Isolation from Europe wouldn't be splendid for the UK?

GeorgeHowell

ValHaller wrote: »

There is nothing perverted about human rights. I value mine.

Of course, that's exactly what I meant (as I think you know). Human rights are sacrosanct. Using the pretext of them to benefit unreasonably criminals, terrorists, etc is perverse.

ILW

MacMickster wrote: »

I completely agree with you, but the European Court of Human Rights is completely seperate from the EU, although members of the EU sign up to abide by its principles and rulings.

Even outside the EU, we could not hope to trade with the EU, without the imposition of punitive tariffs, unless we continued to abide by these principles and rulings.

We are not the only country that finds some of the findings of the ECHR perverse. Campaigning against these is, however, a completely different issue to membership of the EU. The Daily Mail tries to lump the two issues together to spare their readership from having to think too hard/at all.

That is the bit I don't get.
Nations such as the US, Korea, Japan, China etc seem to trade with the EU. Why would Britain be any different if not "paid up" members?

ValHaller

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Of course, that's exactly what I meant (as I think you know). Human rights are sacrosanct. Using the pretext of them to benefit unreasonably criminals, terrorists, etc is perverse.

So as long as you think someone is a criminal or a terrorist it is OK to put them at risk of torture? As you rightly say, human rights are sacrosanct and I think we are all much better off with the line being drawn looser rather than tighter. To me, it is a price (and I agree it is a price) which is worth paying to maintain the sacrosanctness of Human Rights.

As far as I am concerned, it is OK to argue that the line should have been drawn differently in individual cases. But to dismiss the human rights act entirely based on these few hard cases is either evil or stupidity on the mistaken belief that it having rid of Human Rights legislation will free us from the influence of Europe.

The_White_Horse

some people deserve no human rights, because they don't act like a human being.

i am all for suspected terrorists to be treated like kings, but once they are convicted, all their rights should go down the toilet.

human rights need to co-exist with human duties or human responsibilities.

if you don't perform your responsibilities or duties, then you should have no rights.

it's pretty easy.

GeorgeHowell

ValHaller wrote: »

So as long as you think someone is a criminal or a terrorist it is OK to put them at risk of torture? As you rightly say, human rights are sacrosanct and I think we are all much better off with the line being drawn looser rather than tighter. To me, it is a price (and I agree it is a price) which is worth paying to maintain the sacrosanctness of Human Rights.

As far as I am concerned, it is OK to argue that the line should have been drawn differently in individual cases. But to dismiss the human rights act entirely based on these few hard cases is either evil or stupidity on the mistaken belief that it having rid of Human Rights legislation will free us from the influence of Europe.

The unsubstantiated claim is tried using evidence that may been obtained by torture. If you are prepared to see people whose avowed aim is to blow us all to pieces walking our streets in order to prevent that unsubstantiated risk, than we have no meeting of the minds.

We are a developed and civilised enough country to run our own human rights regime, we don't need Europeans to dictate to us.

Having rid of the Human Rights Act will not in itself rid us of the interference of Europe, but with a bit of luck it might work the other way round.

One heart-warming story in today's paper was about how unhappy Abu Qatada's family are in Britain. They hate it here, are allegedly experiencing daily abuse in the street outside the property they live in (at taxpayers' expense) which they also hate including its location which is apparently inconvenient for them. They would love to leave Britain, but we will only let them do so if AQ goes to Jordan for trial for terrorism. So there is some justice in the world.

ValHaller

The_White_Horse wrote: »

some people deserve no human rights,

Clearly you do not understand human rights. Human rights are a minimum standard of treatment regardless of how deserving someone is.

The_White_Horse

ValHaller wrote: »

Clearly you do not understand human rights. Human rights are a minimum standard of treatment regardless of how deserving someone is.

I know what the definition you have is - I am telling you, you are wrong.

to have rights, you must also have responsibilities and duties. if you don't fulfil those duties, then you must also lose your rights.

for example, freedom. you have various duties and responsibilities - if you don't fulfil them, you lose your privilege to freedom.

why should a baby rapist have a right to anything? sure, a right to a fair trial - but after that, once convicted - they should lose all rights. and why not? what are you protecting them for? to make yourself feel better?

MacMickster

ILW wrote: »

That is the bit I don't get.
Nations such as the US, Korea, Japan, China etc seem to trade with the EU. Why would Britain be any different if not "paid up" members?

Yes they continue to trade with the EU, but we impose tariffs on many of their goods and services when imported into the EU. This is to recognise the advantage that their manufacturers have in not having to comply with all of the pink and fluffy EU rules on workers rights etc. For this reason, many set up manufacturing bases within the EU to get around these tariffs, providing employment under EU terms and conditions at the same time.

If we leave the EU, not only would we be subject to tariffs on our own exports, companies such as Nissan, Toyota etc would lose the incentive to have manufacturing take place in the UK, so would undoubtedly shift their operations to somewhere within the EU.

https://www.gov.uk/importing-goods-from-outside-the-eu

GeorgeHowell

ValHaller wrote: »

Clearly you do not understand human rights. Human rights are a minimum standard of treatment regardless of how deserving someone is.

The standard is not absolute and has no democratic mandate in this country ( or anywhere else probably).

Nobody could believe that anything but a very small minority of our population would concur the notion that convicted criminals -- tried fairly and properly -- of serious crimes should be spared deportation because of the 'right to family life'. Such standards, and the way that many judges choose to implement them, are not based on a long-standing, tried and tested, and widely accepted moral code that has become effectively sacrosanct. They are based on a politically motivated perversion of the original intent of preventing horrors such as were committed in Nazi Germany.

If the ECHR cannot put its house in order and reflect what the vast majority of people in the (largely) democratic states that are signed up to it would accept are reasonable human rights standards, then it should be disbanded and the states should look after their own affairs.

There are some people who believe that democracy is too important to be left to the will of the people -- I am not one of them.

ValHaller

The_White_Horse wrote: »

for example, freedom. you have various duties and responsibilities - if you don't fulfil them, you lose your privilege to freedom.

So freedom is a privilege and not a right? So who gets to grant the privilege? I don't buy your twisted view.