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.
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.
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.
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.
Not an punctuation expert but the headline and summary seem to indicate that the use of the words "Tear up" came from May's mouth. Did she really say that?
No matter where you go, there you are.
to tear up their rights!
Oh yeah, bin laden won! He is dancing in his watery grave.
It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
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.
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
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Call them what you want, they were the only party in the last couple of decades that managed to almost completely halt the creeping fascism that's been going on when they got into coalition.
That in itself makes them less useless than any other UK political party if you give even the slightest shit about liberty, but then, if you hate the lib dems, you probably don't give a shit about liberty, because, well, that's kind of their thing.
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!
If only the traditional moderate third party hadn't turned itself into a single-issue campaign group this time, and picked an issue heavily opposed by public opinion at that. The Lib Dems' political incompetence and ability to make strategic blunders seem almost boundless, and until they do something about that weakness, they're never going to attract and maintain enough support to actually do anything about policies that matter. I fear we are now doomed to a generation of two-party politics in England, with both being rather too extreme to actually be any good.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
She will. Take fucking responsibility for your own actions, May. Stop blaming everyone else. Stop trying to pretend you're bigger than you are, and own the fucking stuff you're doing.
Oh, and for those who rebought this BS from the conservatives and national fruitcake front and youkippers, there is no block to deporting terrorists back to their home country. the only impediment is the rather obvious one YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR CASE FIRST that they're a terrorist. What this stupid piss-stain wants to do is avoid having to actually do any proof or find evidence, because it's so damn inconvenient.
But that's what the damn rule of law MEANS you fucking idiot, May. If we're going to do without that, you're fucking in the river, bitch. 'cos there ain't shit that's against the law when those in charge of seeing to the law insist that it can be ignored.
If the common rhetoric is true -- that terrorists just hate our freedom -- then the most obvious way to stop them is to just have no freedom! Win-win, right!
almost
Horseshoes and hand grenades. Fuck the Lib Dems.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
Perhaps that explains it. As they say, if you can't beat them - join them.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Just might be. As fucked-up as it is here in the U.S., I'm SO glad I don't live in the UK, and I feel SO much sympathy for the good people who have to live in that mess.
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.
Here's some facts to consider:
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...
Could we just tear her up instead?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe. Does she care? Certainly not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Please. In this time and age, if you want to revolt, you don't need any guns. Actually, they wouldn't even help you at all.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
now at last we can focus on the real threat, Dihydrogen Monoxide
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Tories largest party, but no overall majority - a hung parliament.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Mrs May's logic is impeccable.
"Why do they attack us?"
"Because they hate us for our freedoms".
"Simple, then: we'll abolish our freedoms, so then they won't hate us any more".
Q.E.D.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Here's Snopes claiming this quote as authentic:
Snopes [snopes.com]
Snopes refers to the Churchill Centre to back up its claim. It also mentions that many versions of this quote omit one sentence of praise for "Moslems". The Federalist Papers site does not omit this but is correct in this detail as well as the rest.
[I accidentally posted this as an AC a few minutes ago.]
Who do you think tried to water down civil rights in the first place?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Groups of faith are using the refugee laws to draw in large groups of military age men every generation.
Places of worship are been used to protect, support and fund military age men.
The command structure hides behind freedom of religion.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
While I would not consider this as a model to follow, France's president Hollande already did that in 2015
they should start talking about its cause.
Hint: it has just the tiniest bit to do with the West's foreign policy.
The point of my post was not to echo Churchill about Islam but rather to suggest that one can gain confidence in an information source by looking for other sources on the Internet. Yes, I know that's obvious. The poster to whom I was replying, though, either didn't understand it or didn't make the effort.
Follow their lead?
they certainly responded stronger and more effectively than Americans have
Organize using the internet, hit the streets. What are they going to do, gun down a few millions of people? Any government as much as trying to do that is done for.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
She will need a Parliamentary majority for some of that.
It's a shame she doesn't have one of those any more.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
Every civilized person knows that it is not Islam, but Christianity, which has sparked the bloodiest wars of the 20th and 21st Centuries
It was Catholic Hitler who proclaimed his "Duty to the most high" as basis for the slaughter of 20 million Russians and 100 million human beings
It was Christian G.W. Bush who declared "Crusade" (sic) in order to murder 1 million plus innocent Iraqis.
All of the craziest of the most insane branches of Islam don't even come close
So, yes, Churchill was WRONG!