The human rights of terrorists - discussion thread

[Surfer01]

The same people who say they can't send Abu Qataba to Jordan to face trial because it is against his human rights, yet ignore the human rights of the sick and disabled, in this country.

I thought it was a judge that did that as the Home Secretary has been desperate to deport him and ahas launched a number of appeals? Surely the judge is independent of any political party?

[estellyn]

I'm going to be unpopular saying this, but I don't believe in condoning other peoples' human rights to be taken away (however bad they are) just because my rights are being infringed. If you believe in human rights then it has to be for all humans, however badly you feel about the person in question. otherwise it makes us as bad as the people who torture or take human rights away.

[Surfer01]

I sincerely believe that if you remove another human being's rights, i.e. through terrorism or criminal actions, you should have all your rights removed for the duration that you are imprisoned or sentenced to death.

Until you have lost friends through acts of terrorism you probably will have no idea what I am talking about!

[estellyn]

I sincerely believe that if you remove another human being's rights, i.e. through terrorism or criminal actions, you should have all your rights removed for the duration that you are imprisoned or sentenced to death.

Until you have lost friends through acts of terrorism you probably will have no idea what I am talking about!

 

I have directly experienced terrorism and have lost friends. I still don't believe in terrorists being tortured.

[Zonker]

Just remember that recent case of failing to deport that person was because of he HAD been tortured and there was no way of preventing whatever was said , true or not, being used in a trial against him.

 

Now i dont like people who commit acts of terrorism but if we fail in their rights, how can we fight for ours?

[Surfer01]

Just remember that recent case of failing to deport that person was because of he HAD been tortured and there was no way of preventing whatever was said , true or not, being used in a trial against him.

 

Now i dont like people who commit acts of terrorism but if we fail in their rights, how can we fight for ours?

 

Are you saying that terrorist can maim and kill taking away the rights of those people, but we must retain their right?

[Zonker]

What I am saying is that if you start denying a persons rights because its inconvenient then whats stopping denying other rights to other people? Its a slippery slope, one thing will lead to another. Look at the prisoners 'right' to vote, the human rights act 1998 says

 

Right to free elections

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature

 

i cant see where in the act it limits those who are at Her Majesty's pleasure. Government is squirming at the moment with that one. They dont like it, but if it turns out the voting rights cant be restricted then they should let them vote . I personally think that Human Rights should be enforced whatever the person, no matter how bitter the taste in the mouth it leaves.

 

If you look at the wording of the post i made , it refers to a person, because thats how human rights apply. In this case Article 6 was applied, Right to a Fair Trial and that couldnt be guarenteed because his Article 3 right , Prohibition of Torture, had been violated and anything said could have been used. I carefully choose that wording to distance it away from the emotive subject of terrorism and get to the basic facts , a person. These Articles cant be ignored like the ones from the optional protocols (especially the one saying 'decent standard of living' for people with disabilities which the UK hasnt decided to adopt.)

 

apologies writing this post honeybee has moved posts and this should be moved there.

 

In no way i support terrorism or those who use it to further their own ends. Its disgusting and rightfully they should be pursued by the authorities, but rights of the person HAS to be observed.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Zonker
apologies

[honeybee13]

OK, I've moved your post Zonker. Please stick to the new thread now, or you may find yourself having to retype it...

[Surfer01]

Honeybee13 please delete / edit all my posts as I have no wish to enter into any dialogue about terrorists as my original post was in relationship to an incorrect statement by another poster on the other thread therefore this thread is meaningless. I am un-subscribing from it anyway.

[MARTIN3030]

Just remember that recent case of failing to deport that person was because of he HAD been tortured and there was no way of preventing whatever was said , true or not, being used in a trial against him.

 

Now i dont like people who commit acts of terrorism but if we fail in their rights, how can we fight for ours?

 

I agree with this completely.

Theresa May and her cronies have made it quite clear that she wants to scrap the UK obligations under HRA altogether.

Its funny how the UK is often one of the first to slam HR abuses when they are seen in other countries.

You cannot cherry pick which sections of the Act you want to use and those you dont.

I am in favour of rejecting arguements used in cases where they are done to frustrate legitimate needs in consideration of the security and wellbeing of the people.

The proper way to deal with these cases is to let the Judges decide using their powers and following legal process,not to expect Gov meddling is right.

Last year the HO warned that if Judges were not seen to be supporting Gov stances,then they would change the laws to take their jurisdiction away-which I know absolutely infuriated Judges.

If they are going to alienate themselves from the highest Courts in the land with these kind of threats,its not unreasonable to see Judges putting them in their places,and I wonder if the latest decisions were not made in an effort to put the GOV in their place.

 

Removing all the protections Article 8 was designed for,of course is something that the HO and UKBA have been nibbling at for the last 2 years.The main reason has not been in respect of terrorists,but to thwart legitimate recourse from UK nationals seeking to have foreign spouses to come here,to reduce student visa apps etc etc.

All part of meeting their targets.

We have seen in France and Germany also breaches under HRA but with fines of 8000 euros it does not worry them-of course at the end of the day its taxpayers who are footing the bill !

[MARTIN3030]

On the issues of prisoners voting rights,there are arguements for 2 scenarios.

 

Someone serving 6 months or even 12,is likely to be rejoining their community sooner with remission.

Why should they be denied voting rights when they should be getting encouraged to be more socially responsible ?

 

Its a fair call to say that voting rights mean very little for a prisoner serving say 10 years.

[count orlok]

The government have accepted for may years that i am virtually unable to walk, and have happly given me the means to get our and about that has enabled me to go to university and lead a fairly normal life.

 

They have futher confirmed this by putting me in the ESA support group.

 

Are they not going to be taking my human rights my removing my means of getting out and about, and effectivly imprisioning me in my home?

 

What makes me sick if they lie and lie saying it is to weed out cheats or to suppport those most in need. Why can't they just tell the truth and say they can't afford to support the disabled anymore. Or would that be against our human rights?

 

Which was the point of the quote at at the top of this thread. If they are going to respect the rights of one "criminal" should they not repect the human rights of all?