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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    Tbh, I think if I can't handle a few questions about my political positions when joining a politicial group I probably shouldn't be applying anyway. So did I pass your questions, do I get to join labour?

    Also, side note, how do you know my political compass score? I'm fairly sure I was actually slightly further right than TSR labour. Am I missing something where I wrote it down or it automatically recorded me doing and I simply remember my position wrongly?
    Did you not recently post in the political compass thread in here? If not I apologise but I thought you had. Erm, I dunno see what the Party leader thinks:

    (Original post by Cardozo)
    QFA
    /passing buck
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I recall seeing your PC score too, i could swear it was in your sig - you sure you've not deleted it recently?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    I recall seeing your PC score too, i could swear it was in your sig - you sure you've not deleted it recently?
    I haven't even had sigs visible for the last 4 months, if it's not in there now, it hasn't been recently...

    It's possible I did it at one point or the other, posted and forgot about it I suppose. But in recent months I've moved significantly right than I used to be so if I did it's probably out of date.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    It's possible I did it at one point or the other, posted and forgot about it I suppose. But in recent months I've moved significantly right than I used to be so if I did it's probably out of date.
    If you're to the right of TSR Labour, then, why us and not the Lib Dems?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    If you're to the right of TSR Labour, then, why us and not the Lib Dems?
    Mmm, I'll explain tomorrow morning my disagreements with the lib dems (and for that matter the political compass test), right now I should probably go to bed if I intend to get any revision done tomorrow.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by big-bang-theory)
    I applied to join your party, will you accept me?
    I just looked at the group admin section and you don't appear to have applied at all :confused: if you click here select the labour party and we can accept you, I believe you could be a good addition to this house.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    I just looked at the group admin section and you don't appear to have applied at all :confused: if you click here select the labour party and we can accept you, I believe you could be a good addition to this house.
    Weird, I definitely applied last time. I checked by going back to the application menu and simply saw that my application was pending and a copy of the reason I gave. Meh, I've reapplied now.
    Offline

    8
    You may have heard recently, that a man living in Manchester, plotted terrorist attacks in shopping centres. Unfortunately, he could not be deported back to Pakistan because he claimed that he would be tortured if he returned there. The Human Rights Act, which the RL Labour Party introduced supports this terrorist and he has to be detained in the UK. What is the view of TSR Labour Party on this issue?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    You may have heard recently, that a man living in Manchester, plotted terrorist attacks in shopping centres. Unfortunately, he could not be deported back to Pakistan because he claimed that he would be tortured if he returned there. The Human Rights Act, which the RL Labour Party introduced supports this terrorist and he has to be detained in the UK. What is the view of TSR Labour Party on this issue?
    Didn't the EU introduce the ECHR, which is the piece of legislation that stops us deporting people to states where they might be tortured?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    You may have heard recently, that a man living in Manchester, plotted terrorist attacks in shopping centres. Unfortunately, he could not be deported back to Pakistan because he claimed that he would be tortured if he returned there. The Human Rights Act, which the RL Labour Party introduced supports this terrorist and he has to be detained in the UK. What is the view of TSR Labour Party on this issue?
    Labour supporter here: He's probably more of a threat in Pakistan's chaotic judicial system than in our judicial system, tbh. I'm against torture - I'm against torturing all humans, regardless of whether they've committed a crime. It serves no purpose, and I don't think it's a legitimate use of State power. I won't support anything which may lead to the torture of this man - I'd deem it profoundly immoral. We'd be better off trying to sort out a deal with countries like Pakistan which provide an assurance that their criminals (handed over by the British state) won't be tortured.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Didn't the EU introduce the ECHR, which is the piece of legislation that stops us deporting people to states where they might be tortured?
    Really? I thought it was the Human Rights Act that stopped us from doing that :confused:
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Labour supporter here: He's probably more of a threat in Pakistan's chaotic judicial system than in our judicial system, tbh. I'm against torture - I'm against torturing all humans, regardless of whether they've committed a crime. It serves no purpose, and I don't think it's a legitimate use of State power. I won't support anything which may lead to the torture of this man - I'd deem it profoundly immoral. We'd be better off trying to sort out a deal with countries like Pakistan which provide an assurance that their criminals (handed over by the British state) won't be tortured.
    Personally, I believe that we should have deported him back to Pakistan and if he was tortured then tough. I've always held the belief that a criminal should have any rights stripped and I shall give you my reasoning. Another word for a criminal is an outlaw; someone who operates outside of the law. If these people work outside of the law, then they cannot expect the law to then protect them.

    This terrorist had plans to blow up a shopping centre. Who goes to shopping centres? Your Mum, your Dad, brothers, sisters, partners and friends. As far as I am concerned, that terrorist has no rights and if we deport him and he is tortured then I would not care at all. Instead, we have to spend Taxpayer's money on keeping him in the UK under surveillance, because he would be tortured in Pakistan.

    I am sorry if I am quite emotive about this subject. My friend and I were travelling to London and I was waiting at the tube station for him to arrive, and he was late, causing us to miss the train. He arrived just as the train went. That train was the train carrying the terrorist on 7/7 who then killed innocent people; had my friend been on time then we would both be dead.

    Hence, why I feel that terrorists have no rights.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You're entitled to feel emotional about the issue, but it doesn't add anything - it's certainly not obvious that these feelings should affect the rights of others. Even if a murderer came into my house and killed my wife and children, I wouldn't deem it moral for the State to torture that human being. I don't have a problem with retribution - I do see it as the principle aim of justice (this article provides the rationale); but I think you're taking revenge too far if you're going to allow a State to put a human being through sustained and constant unimaginable pain. It's just cruel and inhumane - and I don't like the fact that the State could ever have such power to hurt - that it could ever be reduced to using such brute force against a fellow human being, however much we dislike his views and actions. I don't trust the State to have the power of a death penalty or torture where potentially innocent people can get hurt, either. There's probably just an dispute between some of our foundational moral intuitions on this subject. I'll try to think of a moral analogy to support my position in the morning (or when I next log on to TSR if I remember).

    You do offer an intriguing theory of rights - whereby people are only granted rights if they agree to accept the law of the land. I simply view the right not to be tortured by the State as irrevocable; I would hate that type of State, and I wouldn't be prepared torture somebody myself, so why should I expect the State to do it (and suddenly expect it to be morally comfortable by distancing myself from the act?). You asked for a view, and regardless of whether you disagree, that is simply my view. I just don't see the need for torture, and I'm uncomfortable with the thought of it occurring under my name. There are more rigorous treatments of the subject of the moral permissibility of torture out there. There are far better, equally safer and more orderly ways of treating criminals without getting into the messy business of torture - and cost should never be a main concern in ethics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Didn't the EU introduce the ECHR, which is the piece of legislation that stops us deporting people to states where they might be tortured?
    The ECHR was made by the Council of Europe, not the EU and so we're only bound by it because of the Human Rights Act 1998, which makes it enforceable in the UK. After all Parliament retains sovereignty. In a sense all it means it that any appeal against the ECHR can be made in UK, not European courts but technically without the Human Rights Act we would be able to deport people to those states, whether one thinks that is a good or bad thing I'll leave upto them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with Melancholy in regards to the fact we must seek assurances from nations such as Pakistan that these people will not be tortured. This cannot be too hard to do so and providing their government gives such assurances they should be deported sharpish rather than being held here at our expense.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    I agree with Melancholy in regards to the fact we must seek assurances from nations such as Pakistan that these people will not be tortured. This cannot be too hard to do so and providing their government gives such assurances they should be deported sharpish rather than being held here at our expense.
    I approve.

    I would, however, question the potential worth of these 'assurances'.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    You're entitled to feel emotional about the issue, but it doesn't add anything - it's certainly not obvious that these feelings should affect the rights of others. Even if a murderer came into my house and killed my wife and children, I wouldn't deem it moral for the State to torture that human being. I don't have a problem with retribution - I do see it as the principle aim of justice (this article provides the rationale); but I think you're taking revenge too far if you're going to allow a State to put a human being through sustained and constant unimaginable pain. It's just cruel and inhumane - and I don't like the fact that the State could ever have such power to hurt - that it could ever be reduced to using such brute force against a fellow human being, however much we dislike his views and actions. I don't trust the State to have the power of a death penalty or torture where potentially innocent people can get hurt, either. There's probably just an dispute between some of our foundational moral intuitions on this subject. I'll try to think of a moral analogy to support my position in the morning (or when I next log on to TSR if I remember).
    I agree that the state should not torture individuals. However, we should not be stopped from deporting a terrorist because of fears that he will be tortured. If the terrorist is tortured, then it is only because of what he has done and it is not our problem, if he is not safe when he returns home. I object to the fact that we must keep him in the UK at the expense of the Taxpayer; those who he were going to murder. I see no logic in that at all.

    (Original post by Melancholy)
    You do offer an intriguing theory of rights - whereby people are only granted rights if they agree to accept the law of the land. I simply view the right not to be tortured by the State as irrevocable; I would hate that type of State, and I wouldn't be prepared torture somebody myself, so why should I expect the State to do it (and suddenly expect it to be morally comfortable by distancing myself from the act?). You asked for a view, and regardless of whether you disagree, that is simply my view. I just don't see the need for torture, and I'm uncomfortable with the thought of it occurring under my name. There are more rigorous treatments of the subject of the moral permissibility of torture out there. There are far better, equally safer and more orderly ways of treating criminals without getting into the messy business of torture - and cost should never be a main concern in ethics.
    People are not granted rights at all; from birth every citizens has the same rights. However, if someone wishes to live the life of an outlaw (living outside of the law) then the law shouldn't then protect him. I am not suggesting that we should encourage torture, but it is not our problem if this person is tortured when he returns to Pakistan. He committed the crime and he will be punished to the full extent of the law, and in Pakistan that is torture. Quite frankly, I find it insulting that he expects the law to protect him but he won't follow the law. I also find it insulting that he was prepared to blow up innocent people, but these innocent people are now bailing him out.
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    I agree with Melancholy in regards to the fact we must seek assurances from nations such as Pakistan that these people will not be tortured. This cannot be too hard to do so and providing their government gives such assurances they should be deported sharpish rather than being held here at our expense.
    May I ask why? Why should we if care if Pakistan tortures terrorists. Once we have deported him, then what happens to him is not our business and we should not make it our business. As I have said earlier, I oppose this terrorist not living by the law but expects to be protected by law. Where is the sense in that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abucha3)
    May I ask why? Why should we if care if Pakistan tortures terrorists. Once we have deported him, then what happens to him is not our business and we should not make it our business. As I have said earlier, I oppose this terrorist not living by the law but expects to be protected by law. Where is the sense in that?
    You're a far right numpty though, you wouldn't care much. Why don't we torture people in prisions over here (many of whom would support your far right nationalist politics)? They didn't live within the law why should we make laws to protect them?
    Offline

    8
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    You're a far right numpty though, you wouldn't care much. Why don't we torture people in prisions over here (many of whom would support your far right nationalist politics)? They didn't live within the law why should we make laws to protect them?
    You can call me far right if you wish, but that doesn't change the facts. I honestly do not understand why someone who lives outside the law, should then be protected by the law; please enlighten me as to the logic surrounding this. I feel that torture should only be used for terrorists, murders and rapists and only when they refuse to give information.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: December 8, 2017
  • 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.