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.
What if she wants attacks to happen?
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. If you immigrate to my country and start engaging in terrorist activity (or associating with known terrorists) your invitation to stay should be rescinded.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Having more police wouldn't have helped if the police are powerless to arrest someone until they act, 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).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
What would Churchill say about this turn of events.
Winston did have this to say about what his country finds itself up against:
http://thefederalistpapers.org...
No, she's looking for the ability to ban porn. That's what she does. She looks for excuses to increase powers, and then rather than using them for the purpose she claimed, she uses them to ban Internet porn instead.
UHCR or not, it's also pretty hard to deport British people, and the vast majority of terrorists (and presumably suspected terrorists) in Britain are British.
Britain has a long and ultimately successful history with fighting terrorism. May has been throwing out all the lessons learned over the past 50-60 years, and is intent on adopting populist measures that have a proven record of failure. She'll be bringing back internment next, which'll be just as successful as Gitmo or internment was in NI in the 1970s. ie very successful - if you're recruiting for a terrorist group.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Just compare this to what Winston Churchill famously said in 1942: "The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist." And the UK was in thousand-fold greater danger then than it is now.
Why everyone appears to be so thin-skinned these days? And why the first objective of modern-day rulers is to dispense with the rule of law and civil liberties, even when they have vast resources at their disposal?
I'm afraid that in the future, people will indeed say WWII era was the UK's "finest hour", but it will be for reasons Churchill had not envisioned.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
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's 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 — d'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.
Free society means having the ability to have free thought and free will. To turn an Atheist argument, Atheistic states banning religions are exactly the same as religious totalitarian states that ban all but one, just one more. And I would suggest to you, that individual freedom hurts far less than elite thinking statism does ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.