Human Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

Don

Regular member
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
3,545
I see the Aussies are getting a lot of stick from "Human rights activists and lawyers" who feel that by keeping a suspected affiliate of the failed fundamentalists bombers in London and Scotland from fleeing the country by "detaining" him in an immigrant detention centre and "holding on to" his passport, that they have "breached" the poor misguided fools human rights!

Given that he was caught trying to flee Australia with a one way ticket to India one wonders why?

A senior British police officer would like to keep in custody (without charging) any suspected terrorist they arrest/detain for a period of up to 90 days. His reason being that in order to prevent a bombing they have to act before the suspected terrorists actually plant the bomb and because of this a lot more evidence gathering is done after the suspects are detained.
Again the "Human Rights" activists/lawyers are crying out in protest at this proposal. Personaly I think if it takes 90 days then it takes 90 days provided the police dont misuse the proposed powers.

What I find most worrying is that these "human rights" activists and lawyers who,lets face it,both make a living out of the whole human rights situation, seem to think that the rights of a terrorist are far more important than the lives of the thousands of victims of just one successful terrorist attack[:(!]

So what do you think, is 90 days detention (maximum) the price we should be prepared to pay in order that further terrorist attrocities on our streets are curbed? Or do we let suspects walk as the human rights people say is the thing to do and risk being blown up poisoned or having planes hijacked and crashed onto our loved ones[?]
 

hempy

Alan
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
3,801
Tricky one this Don.

Whilst i agree with you that the human rights brigade are taking things beyond the sanity limit the police have been known to be very wrong, the station shooting of that Brazilian for example.I would have to say though that if there was "good" grounds for suspicion then 90 days is not excessive.
 

Butch

Account Locked
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
0
The thing is someone has to draw the line somewhere. At what point does detention become an abuse of civil and/or human rights, and at what point can we, and lawyers say that detention is justified.

We all hate these faceless beurocrats and law jugglers but they are there for reasons, one of which is to uphold and maintain the fairest judicial system in the world, without exception.

However, it all too often seems that the lawyers are simply scrambling to make a lucrative living from over complex loopholes such as the Human Rights Bill, which inevitably shows them in a bad light, probably justifiably.

Personnally I think anyone falling into the category of suspected terrorist or terrorist sympathiser should be detained without a time limit as long as enquiries are ongoing and can be shown to be ongoing.
 

Triturus

Regular member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,165
Who's human rights should we be more concerned about? It's time the act was revisited in the light of todays society. It's certainly not being used to protect the people it was designed to protect
 

mibut

Regular member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
299
The problem is that you need to trust the police and government.
There have been too many miscarriages of justice in the past.
Remember the Birmingham bombings, six people JAILED and finally released after 17 years in prison for something they didn't do.
The Guildford four, who served 15 years for bombing pubs in Guildford once again for something they didn't do.
The Maguire seven, six of whom served their sentences and one DIED in prison, before the court of appeal quashed their convictions.
I mention the above because they came about when Britain was under terrorist threat, like now, and without some "rights" we would probably in 15 years time see similar miscarriages of justice come to light.
 

chris w

pc problem solver
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
3,601
mibut yes there were miscarriages of justice in all the cases you mention
but if they are caught at the scene as some of them have been then charge them not under the terrorism act but under the act of treason.
for which i think still carries a death penalty
the problem with our government is they worry to much about what Europe think instead of protecting its own
 

mibut

Regular member
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
299
If they are "true" terrorists then the death penalty wouldn't worry them, all it does it make them "martyrs" to the cause. If innocent people get hanged then all it does is drive more of whatever creed they happen to be, to the cause.
Its important that whatever laws we have, are followed to the letter, because anything that is not will be jumped on and used as propaganda against the UK.
 

Cybermanc

Eagle Eyes
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
6,195
Who's human rights should we be more concerned about? It's time the act was revisited in the light of todays society. It's certainly not being used to protect the people it was designed to protect

Nonsense fella, complete nonsense. [:(!]

So if the police bowled up at your door and wanted to hold you indefinatley you would just be happy to oblige?? Course you wouldn't. A police force with unlimited power would be VERY dangerous indeed. There has to be grounds to hold somebody as is the case in a CIVILISED democratic society. Innocent till PROVEN guilty is what the Magna Carta gave us and all democracy is based on that document.
 

Hatman

Drawbag ace
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
6,200
Generally I think that we need to give the police every power that they need, they are fighting a hidden enemy in an unconventional war. The Brazilian electrician being shot by mistake is an example of fallibility, but what worries me is that there are those who mis-use powers. Do recall the pensioner hecklig at a labour conference being arrested? He was arrested under anti terrorist laws. I have a problem with such an obvious abuse of powers granted for a specific purpose, do we really need to have pedantic laws for the police to be controlled?
 

poolsfodder

Regular member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
1,434
i have walked the streets of n.i,five tours to be exact.in a word,fxxk
em.i have seen the mess,tasted it.those who disregaurd the basic rites of those that live normal lives,by using covert means on innocent peaple
to disrupt and kill to justify a point,be it political,or alleged captive related,tuff.i have been to to many army funerels to mourn over the bleeding heart brigade.as a footnote,let them tread in the path of my son,who is in the greenjackets in iraq,then i will talk to them.
respect pf
 

Don

Regular member
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
3,545
When I read your replies,the good,the bad and the indifferent I thank God for being English/British I dont understand how we can be so democratic and still have regard for other peoples human rights even when we are under threat of violence from fundamentalist terrorists but I admire everyone who as answered this question. Youre all a credit to both this country and the human race, if only others would follow your example we may well yet find nirvana!

The abuse of power is what worries me most and human nature being human nature there will always be the possibility of this unfortunately, but our countries rulers/administrators should, in my opinion, show more concern for the majority of law abiding citizens than to go out of their way to make human rights laws that make a mockery of British justice and allow,as at present, some of the most vile perpertrators of race hate to preach their hatred and remain untouchable.

It appears that there cannot be a black and white answer to how long these suspects can be kept without charge which is what I thought myself even though my own view would be to keep those who had for example been caught in the act indefinately. What is also clear to me is that the current time limits and human rights issues do need revising in light of the current threat to our fellow countrymen/women.
 

mouse77

Regular member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
7,267
Are you lot barmy?[:0]


in 10 years time when the UK is a muslim state we could well be the people relying on these "human rights people" to keep us in our jobs and our homes....[:p]

why do we call them terrorists?

in my opinion that glorifies them...they are criminals.
 
Last edited:

Geoff P

The MOGerator
Staff member
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Messages
15,834
I didn't hear of human rights lawyers working in Iraq when Saddam was slaughtering the Kurds.

I didn't hear of human rights lawyers working in Rwanda during the genocides there. I could think of numerous other countries where they did not/do not work.

Some of the main culprits of separate acts of genocide now come into this country and claim their rights under the Human Rights umbrella.

I don't think we are heading to be a muslim state, as Lee states, but the more liberal our society becomes the more "criminals" will be walking our streets
 

Cybermanc

Eagle Eyes
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
6,195
A very eloquent post Don (few posts up).

This topic as ever though seems to be drifting away from your original point which is how long do we detain a suspect and on what grounds we can keep a suspect.

As ever it has become a Muslim bashing exercise when the heart of the matter is that if ANYONE can be detained indefinitley without good reason or evidence then we are in a whole heap of trouble as a democratic nation and will be going down the path of the 'great' communist dictators or the tin pot despots such as Robert Mugabe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top