Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Statement to the House

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is the right decision.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Yes, but I remember seeing at one point in the post-election thread that the only two official roles in the MHoC are Prime Minister and Foriegn Secretary. If there is no designated role for a Home Secretary, how can you just take the powers of that role that hasn't been designated under the MHoC's constitution?
    Officially speaking, the RL legislation (which is canon, by TSR terms) for deportation merely refers to the Secretary of State, given none of the Secretarial roles are technically speaking "official". It is always understood to mean the relevant Secretary of State, which would be the Home Secretary if Rakas21 chose. Regrettably, Ham and Cheese is fully within his rights to do this.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    So you're suggesting our government has a duty to protect those who happen to be Islamic terrorists who would love nothing more than to blow up a plane or a train carrying British families?
    I'm suggesting that we shouldn't reduce ourselves to the level of terrorists, by turning a blind eye to torture.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamF1992)
    People "pander" to the rights of terrorists (ridiculous terminology to use that is completely loaded) because defending the rights of extremists ensures the rights of the rest of us, and the rights are there for everyone, regardless of how detestable we may find them, that's why they're rights and not priveleges.

    I find it ridiculous how the "right" (now I hate using this term because I'd consider myself part of the right) find it so easy to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't based on their opinion of the people in question, and furthermore when they're challenged on it, they rarely come up with rational explanations, rather resorting to emotional pleas that somehow people who actually have a respect for rights are putting terrorist "rights" above that of their own citizens or whatever. Lets make no mistake here, we're not the ones prioritising certain people's rights over others, you are. We're the ones who treat people's rights equally regardless of how detestable we find them, you're the ones deciding rights are subjective dependant on how agreeable you find the persons viewpoint in question. So it's a complete fallacy to resort to this emotional spin of "OMG you care more about terrorists than regular people", which is what you've resorted to sadly.
    Rights are man made to technically they are privileges. Either way, defending terrorist are wrong.

    Terrorist get nothing, once they start to plan an attack or carry out an attack.
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Hear Hear.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Rights are man made to technically they are privileges. Either way, defending terrorist are wrong.

    Terrorist get nothing, once they start to plan an attack or carry out an attack.
    Nope, you can't just remove rights from people who you don't like, sorry, completely undermines the point of having them. You either support the principle of rights for everyone or for no one, there's no middle ground, you can't just pick and choose based on your feelings toward the individual in question. The only valid moral basis for removing rights of individuals in order to protect the rights of others is through the use of a fair and open judicial process, in my opinion.

    As I said, if he's planning an attack or is carrying on out, we have a justice system equipped to deal with that.

    Anyway, this is beside my main point, which is the use of arbitrary executive power. If the government are happy to be complicit in torture, as they evidently are, they should make this clear in law and specify at what point putting someone at risk of torture is justified. Until they do so, actions like this, that place people at risk of torture without any legally defined basis for doing so are nothing but an irresponsible excersise of executive power.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamF1992)
    Nope, you can't just remove rights from people who you don't like, sorry, completely undermines the point of having them. You either support the principle of rights for everyone or for no one, there's no middle ground, you can't just pick and choose based on your feelings toward the individual in question. The only valid moral basis for removing rights of individuals in order to protect the rights of others is through the use of a fair and open judicial process, in my opinion.

    As I said, if he's planning an attack or is carrying on out, we have a justice system equipped to deal with that.

    Anyway, this is beside my main point, which is the use of arbitrary executive power. If the government are happy to be complicit in torture, as they evidently are, they should make this clear in law and specify at what point putting someone at risk of torture is justified. Until they do so, actions like this, that place people at risk of torture without any legally defined basis for doing so are nothing but an irresponsible excersise of executive power.
    Well considering Rights are man made and thus are privileges, I think we can remove them if the person is going to cause harm to multiple people

    Jordan want to deal with him due to crimes in their country... are we to ignore that?

    Who said he will be tortured? it is pure speculation on your part.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Well considering Rights are man made and thus are privileges, I think we can remove them if the person is going to cause harm to multiple people

    Jordan want to deal with him due to crimes in their country... are we to ignore that?

    Who said he will be tortured? it is pure speculation on your part.
    Like I said, the legitimate way to remove rights is through a fair and open judicial process. If we're so sure he's going to cause harm to other people, lets try him and punish him here. As stated in my last post the only legitimate way to remove rights is through a fair and open judicial process for the purpose of protecting others. I don't agree with your assertion that they are man made so we can remove them as we please either, despite their being man made, they're a fundamental pillar of our society.

    Yes, we are to ignore that if he's at risk of torture, as signatories to the Convention on Human Rights the government has a responsibility to everyone within it's jurisdiction, regardless of how deplorable we find their ideas.

    Anyway, the above is beside the point I'm making, which your last sentence ties in nicely with, regardless of whether he will be tortured or not, the Home Secretary and the governmemt have asserted that they are not bothered if he is tortured or not. Regardless of my views on torture and it's morals, my issue is with the process. If the government is happy to be complicit in putting people at risk of torture, which it has stated that it is, it should set this out in law. It should be clearly defined at what point they feel putting someone at risk of torture is justifiable, rather than picking arbitrarily.

    From now on I'm not going to bother engaging stuff regarding the morals of rights and torture and so on, because it's been discussed ad infinitum and it's clear that we're not going to agree and we'll just keep going round in circles. What I want to be addressed from here on in is the argument in the paragraph directly above this, regarding the process of deporting him, as so far I've not seen any argument put forward against what I think is an overreach of executive power.
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Is this House a signatory of the Convention though?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Is this House a signatory of the Convention though?
    Has it withdrawn from it? I'm new to all this, but I assumed that with stuff like that, it remains as it is IRL, unless changed by the House? Or have the House withdrawn from it previously?
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamF1992)
    Has it withdrawn from it? I'm new to all this, but I assumed that with stuff like that, it remains as it is IRL, unless changed by the House? Or have the House withdrawn from it previously?
    I'm not sure so I'm not sure where we stand on this. Nick might know:

    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    QFA
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamF1992)
    Like I said, the legitimate way to remove rights is through a fair and open judicial process. If we're so sure he's going to cause harm to other people, lets try him and punish him here. As stated in my last post the only legitimate way to remove rights is through a fair and open judicial process for the purpose of protecting others. I don't agree with your assertion that they are man made so we can remove them as we please either, despite their being man made, they're a fundamental pillar of our society.

    Yes, we are to ignore that if he's at risk of torture, as signatories to the Convention on Human Rights the government has a responsibility to everyone within it's jurisdiction, regardless of how deplorable we find their ideas.
    Will you read what I have said "Rights are Man Made and thus are Privileges not Rights" what other animal on the planet has 'Rights'? As they are 'Privileges' they can be removed at a moments notice.

    How is he at risk of torture? again speculation with no hard evidence.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm disgusted with this - we need guarantees that they won't torture him. First bad decision of many?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    How is he at risk of torture? again speculation with no hard evidence.
    I would suggest that there is more evidence of torture going on in Jordan than there is of his crimes. If not, surely he would be facing trial here, rather than being deported.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    I'm disgusted with this - we need guarantees that they won't torture him. First bad decision of many?
    Do we ask america for guarantees they won't torture before we extradite to them? No. We have more evidence in the form of Guantanamo bay against the US than we do against Jordan,and yet still we are more than willing to extradite potential terrorists to them...
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    I would suggest that there is more evidence of torture going on in Jordan than there is of his crimes. If not, surely he would be facing trial here, rather than being deported.
    He faced trial already, he is going to serve his sentence.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    Do we ask america for guarantees they won't torture before we extradite to them? No. We have more evidence in the form of Guantanamo bay against the US than we do against Jordan,and yet still we are more than willing to extradite potential terrorists to them...
    I said before that we should have got the promise. That's why I'm disgusted; this is wrong, and I can't agree with what's been done on moral grounds.
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I'm not sure so I'm not sure where we stand on this. Nick might know:
    I don't believe we've passed any bills that would affect our position with regards to the Convention on Human Rights, so it applies in the Model as it would apply in real life.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Will you read what I have said "Rights are Man Made and thus are Privileges not Rights" what other animal on the planet has 'Rights'? As they are 'Privileges' they can be removed at a moments notice.

    How is he at risk of torture? again speculation with no hard evidence.
    I have read what you've said on rights and I've made it clear I completely disagree. You have a conception of rights that is completely alien to me, and in my view you don't believe in rights as I percieve them. The animal argument is a complete strawman, animals do not have the ability to have the concious conception of rights that humans do.

    It's ironic that you should reiterate to me to read what you have said when it's clear you haven't read my last post, when I showed that:

    1) Whether he actually will be tortured or not is completely irrelevant to my argument. My argument is based on the fact the Home Secretary has repeatedly expressed indifference to potential torture. Whether that risk is real or not, the HS has specified many times that he doesn't care, and thus, he feels in some capacity that the government being complicit in potential torture of people is justified. What I'm asking for is a law proposal formalising when and what for a risk of torture is justified (not specific to this case, but in the generality), so we actually have clarity regarding the matter, so it is not up to the whim of the executive to decide arbitrarily what does and doesn't justify the potential for torture.

    2) That I'm not interested in discussing the morals behind rights and so on, as we clearly have irreconcilable views on the matter and will just go round in circles if we keep discussing it, and that the area of the discussion I want to be addressed is that regarding the argument posed in the paragraph which you conviniently left out of your reply.

    If you're going to imply that I didn't read your post properly, the least you could do is read mine.

    Oh and of course the other issue I have is with the way this has been handled by the government. They put the motion forward in the hope of cross party support, and when this support was not forthcoming they just went ahead with it anyway, under the pretense that the Home Sec has the power to do this without house approval if they so wish, which begs the question, why seek the approval in the first place?
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Undemocratic? Undemocratic for an elected Government to respond to the wishes of the people by ignoring a decision made by an undemocratic body, and deporting a terrorist who was not only a threat to the public, but was costing a phenomenal amount to the Taxpayer?
    Undemocratic for disobeying ECHR and UNCAT, as well as going ahead before the debate thread had concluded or was voted upon.
Updated: April 10, 2012
New on TSR

Student crowdfunds degree

Graduate raises £26,000 online for Masters course

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.