'Shall we pretend to care?'
'Yeah, probably a good idea, the plebians are starting to realise that they're just our cattle'
'Oh okay, we'll do it on the day where there's an event about it - so we can attempt to hijack it and make it look like we super care'
'that's super cool, what does care mean by the way?'
Minister given task to reduce suicide rate
Still the biggest killer of men of a certain age, and way higher than women.
Being banned from Universities...I'd get over it.
You don't even know what I'm talking about, which is funny, because it's right up your alleyBeing banned from Universities...I'd get over it.
Only because men are better at it.
I was merely referring to a comment in the article...what is your angle.You don't even know what I'm talking about, which is funny, because it's right up your alley![]()
Human rights should, and indeed must, apply to the most despicable prisoners as much as the most law abiding families.
If we respect the human rights of those we hate the most, then those of us who deserve their protection will find it much easier to get it.
Human rights should, and indeed must, apply to the most despicable prisoners as much as the most law abiding families.
If we respect the human rights of those we hate the most, then those of us who deserve their protection will find it much easier to get it.
You can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners.” ~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky. According to the internet anyway, it's a good quote, and appropriate here.
I am always of two minds when it comes to convicted terrorists. On the one hand, you don't want them living the cushy prison life. Floor-ball in the morning and Paradise Hotel (a bit like Love Island, only way more sex) in the evening. Good food, reading materials, ability to interact with the world via letter. You want them to experience pain and suffering every day for what they did.
On the other hand, that means that you have given up on someone becoming a better person. Is prison a punishment, or is it is rehabilitation? Both? If you lock someone up in isolation and truly make them suffer, then they can never be allowed to leave. Might as well save the taxpayer some money and end it. If they are extremists, but not sentenced for life, then what do you do? Denmark is about to release Munir Awad in December, 8 years into a 12 year sentence for planning a Mumbai style terror attack on Copenhagen airport. It is madness to set those guys free. They will try something similar again. Who will be responsible if they succeed? The Danish state, for letting them go? For failing to rehabilitate them? The Swedish state, for making them citizens of their country? We know they are religious nutters who planned mass murder. Can you lock them up forever, for being extremists that have not yet committed their act of terror? Is that the right thing to do? And if you do so, how do you prevent them from radicalizing the rest of the prison population, while still letting them keep their human rights?
Releasing Terrorists is a funny one though - if they're in the know enough then it'd be relatively easy to track them/get them on your side and gain further information - people like Breivik doesn't count in this as he's solo and he can rot away.
I'm happy with the proceedings of what happened - the courts decided that he was being pathetic.
So you don't want those rights to apply to you? Like the right to defend yourself in court, or freedom from slavery?Well as a sceptic of the validity and execution of the human rights act.
After seeing that debate on Sky News about the Ad (dictionary definition of woman) taken down in Liverpool as hate speech, I'm not surprised. The definition and rights are under threat and the new wave feminist and SJW pretty much caused it.
We are to track them? For how long? For the rest of their lives? Who pays for that? They are European citizens, Sweden is part of Schengen. What happens when they move country? No longer that country's problem?
Brevik doesn't count because he's not part of a large group of extremists? What if he had converted to Islam a year before the events, and praised Allah while gunning down those kids? Would he count then? If so, why?
From what I've seen feminists are generally AGAINST the idea that a woman is anyone who says they are a woman (and therefore having a penis shouldn't exclude you from being one). The ones who shout loudest against so-called TERFs are men who don't see why biological females should get any special treatment that a man couldn't if he decided to pop on a dress. You are laying the blame at the wrong people.After seeing that debate on Sky News about the Ad (dictionary definition of woman) taken down in Liverpool as hate speech, I'm not surprised. The definition and rights are under threat and the new wave feminist and SJW pretty much caused it.
Popcorn time...
After seeing that debate on Sky News about the Ad (dictionary definition of woman) taken down in Liverpool as hate speech, I'm not surprised. The definition and rights are under threat and the new wave feminist and SJW pretty much caused it.
Popcorn time...
Becauae I dont expect it to be useful to me, I dont have a popular cause or millions in the bank.So you don't want those rights to apply to you? Like the right to defend yourself in court, or freedom from slavery?
Becauae I dont expect it to be useful to me, I dont have a popular cause or millions in the bank.
LOL.
'Human rights aren't important, because I don't really need them.'
I'm sure you'll change your tune a couple years post Brexit
Oh no, nevermind, you'll just blame immigrants.
You don't find freedom from slavery useful in your day to day life then?Becauae I dont expect it to be useful to me, I dont have a popular cause or millions in the bank.