European Court of Human Rights

[Scouse]

There've been a few on here who've taken the Daily Mail stance against the ECHR. They support the government's line that the European Convention on Human Rights is an unnecessary block on government's ability to deport people like Abu Hamza.

David Cameron and his nazi-counterpart Theresa May have openly spoken about leaving the ECHR - supported by papers like the Fail - which, lest we forget, was the official paper of the Nazi Party of Great Britain.

The people on this forum who support the view that the ECHR is a stupid and unnecessary block on national sovereignity that harms us, rather than helps us, have dismissed claims that it's the only legal protection that we have against authoritarian governments.

Here's the evidence against your argument.

In summary, a Muslim woman, stopped under Schedule 7, despite not being under suspicion of terrorism, was given a 12 month conditional discharge sentence - a criminal record - for refusing to speak to the police who held her until her lawyer arrived. I.E. For exercising her right to silence - that under Schedule 7 the government has taken away.

I.E. She's got a criminal record - and therefore all the things that go along with having a criminal record, like having to declare it on job applications etc. - for having the temerity to not answer questions until a lawyer was present.

She's currently asking the High Court in Britain to rule on whether the goverment is breaching the European Convention on Human Rights.


She would not be able to do this if Hitler Cameron and Himmler May got their facist way.


Considering that the ECHR is providing such a vital function to the average citizens of the United Kingdom what possible argument can be made against it that outweighs the protections that it gives each and every one of us?

If Abu Hamza cannot be legally deported - which he couldn't - he left by consent - is that not a price worth paying for legal protection against our government?

 

[Chilly]

the cost of the odd daft case like abu hamza pales in comparison to the value the insurance policy the ECHR provides average citizens against governments gone wild, imho.

 

[Raven]

It needs changing, not getting rid of. The example of Abu Hamza was a prime example of how inefficient and wasteful it is. Abu Hamza should have been deported years ago. He is not a UK citizen and is a terrorist and supporter of terrorism, not a case of him having a funny beard or a star wars outfit, he is an actual terrorist.

That being said, rather than pull out of the EXHR (which I am not entirely sure we can do) the government should be repealing their paranoid terrorism laws and think about stopping being utter ball bags, I would pay good money to see them waterboarded just for shits and giggles.

 

[Scouse]

It needs changing

I disagree with that assertion.

The example of Abu Hamza was a prime example of how inefficient and wasteful it is. Abu Hamza should have been deported years ago. He is not a UK citizen and is a terrorist and supporter of terrorism.

I also disgree with this. The example of Abu Hamza was a prime example of how important it is.

Abu Hamza had commited no crimes in this country. If he had he would have been charged and prosecuted in court and banged up for it. But he hadn't - which means that he should be innocent until proven guilty. Just like anyone else.

As for being a terrorist and supporting terrorism. Convict him in a court of law if we have the evidence that he's a terrorist. Also - I'm a "supporter of terrorism". I think what Nelson Mandela did - the killing of innocent women and children - was the correct action to bring about change.

I also think that Nelson Mandela is a despicable cunt and will be glad when he dies. He's a murderer.

Abu Hamza preached "hate" and support of Jihadi movements. If that's what he thought then he should be allowed to preach it. That's what freedom of speech is - whether we agree with the views or not.

We should be held accountable for our actions, not our opinions. Without that important distinction we can never be free and the descent into complete facism is inevitable.

 

[Chilly]

It needs changing, not getting rid of. The example of Abu Hamza was a prime example of how inefficient and wasteful it is. Abu Hamza should have been deported years ago. He is not a UK citizen and is a terrorist and supporter of terrorism, not a case of him having a funny beard or a star wars outfit, he is an actual terrorist.

That being said, rather than pull out of the EXHR (which I am not entirely sure we can do) the government should be repealing their paranoid terrorism laws and think about stopping being utter ball bags, I would pay good money to see them waterboarded just for shits and giggles.

So what if he's a terrorist? We have laws that say we can't torture and we can't send people where they have a reasonable chance of being tortured, regardless of their criminal status. the ECHR did exactly what it was meant to do and the UK government should be ashamed the lengths it went to to deport ONE man. They changed the fucking LAW, they signed a new treaty for ONE MAN. How can that possibly be proportionate?

 

[soze]

I like the court in principle and can see it as a good idea. But forcing us to keep Abu Hamza at our expense did not sit well with me. If they say he can't go home that is fine but they should find somewhere to house him. He cost a fortune to guard and wanted us dead I did not want him here and a Court saying he has to stay and be protected riled me.

 

[Himse]

We should be held accountable for our actions, not our opinions. Without that important distinction we can never be free and the descent into complete facism is inevitable.

One of the first things you've ever said which I agree with.

 

[Chilly]

I like the court in principle and can see it as a good idea. But forcing us to keep Abu Hamza at our expense did not sit well with me. If they say he can't go home that is fine but they should find somewhere to house him. He cost a fortune to guard and wanted us dead I did not want him here and a Court saying he has to stay and be protected riled me.

How much do you think the government spent deporting him? It will have FAR outstripped any cost of incarceration. Then think about the political capital expended getting Jordan to sign that treaty - they had no reason to so we must have given them something in return. That's one less favour we have in the bank with Jordan expended for one man.

 

[Tom]

It's interesting how people view those not from this country as somehow being less deserving of human rights.

 

[rynnor]

It's interesting how people view those not from this country as somehow being less deserving of human rights.

Thats because they are tougher

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23860811

What a tosser btw.

 

[rynnor]

The European convention on human rights arose from the ashes of the second world war.

It was designed to enshrine fundamental human rights that would directly oppose the rise of future dictatorships.

It would be a shameful day to leave it - really dont trust any politician that wants to strip us all of fundamental human rights.

 

[soze]

How much do you think the government spent deporting him? It will have FAR outstripped any cost of incarceration. Then think about the political capital expended getting Jordan to sign that treaty - they had no reason to so we must have given them something in return. That's one less favour we have in the bank with Jordan expended for one man.

That is my point. If we want to send him back but the ECHR says no we should be able to hand him over to them and then they can find somewhere to house him. Our costs should when when they refuse to let us send him back.

 

[Embattle]

There've been a few on here who've taken the Daily Mail stance against the ECHR.

Wow quick way to kill off any real discussion on this topic with such a stupid opening comment, not a first though.

One of the first things you've ever said which I agree with.

Sadly though Himse you can't quite have such a blanket statement on such things, opinions can lead to actions and in some cases very bad ones but I really don't feel like it would be a constructive use of my time posting much in this topic considering the person who started it.

 

[BloodOmen]

As Raven said it needs changing, leaving ECHR should be an absolute last resort if they refuse to change it. They should bring in a law that basically says "If your a proven criminal or have committed crime in other countries, human rights laws should be 100% made invalid for your use so you cannot hide behind them to avoid deportation." or something along those lines.

Basically if you are a criminal/terrorist = no human rights for you
If your a law abiding citizen trying to escape a war torn country = human rights laws for you

 

[rynnor]

Basically if you are a criminal/terrorist = no human rights for you
If your a law abiding citizen trying to escape a war torn country = human rights laws for you

Thats hugely flawed because people fleeing some dictatorship are probably breaking all sorts of laws in their country and may already have a criminal record.

One mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist.

 

[Chilly]

As Raven said it needs changing, leaving ECHR should be an absolute last resort if they refuse to change it. They should bring in a law that basically says "If your a proven criminal or have committed crime in other countries, human rights laws should be 100% made invalid for your use so you cannot hide behind them to avoid deportation." or something along those lines.

Basically if you are a criminal/terrorist = no human rights for you
If your a law abiding citizen trying to escape a war torn country = human rights laws for you

Absolutely terrible idea. Breaking the law by definition means doing something the government thinks is naughty. The whole point of the ECHR is to protect you from governments over reaching their authority.

 

[DaGaffer]

Basically if you are a criminal/terrorist = no human rights for you
If your a law abiding citizen trying to escape a war torn country = human rights laws for you

Anyone who tried to jump over the Berlin Wall back in the day was breaking East German law; in your scenario they would have had no human rights. Ditto anyone who tries to escape from North Korea now.

 

[Raven]

Ah, I see in this case her husband is a convicted terrorist. So in this case they were probably right to ask her a few questions!

 

[BloodOmen]

Not really the sort of criminals I was driving at tho, I'm on about the obvious ones like murderers, rapists, paedos, career thieves etc - any of those should be simply excluded from any sort of human rights, they have no consideration for their victims thus should not be allowed human rights to defend them, it's pretty logical really.

 

[Chilly]

Not really the sort of criminals I was driving at tho, I'm on about the obvious ones like murderers, rapists, paedos, career thieves etc - any of those should be simply excluded from any sort of human rights, they have no consideration for their victims thus should not be allowed human rights to defend them, it's pretty logical really.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind!

 

[DaGaffer]

Not really the sort of criminals I was driving at tho, I'm on about the obvious ones like murderers, rapists, paedos, career thieves etc - any of those should be simply excluded from any sort of human rights, they have no consideration for their victims thus should not be allowed human rights to defend them, it's pretty logical really.

One of things enshrined in the Convention on Human Rights is the right to a fair trial. If I'm on the run from say, Zimbabwe, and they say, "send him back, he's a murderer", should the UK authorities just send me back, no questions asked? The problem with "obvious" definitions of criminals is that sometimes they're not obvious at all.

 

[BloodOmen]

One of things enshrined in the Convention on Human Rights is the right to a fair trial. If I'm on the run from say, Zimbabwe, and they say, "send him back, he's a murderer", should the UK authorities just send me back, no questions asked? The problem with "obvious" definitions of criminals is that sometimes they're not obvious at all.

If he's proven a murderer without a shadow of a doubt then yes, he should be sent back.. if on the other hand he's killed someone defending himself or a family member then he has the right to a fair trial. I'm not saying simply boot people out if someone claims they've done X, what I'm saying is if its 100% proven without any sort of doubt then human rights should not be allowed to protect them.

That's the problem with human rights laws, people automatically go "Ah but he has the right to a fair trial!" what about his victim? or the victims family, where were their rights when he was shooting or stabbing their son or daughter to death? such people deserve no rights protecting them, as far as I'm concerned they give that right up the moment they commit such atrocious crimes.

 

[Chilly]

If he's proven a murderer without a shadow of a doubt then yes, he should be sent back.. if on the other hand he's killed someone defending himself or a family member then he has the right to a fair trial. I'm not saying simply boot people out if someone claims they've done X, what I'm saying is if its 100% proven without any sort of doubt then human rights should not be allowed to protect them.

That's the problem with human rights laws, people automatically go "Ah but he has the right to a fair trial!" what about his victim? or the victims family, where were there rights when he was shooting or stabbing their son or daughter to death? such people deserve no rights protecting them, as far as I'm concerned they give that right up the moment they commit such atrocious crimes.

The only way to get peace is to (and this makes me sound like a hippy, but it's true) spread compassion and love. Revoking human rights laws based on some kind of dodgy ruleset made up by the internet is not conducive to that and will just make people angrier. Take that prison in Norway that's basically a holiday camp for murderers. Right wingers hate it because it's lovely and it's not punishment. What they ignore is that reoffending from that prison is the best in class throughout all of Europe, by some margin.

 

[Gups]

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind!

Actually the last person will have one eye left.....

How far can you go with this...

Human rights in its current form protects murderers and terrorist as well as the law abiding. The people who have been victims had their human removed / violated by these scum bags.

Also you enter the realm of people entitlements under human rights have a certain standard of living which escalates into the benefits system what bullshit.

 

[BloodOmen]

The only way to get peace is to (and this makes me sound like a hippy, but it's true) spread compassion and love. Revoking human rights laws based on some kind of dodgy ruleset made up by the internet is not conducive to that and will just make people angrier. Take that prison in Norway that's basically a holiday camp for murderers. Right wingers hate it because it's lovely and it's not punishment. What they ignore is that reoffending from that prison is the best in class throughout all of Europe, by some margin.

No offence then chilly but you're living in a dream world, that will never ever happen, far too many religions on the planet for everyone to just get along. Human rights laws need modifying, modifying them would deter people from committing crime (not completely but it would at very least have some impact on people who are literally shit scared of being deported )more than singing them Kum Ba Yah to them.

 

[Zenith]

As Raven said it needs changing, leaving ECHR should be an absolute last resort if they refuse to change it. They should bring in a law that basically says "If your a proven criminal or have committed crime in other countries, human rights laws should be 100% made invalid for your use so you cannot hide behind them to avoid deportation." or something along those lines.

Basically if you are a criminal/terrorist = no human rights for you
If your a law abiding citizen trying to escape a war torn country = human rights laws for you

Are you really that ignorant?

How do you support the claim that criminals should have no human rights? Where do you draw the line? Can we do what we want with them, torture them, humiliate them? What does that make us?

In this day and age, where we have been shown ANYONE can be made a criminal with the use of the different "terror laws", can you risk stripping criminals of the basic human rights? Are you that stupid?

 

[Zenith]

Not really the sort of criminals I was driving at tho, I'm on about the obvious ones like murderers, rapists, paedos, career thieves etc - any of those should be simply excluded from any sort of human rights, they have no consideration for their victims thus should not be allowed human rights to defend them, it's pretty logical really.

Another ignorant post. How about the numerous scenarios of "convicted" criminals either rotting in Death Row or killed, and then found guilty?

Once again, we have been shown ALL countries makes mistake. Stripping criminals of any human rights WILL lead to the utter destruction of innocent people.

 

[BloodOmen]

Are you really that ignorant?

How do you support the claim that criminals should have no human rights? Where do you draw the line? Can we do what we want with them, torture them, humiliate them? What does that make us?

In this day and age, where we have been shown ANYONE can be made a criminal with the use of the different "terror laws", can you risk stripping criminals of the basic human rights? Are you that stupid?

No, I'm not ignorant, I'm just not a stupid prat that thinks protecting scum with human rights laws is a good thing. You human rights lovers harp on about how even the worse criminal deserve human rights but you can never come up with a good argument why beyond saying "It just makes us as bad as them!" boo hoo.... perhaps they should have thought about that before they were murdering old people or kids, or raping a teenager on the way home from school or dragging a woman into some bushes and forcing her to have sex against her will.

Despite all that you still sit there going "They deserve rights", makes you sick really, from my perspective you're almost as bad as the people committing the crimes for protecting them. And don't play the "Oh but you can be branded a terrorist for really small things these days!" you know fine well what I meant by terrorist.

 

[BloodOmen]

Stripping criminals of any human rights WILL lead to the utter destruction of innocent people.

Please just keep reading that to yourself until it makes sense... please.

 

[Chilly]

No, I'm not ignorant, I'm just not a stupid prat that thinks protecting scum with human rights laws is a good thing. You human rights lovers harp on about how even the worse criminal deserve human rights but you can never come up with a good argument why beyond saying "It just makes us as bad as them!" boo hoo.... perhaps they should have thought about that before they were murdering old people or kids, or raping a teenager on the way home from school or dragging a woman into some bushes and forcing her to have sex against her will.

Despite all that you still sit there going "They deserve rights", makes you sick really, from my perspective you're almost as bad as the people committing the crimes for protecting them. And don't play the "Oh but you can be branded a terrorist for really small things these days!" you know fine well what I meant by terrorist.

The argument is that the judicial system makes mistakes and convicts innocent people. The argument is that governments create abusive laws that we need protection from. The arguments are that things like the death penalty have no affect on offending rates yet cost a fortune to administer. The argument is that people like you MASSIVELY overestimate the problem because you believe the media.