[StatusRed]

I believe that we should respect the European Court of Human Rights' decision.

[internetguru]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
I believe that we should respect the European Court of Human Rights' decision.

The Europeans have too much influence over our immigration and deportation policy. It is time we started acting in the best interests of the British people rather than in the best interests of European Bureaucrats from the continent.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by internetguru)
The Europeans have too much influence over our immigration and deportation policy. It is time we started acting in the best interests of the British people rather than in the best interests of European Bureaucrats from the continent.

The EU and the ECHR are 2 Separate Bodies

[internetguru]

(Original post by Morgsie)
The EU and the ECHR are 2 Separate Bodies

i didn't mention the EU I simply mentioned Europeans. No foreign individuals should have any say on the way Britain conducts itself.

[Birchington]

(Original post by internetguru)
No foreign individuals should have any say on the way Britain conducts itself

The ECHR is composed of different nationalities but they are not all "foreign individuals" - Sir Nicolas Bratza is a British citizen. Not to mention 72 elected British MEPs and Commissioners such as Cathy Ashton. Your "foreigners" argument is immediately weakened.

[DebatingGreg]

(Original post by internetguru)
No foreign individuals should have any say on the way Britain conducts itself.

So if Britain were to become a fascist state which commited acts of genocide on its people, it would be wrong for foreigners to intervene to save lives and restore democracy?

[Matthew_Lowson]

We have a responsibility to our citizens. Do we take measures to protect our nation? Or do we observe some ridiculous measure that places a greater emphasis on the offender not the abider?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Birchington)
The ECHR is composed of different nationalities but they are not all "foreign individuals" - Sir Nicolas Bratza is a British citizen. Not to mention 72 elected British MEPs and Commissioners such as Cathy Ashton. Your "foreigners" argument is immediately weakened.

The fact is the majority of those that are making the decision are not British.

[internetguru]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
So if Britain were to become a fascist state which commited acts of genocide on its people, it would be wrong for foreigners to intervene to save lives and restore democracy?

I find it hard to believe that Britain would ever become a fascist state. It is an irrelevant hypothetical situation I suggest you focus on the real issue here. A man is inciting hatred amongst young British Muslims and turning them from law abiding good citizens into potential terrorists. We have two realistic options we can either put him back onto our streets and let him brainwash innocent people, or we can send him back to his own country.

[DebatingGreg]

(Original post by internetguru)
I find it hard to believe that Britain would ever become a fascist state. It is an irrelevant hypothetical situation I suggest you focus on the real issue here. A man is inciting hatred amongst young British Muslims and turning them from law abiding good citizens into potential terrorists. We have two realistic options we can either put him back onto our streets and let him brainwash innocent people, or we can send him back to his own country.

I'm sorry if my example was too unlikely for you, so I'll ask you more generally:

Seeing as you stated that no foreign individuals should have a say on the way that Britain conducts itself, are you for foreign intervention of any kind, whether diplomatic or militaristic, or against it? For surely that, too, is us, being the foreign individuals in those cases, intervening in another country's state of affairs, such as that of which you oppose when concerning Britain?

[internetguru]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
I'm sorry if my example was too unlikely for you, so I'll ask you more generally:

Seeing as you stated that no foreign individuals should have a say on the way that Britain conducts itself, are you for foreign intervention of any kind, whether diplomatic or militaristic, or against it? For surely that, too, is us, being the foreign individuals in those cases, intervening in another country's state of affairs, such as that of which you oppose when concerning Britain?

Extraditing somebody is not foreign intervention. We should always be careful when getting involved in foreign intervention and should only do so if it is the best interests of Britain.

[DebatingGreg]

(Original post by internetguru)
Extraditing somebody is not foreign intervention. We should always be careful when getting involved in foreign intervention and should only do so if it is the best interests of Britain.

I never said it was. I simply stated that you said that no foreign individual should intervene in the affairs of Britain, and then questioned your opinion of foreign intervention.

What is in the best interests of Britain? Is Afghanistan in the best interests of Britain? Iraq?

[internetguru]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
I never said it was. I simply stated that you said that no foreign individual should intervene in the affairs of Britain, and then questioned your opinion of foreign intervention.

What is in the best interests of Britain? Is Afghanistan in the best interests of Britain? Iraq?

Iraq no. Afghanistan sort of.

[JPKC]

(Original post by toronto353)
Nice use of whence. I've only seen it used in very old translations of classical texts before.

(It resonates with me. Avid Lord of the Rings fan here.)

(Original post by Birchington)
QFA

(Original post by TopHat)
QFA

Opponents of this motion should bear in mind the hypocrisy of voting against it. The USA has a solid history of torture yet I am certain none of you strongly advocate not extraditing people to face American justice across the pond. Likewise, there's still been no answer to the issue raised about trials. A British court cannot try Qatada for crimes he committed in Jordan, that is the job of their legal system. He's not guilty because he's not been formally tried yet. It is also poignant that the Jordanians have pledged not to torture him and we simply cannot ignore this; how patronising would that be?

Qatada is a radical hate cleric - he has been found to possess funds earmarked for various terror campaigns across the globe. He is also the "spiritual leader" of the Armed Islamic Group. A judge said that he is "a truly dangerous individual". Keeping him free on state expenses is a big 'eff you' to the public (that's why both RL Labour and the Tories support extradition).

[DebatingGreg]

(Original post by internetguru)
Iraq no. Afghanistan sort of.

Once again, why do you think that Afghanistan was sort of in the interests of Britain and Iraq not? (I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just want to see your reasoning)

[Birchington]

(Original post by JPKC)
Opponents of this motion should bear in mind the hypocrisy of voting against it. The USA has a solid history of torture yet I am certain none of you strongly advocate not extraditing people to face American justice across the pond.

I also oppose the nature of numerous extraditions of British citizens to the USA. Gary McKinnon, Chris Tappin and Richard O'Dwyer - all disgraceful.

[internetguru]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
Once again, why do you think that Afghanistan was sort of in the interests of Britain and Iraq not? (I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just want to see your reasoning)

Well Afghanistan was mainly in America's interests but also kind of in Britain's interests in order to prevent international terrorism. A lot of British people were killed in 9/11 so I understand how it was worth shutting down Al-Qaeda's terrorist training camps.

Iraq served no British interests, they did not have any weapons of mass destruction and our sources were known to be unreliable.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Birchington)
I also oppose the nature of numerous extraditions of British citizens to the USA. Gary McKinnon, Chris Tappin and Richard O'Dwyer - all disgraceful.

Well I agree with you on cases like that, but what of terror charges? Also, what about the rest of the point?

[tufc]

(Original post by Morgsie)
The EU and the ECHR are 2 Separate Bodies

Yes, but as far as I know, membership of the EU is subject to being signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

[tufc]

(Original post by DebatingGreg)
I never said it was. I simply stated that you said that no foreign individual should intervene in the affairs of Britain, and then questioned your opinion of foreign intervention.

What is in the best interests of Britain? Is Afghanistan in the best interests of Britain? Iraq?

There's a huge difference between us making our own decisions, and relying on the rest of the World to help us should we be invaded by a fascist force.

You can support foreign intervention in times of crisis without attacking sovereignty.