- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 36,119
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?
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?
Last edited: