws that protect us is just a way in to start attacking other groups and is a starting point for more ideology.

"Jean Charles de Menzes wasnt a terrorist or suspect. But he was shot dead anyway, and then vilified in the press."

Yes, if he has not been misidentified as a terrorist approaching the Tube network he would not have been shot. He should never be forgotten, and the highest standards of police operations are required.

If the police had identified the correct person, and he had been acting in that way, and the police had used force to stop someone they believed had access to a bomb and posed an imminent threat, and if it was that person, would their actions have been right in the sense of protecting the public?

What happened to Jean Charles was a tragedy, but I don't think it was a human rights issue. Unless you oppose shoot to kill in all circumstances.

Again- silencing and minimising by throwing around phrases like "the sky is falling in".

The point is, we could potentially elect tomorrow ffs, a Government that has stated that they will be quite happy to enact damaging and dangerous legislation, instead of actually funding more police/better resources etc, which would actually work.

So no, I won't sit back and fucking wait and see.
The time to stop this is now.
The time to get outraged is now

We should not lose human rights and we should not need to.

Once we are sure we consider someone a threat to national security or an enemy combatant there are various's ways they can be dealt with. The idea any MNer needs to lose their rights for that is highly suspicious.