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:
Petronius16 · 07/06/2017 08:51

And we did have laws that restricted the 'human rights' of those identified as wanting to do us harm.

Control orders. Brought in after 9/11.

I'll leave you to guess who scrapped them. Yup, you got it in one.

metspengler · 07/06/2017 08:51

(MNers being an example of the general population, I don't think TM means to tackle the extremism on MN)

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 08:52

Dinagaling and JaneEyre

KNEE JERK LAWS WILL NOT WORK.
WE ALREADY HAVE APPROPIATE LAWS IN PLACE- WE JUST SIMPLY DONT HAVE THE POLICE OR THE FUNDING TO ENACT THEM PROPERLY.

If we are truly invested in the human rights of the victims, we should be putting the money in the right places AND NOT CUTTING THE POLICE BY 20,000- WHICH IS WHAT THE TORIES HAVE DONE.

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 08:52

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

You 'stop it' by, for example, by not allowing programmes like the 'jihadi next door' to be aired, by making it an offence to try and put up an ISIS flag, by not giving hate speakers platforms. By recognising that they do not have a right to a voice when they incite radicalism

makeourfuture · 07/06/2017 08:53

WE ALREADY HAVE APPROPIATE LAWS IN PLACE- WE JUST SIMPLY DONT HAVE THE POLICE OR THE FUNDING TO ENACT THEM PROPERLY.

Yes!

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot · 07/06/2017 08:54

Labour used 23 Control Orders

That's a pretty small number deemed radical enough.

Tories so far have used none, and created legal TPIMs instead, for which several Labour commentators have pilloried them for 'watering down' public protection.

Incidentally, Lord Carlyle (LibDem, formal independent reviewer of terrorism legislation) spoke yesterday about this, saying that some changes to the law to allow the beefing up of TPIMs would be a prudent step.

I suppose when other parties want this - or even illegally do this - it's OK. Just when the Tories do the same.

UN Treaty obligations will still apply. We will continue to be members of UNHCR.

phoebemac · 07/06/2017 08:54

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.

JaneEyre70 - that's some talent you have for reducing complex issues to inane soundbites. You could do well on the Tory press team. Or as TM's speechwriter.

WalkingOnLeg0 · 07/06/2017 08:55

I want my children's right to a life protected.
Why does the left always jump to protecting terrorists rights first.

BertrandRussell · 07/06/2017 08:55

"You 'stop it' by, for example, by not allowing programmes like the 'jihadi next door' to be aired, by making it an offence to try and put up an ISIS flag, by not giving hate speakers platforms. By recognising that they do not have a right to a voice when they incite radicalism"

I haven't seen the programme, but the other things you list are covered by existing laws.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 08:56

And someone upthread make a good point.
How long is it before those "radical voices" include, say, environmental activists, or disability rights campaigners??

The problem with this sort of thing is it becomes a massive tool, that a Governement with an agenda can start to use against whatever group is currently a "problem".

How do we stop them from abusing this?

waitforitfdear · 07/06/2017 08:56

The only 'outrage' I feel is that parents are this week are arranging funerals of their small girls blown to bits by a savage terrorist bastard.

Do I give one crap about the human rights of imams that radicalised him in this country.

We are at war. Wake up.

BertrandRussell · 07/06/2017 08:56

"I want my children's right to a life protected.
Why does the left always jump to protecting terrorists rights first."

So do I.
We don't.
HTH.

DarlingCat · 07/06/2017 08:57

"Third London Bridge jihadi was STOPPED at Stansted airport when his name flagged on an EU criminal list but he was STILL allowed in to the country"

Why did Theresa May and Amber Rudd allow this? Hardly political correctness more incompetence.

waitforitfdear · 07/06/2017 08:58

Yes I expect they can't wait to round up 'disability rights.campaigners. Jesus

CoteDAzur · 07/06/2017 08:59

"Do I give one crap about the human rights of imams "

You seem to think that there are one set of human rights for imams, radical Islamists etc and another set for you and the rest of us.

When their thought crime gets prosecuted, so will yours.

MaybeNextWeek · 07/06/2017 08:59

'WE ALREADY HAVE APPROPIATE LAWS IN PLACE- WE JUST SIMPLY DONT HAVE THE POLICE OR THE FUNDING TO ENACT THEM PROPERLY'

Well why, again, wasn't it illegal for channel 4 to air 'the jihadi next door'?

Yes 'we have laws in place' for hate speech however many radicals manage to voice their extreme beliefs without crossing the line into hate speech. Look how long Choudary was tolerated for his 'political views' before he was finally locked away. He should never have been given the platform he was.

NellieBuff · 07/06/2017 09:00

I think this could be the thin end of a wedge. We have enough laws in place (if the Government (whatever Government that may be) should ever actually use them) to cope with the terrorist issue. I strongly object to any of the Human Rights Act being torn up.

I strongly agree that we need more resources ploughed into the police and the armed forces.

LanaKanesLeftNippleTassle · 07/06/2017 09:00

WalkingOnLeg0
That's the fricking point, or have you just ignored 130+ posts pointing out that THIS WILL NOT WORK!

If you want to protect your kids, then start campaigning for the thousands of police cut by the Tories to be reinstated.

Start campaigning for the funding to be put back into community policing (proven to work)

Start campaigning for young peoples mental health services to be better funded (proven to work by getting in there early)

Campaign for better educational funding, and for tighter regs around schools.

What will not protect your, and mine kids, is the taking away of rights they will need in the future.

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 09:00

Where to start with this?

How about here:

David Allen Green‏*@davidallengreen*
Human rights law does nothing to limit government dealing with terrorism.

But human rights law demonstrates the values that need defending.

Journalists: please ask May exactly how human rights law and ECHR stops her dealing with terrorism.

She will NOT have an answer.

Then let's move on to:

Nigel Farage‏ @Nigel_Farage
U-turn Theresa is at it again. Her manifesto says: Remain in ECHR. But last minute grab for votes says the opposite.

Nigel Farage (yes I know!) knows the score here

We'll come back to this.

Let's move on to this:
Steve Peers @ stevepeers
Ripping up human rights laws could also be May's opportunity to reduce the level of protection from expulsion for EU citizens in the UK

Uh oh.

Steve Peers @ stevepeers
Good point. Limiting human rights laws might complicate UK/EU data flows which (among other things) help to...combat terrorism

I'll explain further.

May's attack on human rights is none compatible with an EU deal and EU anti terrorism cooperation.

BUT all this is not in the manifesto so the Salisbury convention doesn't apply. The House of Lords can throw it out in theory.

In the short term the executive could ask for a derogation from the EHCR. May has always said this is a half way house to leaving the EHCR completely. The European court would have to approve though.

Long term remember the Good Friday Agreement relies on the EHCR so she can't just walk away from the court without destroying the GFA.

She makes a big song and dance about this two days before an election when she's on the back foot with her track record on security.

What do you think is going on?

Peregrina · 07/06/2017 09:00

We're not going to suddenly start torturing everyone who 'looks funny', we're going to be able to deport proven terrorists.

But soon we will start on people who might look like terrorists.

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 09:00

Now let's move onto this:

Simon Cox @ SimonFRCox
Why does Theresa May imply she'll break ECHR - when she doesn't need to? Re-upping this thread.

From May 3rd
Simon Cox @ SimonFRCox
May's #1 is "look like a fighter".
So winning is a problem - bc it ends the fight. We know this from her Home Office days. Thread. 1/n
In 2011 May claimed immigration judges were acting illegally, incl blocking man's deportation bc of his cat. 2/
I asked Home Office if they challenged these 3 decisions: they said yes - but in 2 cases accepted deportation was wrong. May had mislead 3/
May #1 aim wasnt changing judge behaviour. It was "look like a fighter". Her staff leaked 3 cases to press. And she "took on the judges" 4/
Psychology teaches: fighting "poverty" or "disease" is never as interesting for onlookers as fighting a human enemy.May always has one 5/
How did May fight immigration judges? She changed rules on human rights cases: she reinterpreted what the Human Rights Convention says 6/
May's lawyers must have told her: changing rules wont get what she claimed to want, bc ECHR trumps immigration rules 7/
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:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9890093/Theresa-Mays-tough-immigration-rules-defied-by-top-judge.html 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/
Enemy #3 Human rights lawyers asking courts to get Gov to investigate claims of UK Army murder & torture in Iraq
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-tory-conference-speech-applause-attacks-activist-left-wing-human-rights-lawyers-a7346216.html
Enemy #4. UK Human Rights Act. Not a person so less good as enemy. For a decade+ Cons have promised to repeal & replace HRA. May is key 22/
Just like Obamacare, Tories have been unable to write an alternative to HRA. Bc they know any will look worse to voters. 23/
But delay in the change she "wants" is never a big problem for Theresa May.
So. Long. As. People. Think. She. Is. Fighting. 24/
Theresa May has repeatedly said she wants HRA repealed. And repeatedly failed to publish any detailed plans. (Sound familiar?) 25/
Enemy 5#. Non-EEA Migrants. May wrote the rules for 6 years. She headed up department that implements them. She said she wanted fewer 26/
May set target number for migrants: completely of her own choosing. Which she missed, completely.
^Why set a target you can't hit? 27/
May makes rules she cant uphold or enforce, and sets targets she can't hit. Why?^
Fighting is a great excuse for not delivering change. 28/
So long as May was battling migrants, lawyers & judges, media show her in heroic light. Strong! Doughty! Fighting For You! /29
When pols stop fighting: bc they've won, or given up, or (ssh) compromised, then voters ask "what difference has this made to me?" /30
Enemy No 6. Remainers & EU27. See the anger. See the personalisation. See the "fighting talk". See the lack of a plan.
Classic May. 31/
May doesnt want to talk about her past (that would encourage analysis).She doesnt want to talk in detail about future (encourage debate) 32/
May wants voters' minds on her present fight - & present enemy. What/who ever that is. Today its Juncker. Tomorrow - she'll find one. 33/
May's success depends on Tory press (& TV following) clever selection of real human enemies - as proxies for wars on terror& migrants. 34/
Today:
Abstract enemy - Brexit
Human avatar - Juncker
See how angry she makes people. One can almost feel the spittle from this tweet 35/
May's actions arent entirely performative. Her policies do break up families of British citizens - and of refugees & migrants 36/
May could have brought confidence to the lives of maybe 3 million people who have made UK their home. She didnt want to. 37/
But IMO, May has always put "having a fight" above "making effective decisions & policies". She fears the end of fighting. 38/
May will always be looking for a fight. To distract us from the important things she's doing - or failing to do. We must remember this. 39/
When May attacks democratic instits & human rights we shd oppose. But smartly: always thinking how to avoid helping her distract. End. 40/40

Simon is right but... After tomorrow we enter stage two.

RedToothBrush · 07/06/2017 09:01

Remember Dacre wants elected judges. He is on record as saying he has a problem with our judicial system and wants major reform. He wants the ability to influence the law. It's about power not terrorism.

I've said this elsewhere but Trump's tweets over the weekend are almost as if Trump wants a terrorist attacks as it can be used to manipulate the system to weaken the US's constitutional institutions - namely the courts.

Think about this. The Daily Mail is so different because?

Which brings me to this:

lawfareblog.com/does-trump-want-lose-eo-battle-court-or-donald-mcgahn-simply-ineffectual-or-worse

From Feb:

The clearly foreseeable consequence of the roll-out combined with Trump’s tweets is to weaken the case for the legality of the EO in court. Why might Trump want to do that? Assuming that he is acting with knowledge and purpose (an assumption I question below), the only reason I can think of is that Trump is setting the scene to blame judges after an attack that has any conceivable connection to immigration. If Trump loses in court he credibly will say to the American people that he tried and failed to create tighter immigration controls. This will deflect blame for the attack. And it will also help Trump to enhance his power after the attack. After a bad terrorist attack at home, politicians are always under intense pressure to loosen legal constraints. (This was even true for near-misses, such as the failed Underwear bomber, which caused the Obama administration to loosen constraints on its counterterrorism policies in many ways.) Courts feel these pressures, and those pressures will be significantly heightened, and any countervailing tendency to guard against executive overreaction diminished, if courts are widely seen to be responsible for an actual terrorist attack. More broadly, the usual security panic after a bad attack will be enhanced quite a lot—in courts and in Congress—if before the attack legal and judicial constraints are seen to block safety. If Trump assumes that there will be a bad terrorist attack on his watch, blaming judges now will deflect blame and enhance his power more than usual after the next attack.

Be under no illusion. This is not about terrorism. Nor is it about how terrorists are getting away with things because of human rights.

This is about power. Power which will take away YOUR rights and will do bugger all to stop terrorism.

At best this is a sickening manipulation of two terrorist attacks to distract from May's failure and to win votes.

At worse this is May setting us on a course to create constitutional crisis in NI and to undermine the devolution settlements with Scotland and NI. It puts her on collision course with the courts and possibly the House of Lords and puts our democratic institutions at risk.

Not to defeat terrorism. Indeed much of this is a dream for ISIS. It has the power to destabilise this country and it starts to destroy the very fabric and idea of democracy. Which is what they want to do.

This is a power grab not preventing terrorism and it plays into the hands who seek to destroy us.

Strong and stable my arse.

JaneEyre70 · 07/06/2017 09:02

I'm horrified by people's apathy. I'm bloody outraged that kids go to see a concert and are blown to pieces by someone who hates Britain and everything about our liberties, lifestyle and freedoms but is ALLOWED to live here and do such atrocities. We have 3000 other fuckers living in this country who are just as capable of doing so that we know of - and they are attacking our CHILDREN ffs. Yes let's all throw #s over Twitter, change our FB statuses and hold vigils - because that REALLY works doesn't it Angry.

WalkingOnLeg0 · 07/06/2017 09:02

We can make the new law so its just people with radical religious views that are deported. That will protect disability campaigners.

cdtaylornats · 07/06/2017 09:02

Why did Theresa May and Amber Rudd allow this?

Well they were probably tired what with running the country, campaigning and checking all those passports between the two of them.

And some people think Dianne Abbott will do a better job.