Slashdot Mirror
Theresa May Says UK Will 'Tear Up' Human Rights Laws If Needed For Terror Fight (bbc.com)
Hours ahead of the UK general election, the prime minister and Conservative party leader Theresa May proposed to "tear up" human rights law which, she asserts, stops her government dealing effectively with terrorism. From a report: She said she wants to do more to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and to deport foreign suspects. The UK could seek opt-outs from the European Convention on Human Rights, which it has abided by since 1953. Labour said the UK would not defeat terrorism "by ripping up basic rights." The Lib Dems said it was a "cynical" move ahead of Thursday's election. The Conservatives have faced criticism over police cuts and questions about intelligence failures following the terror attacks in London and Manchester. Her remarks come days after she expressed desires to assume more controls and regulation on the ways the internet works.
The way "tear up" is used the summary, it is conveyed that May is saying that she will "tear up" human rights law in the linked article. She didn't say that. The Labor Party as has said, per the article, "by ripping up basic rights".
May actually tweeted, "I'm clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe." (https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/872181737933217794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Ftheresa-may-if-human-rights-laws-get-in-our-way-we-will-change-them)
There's no need to compromise your integrity to sully May. She's doing well enough on her own.
Not "Tear up", per se, but here's a quote from her in the article:
"And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."
Yeah, that doesn't sound fucked up at all.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Except that this isn't new behaviour for May. She's been trying to get privacy invading laws through since even before she was Home Secretary.
Her personal politics are that if the state can see everything, they can arrest people for thought crime and pre-crime offences, and save money on investigative policing. I do not like it one bit.
Slippery slope is almost universally a bullshit argument. Yes it's theoretically possible that this could evolve into a horrible police state that disappears innocent people.
I'll just leave thishere
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We are officially unworthy of the society and protections envisioned, negotiated and fought for by our founding fathers.