[oriel historian]

(Original post by Collingwood)
I'm not sure if holding people to an agreement signed without a referendum by people who are dead who were elected by people who are also for the most part dead against the wishes of their parliament is much of a principle, but there you go.

WE still have a monarchy which was decided on less ...

[Collingwood]

A monarchy that has no substantive powers, yes.

[DrunkHamster]

(Original post by oriel historian)
WE still have a monarchy which was decided on less ...

I think this is more of a point against the monarchy, rather than one in favour of the ECHR.

[Kuraingu Furiman]

(Original post by Collingwood)
But not by the dictionary definition:

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."

*Coughs* The Boer War and the atrocities preceding it. Who do you think invented the concentration camps?

And the slave trade was fairly systematic and resulted in most of the above.

(Original post by Collingwood)
As far as I am aware, Britain doesn't control potato blight.

No, it sat back and let it happen, with the money to send food ships all over the world to feed its soldiers but apparently not to send one to feed the men women & children of donegal.

The UDHR has greater potential than just preventing genocide, that was just it's original aim in the context of recovery from the war.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Kuraingu Furiman)
*Coughs* The Boer War and the atrocities preceding it. Who do you think invented the concentration camps?

A concentration camp isn't the same as a death camp (or wasn't, at that time). It's certainly unjustifiable on its own merits, but it wasnt "genocide" (and again, wasn't done by our government to us).

And the slave trade was fairly systematic and resulted in most of the above.

Rubbish, a slave trade is pointless if none of the slaves survive.

No, it sat back and let it happen, with the money to send food ships all over the world to feed its soldiers but apparently not to send one to feed the men women & children of donegal.

You could have sold your computer and spent the money on food for a starving Ethiopian, so you killed that Ethiopian, right? You're guilty of genocide?

The UDHR has greater potential than just preventing genocide, that was just it's original aim in the context of recovery from the war.

The UN has repeatedly failed to prevent genocide, even in instances where it had the troops to do so. Rwanda is the most eggregious example.

[Kuraingu Furiman]

(Original post by Collingwood)
A concentration camp isn't the same as a death camp (or wasn't, at that time). It's certainly unjustifiable on its own merits, but it wasnt "genocide" (and again, wasn't done by our government to us).

The difference between camps being that instead of killing them in a mechanized fashion, you imprison them and deprive them of the resources they need to live. And so what if it wasn't done by our government to us? The Nazi extermination was done to anyone they could get their hands on if they fitted the profile or posed a threat. Many were not German citizens. They were all human beings.

(Original post by Collingwood)
Rubbish, a slave trade is pointless if none of the slaves survive.

Why waste resources keeping them alive when there's so many you can get so cheap? The death figures on the trans-atlantic voyages alone were horrific. Besides, the moral difference between massacre and mass enslavement & displacement are not great to my mind.

(Original post by Collingwood)
You could have sold your computer and spent the money on food for a starving Ethiopian, so you killed that Ethiopian, right? You're guilty of genocide?

I do the odd thing in the hope that it aids 3rd world problems, not enough I grant you, and that is both my failing and that of society and the West, but my personal obligation to Ethiopia is some what less clear cut than that of the British Gov't to keep its own citizens from starving

(Original post by Collingwood)
The UN has repeatedly failed to prevent genocide, even in instances where it had the troops to do so. Rwanda is the most eggregious example.

Indeed it did. A result of the actions of the UN members rather than UN principles, I would say. I would number the UK among the inactive members.

[kiddranc]

No, i wouldn't want more socialistic policies.

It was socialist policies which led to the UK being labelled the sick man of Europe. Our economic success since the 1990's has been based on more free market policies. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

[Jerry Meandering]

(Original post by Ethelred the Unready)
To what extent do you agree?

I thought socialist policies were the default position of the UK's government.

[Kuraingu Furiman]

(Original post by kiddranc)
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Yes, because our economy's doing just fine

[tehjonny]

(Original post by JazzP)
No.
Mrs Thatcher killed Socalism in the UK. No one would ever vote for tax rates for the rich to be increased.

I would actually. I'm far from a socialist .

OP: We were approaching socialism in the 70's. It didn't work out. Until all those that can remember are dead, socialism is also dead IMO.

[tehjonny]

(Original post by smalltownboy)
What about the NHS, free education, nationalisation of industries? Aren't they all (effectively) socialist ideas?

Social democratic maybe. The key word their is 'democratic' which in practice socialism hasn't been.

[tehjonny]

(Original post by Kuraingu Furiman)
What about the British Empire?

And last time I looked the holocaust happened.

The British Empire never committed 'genocide'. I'm not quite sure how we were supposed to stop the holocaust, given Germany's far greater military strength?

Remember that 'atrocities' are different from 'genocides'. We never attempted to systematically wipe a people from the surface of the earth. No money in that!

[tehjonny]

(Original post by Kuraingu Furiman)
*Coughs* The Boer War and the atrocities preceding it. Who do you think invented the concentration camps?

And the slave trade was fairly systematic and resulted in most of the above.

No, it sat back and let it happen, with the money to send food ships all over the world to feed its soldiers but apparently not to send one to feed the men women & children of donegal.

The UDHR has greater potential than just preventing genocide, that was just it's original aim in the context of recovery from the war.

They were first used by a Spanish general in Cuba. At least get your facts straight.

I find it interesting that you're far more concerned with atrocities committed a century or more ago, as compared to those committed these days.

[BlackpoolCraig]

(Original post by JazzP)
No.
Mrs Thatcher killed Socalism in the UK. No one would ever vote for tax rates for the rich to be increased.

Well, it seems like a travesty to tax people who work hard for their money. Why bother working hard for your money when you're going to be punished for it?

(Original post by smalltownboy)
What about the NHS, free education, nationalisation of industries? Aren't they all (effectively) socialist ideas?

Nationalisation of industries is a bit of a rubbish idea on the whole. I really think that the governemnt's acquisition of Northern Rock is one of the worst ideas ever. That said, I'd fully expect the rail industry to work better if it was renationalised. But on the whole, it gets a 'no', and any politician in favour of nationalised industries would have to work hard to get my vote.

The NHS on the other hand, is where socialism can do good work. 'Healthcare for everyone' was an excellent idea, and I really think it needs to be managed better, as the NHS is a bit of a leaky bucket at the moment.

And free education? The NUS rightfully ditched that illusion. Blair's 50% of people attending university idea was utter lunacy, and I think the government needs to set its eyes on reducing the number of university students, and tuition fee increases might just put people off going.

[Kuraingu Furiman]

(Original post by tehjonny)
The British Empire never committed 'genocide'. I'm not quite sure how we were supposed to stop the holocaust, given Germany's far greater military strength?

Remember that 'atrocities' are different from 'genocides'. We never attempted to systematically wipe a people from the surface of the earth. No money in that!

Germany's greater military strength? For the first year of the war, allied troops on the western front outnumbered the Wehrmacht by 5:1. We sat there and did nothing for a year. Then they had time to regroup and rearm after the Polish annexation and come down like the proverbial ton of bricks.

(Original post by tehjonny)
Remember that 'atrocities' are different from 'genocides'. We never attempted to systematically wipe a people from the surface of the earth. No money in that!

Different because they're systematic? I wouldn't have called Rwanda systematic. Or many other similar extinctions.
And not only did we 'attempt' to wipe people from the face of the earth - we succeeded! Where are the Tasmanians now?

(Original post by tehjonny)
They were first used by a Spanish general in Cuba. At least get your facts straight.

No, YOU get your facts straight. Whether or not the Cuban or Philippine camps could be retrospectively termed as such is a subject of much debate. It is in no question that the British were the first to use the term and fully develop the modernised concept.

(Original post by tehjonny)
I find it interesting that you're far more concerned with atrocities committed a century or more ago, as compared to those committed these days.

I find it interesting you're able to draw conclusions about my personal interests out of a hat.

[Collingwood]

(Original post by Kuraingu Furiman)
The difference between camps being that instead of killing them in a mechanized fashion, you imprison them and deprive them of the resources they need to live.

No, the purpose of a concentration camp is not to kill people at all. The same was true of the early German camps, they were just particularly unpleasant prisons. Death camps are a nazi (or perhaps soviet) invention.

And so what if it wasn't done by our government to us?

The point is that the toothless UN mechanisms you prefer would also not prevent genocide outside of their jurisdiction either, the British political system has, however, prevented such things happening within its jurisdiction, and by and large to Britons in general.

Why waste resources keeping them alive when there's so many you can get so cheap?

Errr, what? The purpose of the slave trade was to use them produce something of value at the other end; if they all die you won't be able to get any and if you can they won't be cheap.

The death figures on the trans-atlantic voyages alone were horrific. Besides, the moral difference between massacre and mass enslavement & displacement are not great to my mind.

Nonetheless, it was not an example of British genocide (what you were actually trying to argue).

I do the odd thing in the hope that it aids 3rd world problems, not enough I grant you, and that is both my failing and that of society and the West, but my personal obligation to Ethiopia is some what less clear cut than that of the British Gov't to keep its own citizens from starving

If you believe that not giving food to the starving is equivalent to murder, then you are just as guilty of "murdering" countless Africans, East Asians etc. as the British government is of "murdering" the Irish during the potato famine. You can't get out of this by "blaming society," it is a logical extention of what you said. More likely you do not, in fact, agree with this bizarre definition of "murder" except where it suits your wish to politically skew history to do so.

Indeed it did. A result of the actions of the UN members rather than UN principles, I would say. I would number the UK among the inactive members.

Did the UN, or did it not, prevent genocide in Rwanda? Sovereignty of the member nations is a UN principle; it cannot be seperated from the rest of the organisation, it is integral to it. If you actually support a body that can compell memberstates to hand over their militaries then what you support is not the UN.