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.

44 of 306 comments (clear)

  1. Of course by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What if she wants attacks to happen?

    2. Re:Of course by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Of course by stdarg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Of course by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    5. Re:Of course by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

    6. Re:Of course by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Of course by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Those three suspects WERE investigated and "looked into." What good does that do when you don't have the authority to arrest or deport them until they've actually committed an act of terrorism? It's not a crime to associate with terrorists, or be a terrorist sympathizer, or to espouse terrorist ideology. So what were these extra cops going to be able to do after their big investigation besides shrug their shoulders?

      Even if you doubled the number of cops, you wouldn't be able to keep every suspected terrorist under surveillance 24/7. And since current human rights laws prevent you from even deporting them, much less imprisoning them, how would having more cops have helped?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Of course by mea2214 · · Score: 2

      What would Churchill say about this turn of events.

      Be afraid.

      Run for your lives!

    9. Re:Of course by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Of course by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    11. Re:Of course by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Actually, in the UK being associated with terrorists is often a crime. You are legally required to snitch on them.

      Also, there are various things like Control Orders that they can use to control and restrict people without even convicting them.

      The problem appears to be that they don't have enough people or resources to handle the volume of work.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Of course by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    13. Re:Of course by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    14. Re:Of course by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Which brings it full circle, but also to a point that I failed to add originally.

      That is, they don't have Control Orders anymore, not since 2011. They were scrapped and replaced by T-Pims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures), which was claimed to be "more flexible" but in practice was heavily watered down.

      Guess whose idea that was? Then-Home Secretary Theresa May.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-122...

  2. USA and now UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:USA and now UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:USA and now UK by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    3. Re:USA and now UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:USA and now UK by Holi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:USA and now UK by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    6. Re:USA and now UK by William+Baric · · Score: 2

      Islam is not a race, it is a religion. More than that, it is a religion which now has a serious violence problem, and there's a moment when someone must be held responsible for choosing his religion. I won't forbid him to choose Islam, but I will certainly not pity him or defend him if he considers he's a victim of discrimination.

  3. I remember how I felt... by aicrules · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I remember how I felt... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I remember how I felt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:I remember how I felt... by Desler · · Score: 2

      Theoretically possible? Did you miss your history lessons on East Germany and Mao's China? Based on history, it's a guarantee.

    4. Re:I remember how I felt... by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
  4. Is "Tear Up" a direct quote? by myth24601 · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
  5. You gotta figh!, for your right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to tear up their rights!

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

    1. Re:You gotta figh!, for your right! by Merk42 · · Score: 2

      It's not your "right" to stay in a country if you immigrate there and start engaging in terrorist activity or associating with known terrorists. A country should have every "right" to deport you for it, though. And it sounds like that's all May is asking for here.

      What if you were born there and start engaging in terrorist activity?

  6. Unfortunatly by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --

    What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
  7. Dishonest Use of "Tear Up" by eepok · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. Ergo by pr0t0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Captain Picard has the answers! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  10. Foolishness. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  11. Ob-ManForAllSeasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  12. Clearly, think of the children! by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Hey, it might work! by Altrag · · Score: 2

    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!

  14. No longer "in the highest degree odious"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Theresa May, appears to have joined forces w/IS by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    She hasn't defeated a single terrorist

    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."
  16. Theresa May, A Woman for One Season by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Ooooh! This is next level stuff here. She's playing her parliamentary predecessor from the late 1500's, William Roper's part from Thomas Moore, A Man for All Seasons:

    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.

  17. Reality Check, UK by prince+hal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  18. Oh please by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    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.