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.

Comments

Of course

[Fire_Wraith]

Meanwhile, she couldn't be bothered to fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place, with information and methods they already had available to them.

The fact that she, as Home Secretary, gutted those services should be enough to tell you that she doesn't actually care about the problem, she's just using it as an excuse.

Re:Of course

[rogoshen1]

Sad to see our cousins across the pond aren't the only ones having to deal with this caliber of bullshit from their politicians.

Apparently living in a free society does have certain unfortunate and tragic costs; but that doesn't mean you should cash in your chips and go full frontal Stasi.

What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

Re:Of course

[stdarg]

Where did this thought come from? More funding for the police could have stopped this attack how exactly? Their response time was pretty good. But "stopped the attackers" to me actually implies you think they could have prevented the attack.

You do realize that they knew about these guys right? May is absolutely right that they need to tone down some of the more retarded human rights protections that are getting in the way of deporting or at least jailing jihadis.

Re:Of course

[PmanAce]

fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place

Ahhh, always nice to treat the symptoms and not the cause.

Re:Of course

[Nidi62]

Having more police wouldn't have helped if the police are powerless to arrest someone until they act,

So....arrest them before they commit a criminal act? Do you have to be Muslim for that to be ok? Or can the police arrest a guy standing outside a bank because they think he might be about to rob it, too?

or even to deport a suspect if they're known to associate with terrorists and be sympathetic to them (as the three koran-thumpers in the last attack were)

So it's now illegal to be around people that might be terrorists or to sympathize with them (but not in any way help them)? Tell me, are you trying to fight ISIS, or become them?

Re:Of course

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Of course she wants them to happen. How else would you shake up a country to push for otherwise unpopular changes?

Re:Of course

[GLMDesigns]

What?

Alt-Right? If by Alt-Right you mean Spencer and his band of idiotic misfits then you just lumped in Libertarians (Cato, von Mises, Federalist ) in with white nationalists.

You don't like free-market philosophy? Fine. Not in favor of limited government? OK. Persuade people that your economic and regulatory model is superior. But Spencer and his band are not for the free market and The Federalist and other Free Market organizations are not in favor of the almighty state (whether distributionalist or racist in spirit ).

And, if you can't even read, or accept arguments made by people with an opposing point of view - well then. What does that say about you?

Re:Of course

[Calydor]

Both yes and no.

First of all, religion is like a penis. It's fine that you have one, it's fine that you're proud of it - but don't start showing it off in public.

Second of all, religion is ... well, it's basically insanity. Imagine that I stood up in public and declared that I found it justified to murder anyone who prefers Star Wars over Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings over Harry Potter. I'd be hauled off to jail and/or a psychiatric evaluation before my second breath.

Imagine I said that my invisible friend tells me to cut off a piece of my newborn child because it says so in the Silmarillion. That child would be taken away by Child Protective Services.

Imagine I pointed to Jabba the Hutt's slave girls and said THIS is proof that a man has a right to own his wife as if she was property.

But ... Point instead to a bunch of stories told by illiterate goat shepherds thousands of years ago, and suddenly it is religion and protected. Not just islam, but all of religion. Christianity doesn't get a free pass on this one.

Religion is pure and simple collective insanity. Religious wars are akin to a toddler tantrum over WHOSE invisible friend is the BEST (only) invisible friend.

Freedom of religion should extend to within your own four walls, not a step beyond them. In the public space it should be freedom FROM religion.

USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You are being manipulated to give up your essential freedoms. Statistically, terrorism is a tiny concern compared to the danger you submit yourself to daily.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

More impotantly, Western people giving up their freedom is exactly what the terrorists want.

Re:USA and now UK

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be true. But in this case May is just looking for the ability to "deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries." That hardly seems unreasonable to me.

You seem to be using a definition of the word 'reasonable' I have not come across before. Deporting anyone on the basis of suspicions without a fair trial is, to me, by definition unreasonable.

Re:USA and now UK

[Holi]

Except, Salman Abedi was born in England, where are they going to deport him to?

Khuram Shahzad Butt, a 27-year-old British national born in Pakistan. Again a British national, how do you deport him?


I understand the feeling, but what you are supporting is a violation of due process, is Britain going to start a department of pre-crime. Where if they think you may commit an act they will arrest you? When we start punishing people for what they think instead of their actions, any pretense of a free society gets obliterated.

I remember how I felt...

[aicrules]

During and immediately after September 11, 2001. But is it really so easy to say such things that are antithetical to the free world? I get that it's hard to have to follow rules, but remember that when you're the one with black hood pulled over your head even though you know you didn't do anything wrong, it's you who asked for this Theresa May.

Re:I remember how I felt...

[bluefoxlucid]

The mistake is simple: it's easier to keep an orderly society if everyone is enslaved by a small, powerful policing force with severe response to any deviation from orderly behavior; however, this does not provide people with security.

You gotta figh!, for your right!

[Anonymous Coward]

to tear up their rights!

Oh yeah, bin laden won! He is dancing in his watery grave.

Unfortunatly

[Bromrrrrr]

It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it

Ergo

[pr0t0]

We're going to fight the terrorist agenda of disrupting our way of life in order to make their voices heard, by disrupting our way of life thus making their voices heard.

Can't imagine why people continue to use terrorist tactics. /s

Foolishness.

[Gravis Zero]

Speaking after Saturday's London attack, Mrs May said "enough is enough" and that "things need to change" in the terror fight.

The death and injury of people is tragic but destroying the rights of your own people is just idiotic. Terrorists aren't killing millions, they killed maybe 100 in the last decade. More people die from drowning than terrorist attacks!

Ob-ManForAllSeasons

[Anonymous Coward]

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Clearly, think of the children!

[sinij]

Theresa may think that the only way to fighting radical Islam is to build a totalitarian regime, I hope voters disagree. Personally, I would rather government protect my rights than keep me safe.

Reality Check, UK

[prince hal]

Here's some facts to consider:

1. The number of people in the UK who died an alcohol-related death in 2015 was 8,758, a more or less typical year.
2. The number of Brits who died in automobile-related incidents in 2013 was 1,713, but that was the lowest number since they began keeping records in 1926 (just ten years earlier, in 2003, the number was 3508).
3. The total number of terrorism-related deaths in the UK since 1970 is 3,395. That's an average of approximately 72 per year over the last 47 years.
4. Over the last ten years, the number of terrorism-related deaths in the UK is roughly the same as the number of deaths from bees and wasps.

Given these figures, it would make more sense to take away their right to drink and/or drive.

Or, at least, get rid of the bees and wasps...