Should human rights include a right to public security?

I.e. the right to be able to go about your business (whether that be at home or in a public setting) without the risk of being the victim of a crime.

This would aim to oppose rights such as the right to family life that prevents deportations of repeat offenders who are failed asylum seekers.

Or would this fail to work? If so - what right do you think should be made to put more emphasis on the victims of crime? Or do you think that this is not necessary?

Reply 1

Aj12

18

You cannot oppose a human right with another human right.

Reply 2

humanrights

Original post by storna

I.e. the right to be able to go about your business (whether that be at home or in a public setting) without the risk of being the victim of a crime.

This would aim to oppose rights such as the right to family life that prevents deportations of repeat offenders who are failed asylum seekers.

Or would this fail to work? If so - what right do you think should be made to put more emphasis on the victims of crime? Or do you think that this is not necessary?

'human rights' as they stand are a joke.

take the case you refer to. a failed criminal asylum seeker was granted a right to a family life even though he destroyed the family life of someone else.

that sort of rank hypocrisy will bring the whole 'human rights' edifice down. and rightly so if it is not sorted out.

human rights should mean protection from crime. freedom from crime is a human rights issue. crime that directly affects the individual should be reclassified as a human rights abuse, and those who abuse should be punished accordingly.

councils, the police and the governments have a duty to protect the human rights of british people.

if human rights is reclassified to look out for normal people first, and not last, then i think 'human rights' will survive. if not, then the public will demand an end to the human rights system.