Do you support abolishing human rights?

I don't agree that we are all human. Scientifically perhaps, but I don't think this is a good model for our political system. Exceptional cases exist where the death penalty is probably a very good idea and where degrading a person is necessary to get information from them.

Furthermore, the compassion with which we show people, being a Christian nation, is being exploited by foreigners to whom our compassion is alien and perverse. We must abolish Human Rights to cease exploitation by foreigners and particularly malign criminals in our own country.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

balanced

No, thankfully no party does either!

If you don't understand, the conservative's controversial pledge is to literally copy and past the European convention on human rights and put it into British law. The end result is that British courts have the final call, not those in Strasbourg.

Reply 2

L i b

I've often thought this sentiment is far more widely held than people appreciate.

You only have to trawl through the below-the-line comments on a newspaper article about some kiddy-fiddler, mass murderer or vaguely unpleasant rapey deviant to see people come out with stuff like "human rights shouldn't apply to x, x has given up their humanity". Human rights, as a concept, cannot exist unless they are universal - applicable to the lowest shits on earth as much as everyone else.

Ask the ordinary bloke if the worst person he can imagine should have a right not to suffer degrading treatment, or should have a right to a family life. The answer will most commonly be "****ing hell, of course not". Voting rights are one of the most obvious conflicts we've seen. Perhaps if we ask if there should be a universal prohibition against torture, we'd get rather more progressive answers. I'm not sure.

If you ask me personally, the answer is yes: all human beings, in a civilised society, should have a range of fundamental basic rights.

Reply 3

L i b

Original post by balanced

Yep, the Government's proposals will not "abolish human rights" or anything of the sort. If anything, it might strengthen them in some areas.

Reply 4

Napp

Are some of us critters from mars instead of humans then?

But to humour your 'arguement' you'd be cool if I kidnappedyou and proceeded to torture you for the next few days before having your friends and family publicly raped and sacrificed? Said crimes are all a breach of human rights but one assumes you're cool getting rid of such quibbling details?

Reply 5

L i b

Original post by Napp

Plenty of people would be quite OK with unspeakable things being done to certain people. It's about universalism: if you don't support a certain "human right" for everyone, you don't support it as a human right at all.

Reply 6

1010marina

I think for murderers, rapists, anybody with premeditated multiple offences (or extreme first offences...), yes. Terrorists and terror preachers, kill them all and do the world a favour.

I'd also love less priority to be given to 'freedom of religious expression'. I dislike religious attire of any sort and do not see why it is necessary. If I can't go into a bank or a shopping centre wearing a motorbike helmet or a balaclava, I don't see why it's OK to cover your face if it's for religion.

Other than that, can't say I'm for it.

Reply 7

Camilli

Let's start by flaying OP. Who's to say it's wrong? :tongue:

Reply 8

Napp

Original post by L i b

Plenty of people are fine seeing it done when it doesn't effect them or those they know. If my proposition were to be enforced i'm fairly certain the OP would change their mind rather quickly.

Reply 9

Napp

Original post by 1010marina

So basically you think people should be killed for running their mouth off? You know that on the same arguement you just made you advocate you being lined up at dawn.

Not to mention comparing the items of clothing you just did is facile.

Reply 10

username878267

Original post by L i b

Yep, the Government's proposals will not "abolish human rights" or anything of the sort. If anything, it might strengthen them in some areas.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It will weaken then for sure. I really dislike the spin here, they say we need a 'British' bill of rights on reality there is nothing British about it, they just want less.

The idea behind human rights is that they are out of reach of governments. We have them against the state, by virtue of being human. Thus the sate should not be able to weaken them.

Reply 11

Alfissti

It should be abolished for some and limited for many.

Reply 12

viffer

Acts with premeditated malicious intention should automatically cancel some entitlements

With regard to the "right to a family life" nonsense we often hear in support of some perps, perhaps the perp should have thought of what they would be waiving before doing what they did. Should the rights of the perp ALWAYS remain equal to those of the victims and THEIR families?

Reply 13

Gwilym101

Original post by balanced

That is both pointless and suspicious.

If all they're doing is copying them, there isn't any point because we're already bound by the convention (the convention we predominantly wrote).

Suspicious because the only difference to giving british courts the final say is, so people in the british government can more easily tamper with the laws or verdicts of a case.

Reply 14

L i b

Original post by Bornblue

It will weaken then for sure. I really dislike the spin here, they say we need a 'British' bill of rights on reality there is nothing British about it, they just want less.

Well, it's British insofar as it is proposed to apply to the United Kingdom.

There will be several additions in the British Bill of Rights, and nothing overtly taken away. We will, conceivably, be able to interpret differently - things like prisoner voting being significant here. But we have said the ECHR rights will incorporated into the new bill.

The idea behind human rights is that they are out of reach of governments. We have them against the state, by virtue of being human. Thus the sate should not be able to weaken them.

That's a lovely notion, but impractical in reality. Either we accept that the state defines human rights in law - or alternatively you believe there is some sort of Natural Law: that we are 'endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights' or something like that. The main issue there is one of definition: even if you believe that, what you believe is radically different from the next person. As such, the state - and by that, ultimately, I mean politicians - are the only conceivable arbiters of what is and what isn't a human right.

Original post by Gwilym101

A strange position, that British judges can somehow be more easily nobbled than European ones. I don't think there's any evidence for that at all.

The European Court of Human Rights applies a wider margin of appreciation to the interpretation of national human rights laws. In essence, what the UK wants is the ability to curb some of the excesses of interpretation here.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 15

Davij038

I think there are good reasons why the state should not torture or kill people. I think few people are against the death penalty on principle- if we could guarantee someone's guilt and could ensure that this power could never be abused by the state we would see more support- personally I think rotting in a cell is a far worse punishment. In general I'm supportive of HR particularly as put forward in the UDHR.

That said I am increasingly skeptical about democracy and I'm supportive on restrictictions of religious freedoms (from an atheist standpoint) im not at all bothered that people don't get to wear a burqini or have access to their particular temple or faith school. I think circumcision should be banned. Etc.

Reply 16

InnerTemple

I certainly don't support the abolition of human rights - and I think they should be universal.

One of the things I'm a little sorry about is that the UK will no longer have an independant court to enforce rights.

Original post by L i b

Yep, the Government's proposals will not "abolish human rights" or anything of the sort. If anything, it might strengthen them in some areas.

Do you have anymore information on this?

Reply 17

username878267

Original post by L i b

Theresa May and a large chunk of the Tory right have long wanted to reduce the restrictions that the ECHR have imposed upon us.
To dress this up and put a positive spin on it, they claim how they want a 'British Bill of Rights'. What they really mean is they want a watered down ECHR.

I don't doubt that they may add a few token rights which are already enshrined (almost by convention) such as right to trial by jury and the right to a solicitor, but they are so enshrined anyway that incorporating them into a bill of rights will change nothing in reality.

I don't believe in natural law. Human rights are created and defined by people. That said, I do bevel there should be international, perhaps even global legally enshrined rights, such as the ECHR and ICCPR/ICESCR which decalres 'rights' that national governments cannot touch or alter.

After the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust, the idea that there should be rights guaranteed to all humans against the state was and still is a very attractive proposal. It goes against the point of human rights if we allow national governments to determine the scope of them for their own people.

Reply 18

username1799249

Original post by Mistletoe

There is a whole load of evidence that tells us the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and torture doesn't work either. Unless as a person in power you are halt to ignore justice and be seen to be doing something.