Human Rights

OP

Original post by SamuelSingleton

where's the rest of this post ? the part where it says that they want to replace the human rights act with a British bill for human rights?

Hey, I'm not really sure what you mean, I've put up the poll now though.

Reply 4

BaconandSauce

5

Free Speech

But I do support the British Bill of Rights and I also want it to include some Responsibilities as well

Reply 5

OP

Original post by BaconandSauce

Free Speech

But I do support the British Bill of Rights and I also want it to include some Responsibilities as well

What's wrong with the current system?

Reply 6

BaconandSauce

5

Original post by solomoncefai

What's wrong with the current system?

It has no responsibilities just rights and I (as do many other) believe it's a two way street

It is also open to abuse as we can see at the moment

for example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11687979/Terror-suspects-tag-violates-his-human-rights.html

Reply 7

Original post by BaconandSauce

It has no responsibilities just rights and I (as do many other) believe it's a two way street

It is also open to abuse as we can see at the moment

for example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11687979/Terror-suspects-tag-violates-his-human-rights.html

'Human rights' are rights that people have just by virtue of being human. They don't have to earn it with responsibilities. Those would be called 'civil rights'.

Reply 8

BrokenLife

15

Human rights are human rights. They are basic rights of humans. One cannot compromise with any of them. They cannot be priorities.

Reply 9

Illiberal Liberal

2

Why can I only choose one of those rights?

They're all crucial and I don't see how anyone can support compromising on any of them.

Reply 10

zalo_00

11

Original post by BrokenLife

Human rights are human rights. They are basic rights of humans. One cannot compromise with any of them. They cannot be priorities.

Original post by Little Toy Gun

'Human rights' are rights that people have just by virtue of being human. They don't have to earn it with responsibilities. Those would be called 'civil rights'.

Yeah, so even Hitler, the terrorists, the guys who raped Fatmagül, this guy who put a bomb in a UK train station and other miserable, useless people would have just the same rights as you and me and the Pope???
This theory assumes that humans are born with rights just because their humans? What happens to animals, do they have rights just cuz their animals? Is mankind better than any other animal kind in the world? Other than destroying the planet and killing many species, I don't know what makes humans so special as for them to have rights by the "virtue"(?) of being humans.

Having responsabilities doesn't mean you have to earn your rights, it just means that you have to demonstrate your humaneness so that those rights apply to you.
Talking and walking over two feet dont mean anything.

Reply 11

Original post by zalo_00

Yeah, so even Hitler, the terrorists, the guys who raped Fatmagül, this guy who put a bomb in a UK train station and other miserable, useless people would have just the same rights as you and me and the Pope???
This theory assumes that humans are born with rights just because their humans? What happens to animals, do they have rights just cuz their animals? Is mankind better than any other animal kind in the world? Other than destroying the planet and killing many species, I don't know what makes humans so special as for them to have rights by the "virtue"(?) of being humans.

Say what you want, I'm merely clarifying for you to concept of human rights and the linguistic definition of it.

Original post by zalo_00

Having responsabilities doesn't mean you have to earn your rights, it just means that you have to demonstrate your humaneness so that those rights apply to you.
Talking and walking over two feet dont mean anything.

Being human is a biological definition. You don't have an argument here whatsoever.

Reply 12

Original post by BaconandSauce

for example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11687979/Terror-suspects-tag-violates-his-human-rights.html

Just got around to read this.

So you don't believe in the legal principle of 'innocent before proven guilty'?

Reply 13

Lady Comstock

14

Original post by Little Toy Gun

Just got around to read this.

So you don't believe in the legal principle of 'innocent before proven guilty'?

Do you believe bail conditions should be abolished on this basis?

Reply 14

Original post by Lady Comstock

Do you believe bail conditions should be abolished on this basis?

Interesting how you mentioned bailing, money that would be paid back should the suspect not violate court orders, instead of remand.

Reply 15

BaconandSauce

5

Original post by Little Toy Gun

Just got around to read this.

So you don't believe in the legal principle of 'innocent before proven guilty'?

Then you didn't read it as this is not what this case is about.

Reply 16

OP

Original post by BaconandSauce

It has no responsibilities just rights and I (as do many other) believe it's a two way street

It is also open to abuse as we can see at the moment

for example

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11687979/Terror-suspects-tag-violates-his-human-rights.html

You have found a case of a man clearly mentally ill who has had his condition made worse by the tracking anklet that he was forced to wear. He is no doubt not a good person but he is a person all the same and to force him to live with the belief that he could die any second is horrible.

I too can find specific incidents which support my view, have a look: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/campaigning/save-our-human-rights-act/save-our-human-rights-act

In advance too, I'd like to bust some of the myths that have been created recently; http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/the-14-worst-human-rights-myths/ .

Reply 17