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

[Anonymous Coward]

What if she wants attacks to happen?

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.

Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote?

[Kierthos]

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.

Captain Picard has the answers!

[__aaclcg7560]

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

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!

Re:I remember how I felt...

[Nidi62]

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