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

B1029 – Human Rights Act (Amendment) Bill 2016 Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Human rights, rights which belong to every person. That is the definition. Not rights that belong to some people because they are on this piece of land, or these people because of their skin colour, or sexuality, or gender or political believe or religion. They are universal, they are fundamental, and they are inalienable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    No. Human rights are fundamental rights that are designed to apply to everyone, and the point of them is defeated if we start excluding certain groups.
    This is all that needs to be said on the topic.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    So once we've started on the slippery slope of disallowing fundamental rights to certain groups of people, I'm assuming you'll be fine with it when the government decides that you could do with a nice bit of waterboarding because it doesn't like your political views.
    You'd like that though

    Regardless, you know there's a problem with the system when the HRA means a dog can stop deportation

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You'd like that though

    Regardless, you know there's a problem with the system when the HRA means a dog can stop deportation

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This isn't about dogs though. It's about stripping people of their basic human rights.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    This isn't about dogs though. It's about stripping people of their basic human rights.
    Except with this amendment you wouldn't have the problem of a dog counting as family and stopping the deportation. You're also working on the premise that human rights fundamentally exist, which when last polled the British population did not believe was the case.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nay. I believe that as well as basic human rights, there ought to be a principal of basic human dignity; by reserving the right to torture, humiliate, extradite and execute people of different nationalities, based on suspicion alone, we as a government would forfeit such dignity. To be honest, I feel that with UKIP's trend in releasing bills of this nature, they ought to be reminded that in less fortunate circumstances, they too could have been the refugees. If the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt their views would be the same.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except with this amendment you wouldn't have the problem of a dog counting as family and stopping the deportation. You're also working on the premise that human rights fundamentally exist, which when last polled the British population did not believe was the case.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So just because some poll found some British people didn't like human rights, the human rights of others should be limited?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    So just because some poll found some British people didn't like human rights, the human rights of others should be limited?
    Not at all, but the basic premise your argument relies on is a minority view.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Except with this amendment you wouldn't have the problem of a dog counting as family and stopping the deportation. You're also working on the premise that human rights fundamentally exist, which when last polled the British population did not believe was the case.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    TBH the British public, along with most of the polariat anywhere are idiots. So we shouldn't be basing our laws on what polls show especially as polling has been so wrong recently.

    And I wouldn't argue that they fundamentally exist, human rights are rights protected by law and decided by law. But if we are to have them discriminating against foreigners doesn't seem right.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by thehistorybore)
    Nay. I believe that as well as basic human rights, there ought to be a principal of basic human dignity; by reserving the right to torture, humiliate, extradite and execute people of different nationalities, based on suspicion alone, we as a government would forfeit such dignity. To be honest, I feel that with UKIP's trend in releasing bills of this nature, they ought to be reminded that in less fortunate circumstances, they too could have been the refugees. If the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt their views would be the same.
    Hear, hear!

    Nay! This justifies the removal of rights from individuals - it's a slippery slope and where would it end?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not at all, but the basic premise your argument relies on is a minority view.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It may be the minority view but it doesn't mean that it is the morally right thing to do.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    TBH the British public, along with most of the polariat anywhere are idiots. So we shouldn't be basing our laws on what polls show especially as polling has been so wrong recently.

    And I wouldn't argue that they fundamentally exist, human rights are rights protected by law and decided by law. But if we are to have them discriminating against foreigners doesn't seem right.
    I can only assume you mean proletariat, and it's good to know you're finally admitting it. And you know a lot of our law does discriminate against foreigners, or at least without the HRA they would. If somebody entered your house and started taking all your stuff, raping your mother, and killed your father do you believe that you should be able to kick them out of your house?

    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    It may be the minority view but it doesn't mean that it is the morally right thing to do.
    Ooo, now you've turned to morality, the other thing with no objective basis that people like to talk about to hold themselves back and feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I can only assume you mean proletariat, and it's good to know you're finally admitting it. And you know a lot of our law does discriminate against foreigners, or at least without the HRA they would. If somebody entered your house and started taking all your stuff, raping your mother, and killed your father do you believe that you should be able to kick them out of your house?



    Ooo, now you've turned to morality, the other thing with no objective basis that people like to talk about to hold themselves back and feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is a very bad example because
    A) a country is more akin to a company than a house.
    B) you would do that even if they were resident in the house in this case.
    C) Punishment should be about rehabilitation not some sense of restoritative justice.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    Ooo, now you've turned to morality, the other thing with no objective basis that people like to talk about to hold themselves back and feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Fine. I'll put it this way - depriving people of their human rights simply based on their country of origin is fundamentally unjust and I would be interested to hear why you think it isn't.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. Not only does everyone deserve the same rights regardless of their origins, this would be terrible for international relations purposes. Nobody should vote for this unless they are happy to essentially cut ties with the rest of the western world.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Human rights, rights which belong to every person. That is the definition. Not rights that belong to some people because they are on this piece of land, or these people because of their skin colour, or sexuality, or gender or political believe or religion. They are universal, they are fundamental, and they are inalienable.
    Couldn't have put it better. It's an extremely dangerous trend when human rights are eroded for anyone. A slippery slope which could have disastrous consequences.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Nope.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    Fine. I'll put it this way - depriving people of their human rights simply based on their country of origin is fundamentally unjust and I would be interested to hear why you think it isn't.
    People let into the country, and us being let into other countries, is done on a goodwill basis

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. Not only does everyone deserve the same rights regardless of their origins, this would be terrible for international relations purposes. Nobody should vote for this unless they are happy to essentially cut ties with the rest of the western world.
    Says the man who would remove human rights for everybody given the chance
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    People let into the country, and us being let into other countries, is done on a goodwill basis
    Or you could say that not letting people into your country is just plain hostile. That said, I'm not in favour of unregulated immigration.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Says the man who would remove human rights for everybody given the chance
    Hah. I don't believe in 'rights' morally speaking, but the HRA is a useful safeguard against abuses of the state.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 20, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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