Cameron: human rights? What human rights?

[K. A. Pital]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12482442

Not the first time this civilized "leader" does this either: during riots...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rvice.html

Yesterday he said: 'The truth is, the interpretation of human rights legislation has exerted a chilling effect on public-sector organisations, leading them to act in ways that fly in the face of common sense, offend our sense of right and wrong, and undermine responsibility.'

...and well before then.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... s-Act.html

In his most explicit remarks on the legislation, Mr Cameron said: "It has to go. Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which sets out rights and responsibilities. The fact that the murderer of Philip Lawrence cannot be deported flies in the face of common sense.

In the end:

David Cameron has been encouraged to challenge Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin about Russia's human rights record during his trip to Moscow this week.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/875087-davi ... man-rights

A beast among beasts sent to encourage the beasts to be less beastly.

[Thanas]

I wouldn't really call this Cameron being Cameron but more like being a typical british conservative politician railing against the evil eurocrats. This is nothing new, sadly and more par the course for that particular party.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, Cameron being a typical conservative dolt is what I had in mind. Part of the problem is that idiots like him are gaining popularity in Europe; which is sad.

[Thanas]

It is to be expected in this climate especially because the approach of the left in Europe has been "trust others without doing much checking or sanctions" and clearly that did not work out that great.

Though Cameron is more of a typical "British" conservative dolt IMO in as he is just one in a long line of distaste of "European freedom" going all the way back to the French revolution.

[Minischoles]

I wouldn't really call this Cameron being Cameron but more like being a typical british conservative politician railing against the evil eurocrats. This is nothing new, sadly and more par the course for that particular party.

This mainly, but it's pretty par for the course in British Politics to occassionally rail against 'the bureaucrats in the EU'. It's a nice rallying issue they can use to drum up some support amongst the masses that actually read the tabloid rags like the Daily Mail and The Sun. It's just pandering and at times some outright lying thrown in (like with Theresa May's comments recently).

[NoXion]

Cameron and his ilk have never had to worry about getting a job, never mind having their rights violated. As a result such language from him is hardly puzzling, but what does mystify me is how anyone expects him to do anything except make the country a nicer place for upper-class twits like himself.

[Zaune]

Cameron's also on record somewhere about how as far as he's concerned, being sent to prison means you leave your human rights at the door.

[Number Theoretic]

It seems, he doesn't get the idea of human rights at all.

[Dr Roberts]

I am a strong opposer of the Tories however I agree with Cameron that if you commit a crime you don't deserve human rights however I don't mean any crime but one that involves theft,murder or rape.

[K. A. Pital]

So if you steal something, you no longer deserve human rights? That is an excellent position, not really problematic at all. Just how the hell do you guys reason, I wonder?

[Eulogy]

I am a strong opposer of the Tories however I agree with Cameron that if you commit a crime you don't deserve human rights however I don't mean any crime but one that involves theft,murder or rape.

Oh boy. You just opened a bag of cats and left yourself quite vulnerable to a reaming.

You had better pony up some damn good evidence as to why that position is a good one (or concede), or you won't last long on this board. FYI, internet tough guyism is not looked upon kindly.

Just a heads-up from someone who has been here longer than you.

P. S. lurk more.

[Dr Roberts]

So your saying that someone who has raped several kids then brutally murders them deserves human rights?

[Zaune]

Either the rules governing civilised treatment of one's fellow human beings apply to everyone, including complete and utter bastards, or they aren't worth the paper they're written on.

[Dr Roberts]

Soon Human rights will go to far for the animals of society. Many prison cells are fucking luxury.

[Sriad]

So your saying that someone who has raped several kids then brutally murders them deserves human rights?

So you're saying there are enough 100% definite guilty cases of extreme crime that we can risk further depriving people unjustly convicted of even a thin veneer of dignity? It's bad enough we send people to the chair, you want to torture them first?

Human rights are for US as much as they are for "them". What kind of shit-stain is someone who gets off on seeing bamboo shoved under the fingernails of pedophiles? What kind of shit-stain society would you have if it was full of those people?

Or we could look at it from the angle that most of what you're suggesting will just relegate black prisoners to sub-human status. Nice one.

Really there are a hundred things wrong with what you're saying... butt frankly you're appauling spelnig maeks me thkin your jest some troll blowing threw.

[Eleas]

So your saying that someone who has raped several kids then brutally murders them deserves human rights?

Of course they do, by virtue of being... human. I find myself hard pressed to imagine how stupid one would have to be to miss such an elementary definition.

Then again, I very well realize it's not stupidity. It's viciousness, the need to hurt someone on a pretext.

Soon Human rights will go to far for the animals of society. Many prison cells are fucking luxury.

A fact I'm sure you have learned through personal experience, yes?

[Dr Roberts]

I have seen cells yes. I'm not talking about torturing or execution. As I am atheist I do not believe in an afterlife and so people should be punished when alive with imprisonment that doesn't allow them the use of a PS3. They should have the amount of food and water they NEED with a couple of hours outside and that should be it.

[K. A. Pital]

I have seen cells yes. I'm not talking about torturing or execution. As I am atheist I do not believe in an afterlife and so people should be punished when alive with imprisonment that doesn't allow them the use of a PS3. They should have the amount of food and water they NEED with a couple of hours outside and that should be it.

Well doh. Nobody said Human Rights include a PS3. That is nowhere in the declaration.

Meanwhile, railing against human rights in principle leaves one open to criticism and that's exactly what happened with Cameron. And you.

When the rage is not directed at the right spot, it becomes a point one can ridicule.

[mr friendly guy]

Either the rules governing civilised treatment of one's fellow human beings apply to everyone, including complete and utter bastards, or they aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Not that I am taking Dr Robert's side, but if you are going to make such a blanket statement, you just leave yourself vulnerable to the same type of attacks he does. For example by protecting society in putting these people in jail, aren't we already denying these guys the human right of FREEDOMTM? By virtue of that fact, we are already in a sense depriving them of SOME (obviously not all) human rights as part of the sentencing process. Presumably the difference between your position and Cameron (please correct me if I am wrong, because I doubt Cameron advocates torture or some shit like that) is a matter of scale.

Perhaps a better debate would involve Dr Roberts and those oppose to him outline how much human rights being deprived is acceptable to either side as part of the sentencing process. That above sentence was not directed at Zaune specifically, but to those who are arguing this issue. Perhaps its time for a new Colliseum match.

[Zaune]

Either the rules governing civilised treatment of one's fellow human beings apply to everyone, including complete and utter bastards, or they aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Not that I am taking Dr Robert's side, but if you are going to make such a blanket statement, you just leave yourself vulnerable to the same type of attacks he does. For example by protecting society in putting these people in jail, aren't we already denying these guys the human right of FREEDOMTM? By virtue of that fact, we are already in a sense depriving them of SOME (obviously not all) human rights as part of the sentencing process. Presumably the difference between your position and Cameron (please correct me if I am wrong, because I doubt Cameron advocates torture or some shit like that) is a matter of scale.

Yeah, mea culpa on that one. It was supposed to be a much longer and more detailed rebuttal, but I lost my train of thought. Then I hit "send" when I meant to hit "cancel".

[loomer]

So your saying that someone who has raped several kids then brutally murders them deserves human rights?

Yep.

Soon Human rights will go to far for the animals of society. Many prison cells are fucking luxury.

And which prison cells would these be, exactly? If you're talking about the ones in parts of Scandinavia, you might have a point - of course, those seem to actually work far better in terms of rehabilitation than those in America and the rest of Europe, so 'fucking luxury' seems to be a useful tool.

[Zanfib]

The whole concept of human rights is that they are rights you possess simply by virtue of being human.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, although some of these rights have to be mounted on a sliding scale. You have a right to freedom of movement- this is pretty fundamental; if you can't travel around, most other sorts of freedom become irrelevant. But the right to freedom of movement of an ordinary citizen might be different from that of a accused criminal out on bail, which is in turn different from that of a convicted criminal in jail, which is in turn different from that of a person in a mental institution who keeps attacking everyone they encounter because they're insane.

The way you observe rights like this is to grant the maximum degree of rights consistent with pressing needs- there's no pressing need to house convicts in miserable barracks on a diet of bread and water, so you just don't do that, even if it would be somehow more convenient, cheaper, or (in theory) more punitive.

[Soontir C'boath]

By the way, letting prisoners play with a PS3 is not a right but a privilege. But if I am wrong and it is a right, then every single human being in the world must have one! Starting with me. Gimme!

[Zaune]

By the way, letting prisoners play with a PS3 is not a right but a privilege. But if I am wrong and it is a right, then every single human being in the world must have one! Starting with me. Gimme!

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. As I understand it, prisoners are permitted to take a certain amount of personal property in with them. If that includes a game console and they meet whatever requirements imposed by the prison authorities for having access to a TV in their cell, is there really any moral or legal objection to them having access to it?

And no, having access to a TV is not a privilege. Many prisoners are functionally illiterate, and most of them are lucky if they have more than a few hours a week of work or education. What else are they supposed to do all day?