Turn on thread page Beta

Thank god for human rights how else would immigrant murderers get to stay in the UK watch

  • View Poll Results: Should convicted immigrant criminals be able to use human rights to avoid deportation
    Yes- they have a right to stay in the UK
    4
    9.52%
    No- human rights were not intended for this purpose
    38
    90.48%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mily-life.html

    This time immigrant who murdered her baby can't be deported after ECHR says it is against here human rights. Human rights were meant to secure basic freedoms e.g. free speech, fair trial etc not to stop criminals from being deported.

    Should convicted immigrant criminals be able to use human rights to avoid deportation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    More PC nonsense. Soon it will be against human rights to stick somebody in prison.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The deportation itself is not against human rights, it's that deportation will lead to their human rights being violated.

    Human rights are meant to apply for all, criminals, rich, poor, muslim, atheist or whatever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    The deportation itself is not against human rights, it's that deportation will lead to their human rights being violated.

    Human rights are meant to apply for all, criminals, rich, poor, muslim, atheist or whatever.
    How does it lead to their human rights being 'violated'? It's a stupid law. So should a 20 year prison cell like an aninal by your books. Maybe we should have no prisons. Oh, and a guy couldn't de deported back to Italy because overcrowded prisons may have jeprodized his 'human rights'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Once you violate someone elses human rights you forfeit your own. Why is this such a hard concept to understand.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CryptoidAlien)
    More PC nonsense. Soon it will be against human rights to stick somebody in prison.
    I hope this is satire, otherwise you're a cliche.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ace123)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mily-life.html

    This time immigrant who murdered her baby can't be deported after ECHR says it is against here human rights. Human rights were meant to secure basic freedoms e.g. free speech, fair trial etc not to stop criminals from being deported.

    Should convicted immigrant criminals be able to use human rights to avoid deportation?
    Time immigrant? are you going to get into a big pile with a load of other men and have gay sex in order to eliminate them? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    Once you violate someone elses human rights you forfeit your own. Why is this such a hard concept to understand.
    Because we live in the 21st century?
    Offline

    16
    The problem with things like human rights is they're black and white. When things like any flexibility we tend to get situations where something is clearly wrong, but we can't do anything about it because the entity itself is so black and white.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    Once you violate someone elses human rights you forfeit your own. Why is this such a hard concept to understand.
    Yes, quite, and that's why if all the advances in human rights legislation which have been made since the war were rolled back, you and your fellow law-abiding citizens would be at the mercy of tyrannical governments.

    A few criminals from other countries avoiding torture at home is a small price to pay for your liberty
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Lol. The Dailymail.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    The problem with things like human rights is they're black and white. When things like any flexibility we tend to get situations where something is clearly wrong, but we can't do anything about it because the entity itself is so black and white.
    Only absolute rights like freedom from torture and right to life are unqualified and inflexible. Others such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or in this case right to family life can be very flexible and have numerous exceptions. You can hardly expect the Mail to explain why the court felt the scenario didn't fall into the exceptions when you can rant about how she killed a baby instead.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shalla13)
    Lol. The Dailymail.
    Yes, let's just ignore the issue at hand because you don't like the news source.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Britain.html

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/479...ot-be-deported

    Is that better?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by RumpeIstiltskin)
    Only absolute rights like freedom from torture and right to life are unqualified and inflexible. Others such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or in this case right to family life can be very flexible and have numerous exceptions. You can hardly expect the Mail to explain why the court felt the scenario didn't fall into the exceptions when you can rant about how she killed a baby instead.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I believe the act should have a clause that states those rights may be taken away if it's in the interest of public good.

    Although the Mail will obviously leave things out, I do think it would be in the interest of public good to deport her. After all, who wants their kids to be anywhere near a woman convicted of killing a baby?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Human rights are they to protect everyone, both criminals, victims and other citizens. Just because someone comits a crime doesn't mean they stop being a human being. If we started thinking like that we would go on further to abuse criminals by torturing them, humiliating them, feeding them bad food and letting them live in bad sanitary conditions just like in the Victorian times. Thus, if this person has the right to remain in the UK i.e. because their family are here then we shouldn't deport them. Prisoners are entitled to be near their family too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What I think is the issue here is that despite having caused the death of one child, she still appears to have custody of her other children. However, even if she is considered safe as a guardian for these children, there is likely to be supervision to ensure that these children are not actually at risk.
    If the children were deported with the woman, they may be at risk from not having social services keeping an eye on them. Since she has been found safe as their guardian, to deport her violates not just her right to family life, but also the children's rights.

    Personally, and admittedly with little knowledge about the true circumstances, I think she should not be allowed to look after the children at all. This would also mean she'd have no claim to "right to family life" as a defence against deportation.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    I believe the act should have a clause that states those rights may be taken away if it's in the interest of public good.

    Although the Mail will obviously leave things out, I do think it would be in the interest of public good to deport her. After all, who wants their kids to be anywhere near a woman convicted of killing a baby?
    It does have a clause which says that

    "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

    I can see your point and would probably agree with you that it's a strange decision, might try and find it later if I can be bothered to see how accurate the Mail reporting is.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    Yes, let's just ignore the issue at hand because you don't like the news source.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-Britain.html

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/479...ot-be-deported

    Is that better
    You should have posted those links first. They are more reliable sources.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shalla13)
    You should have posted those links first. They are more reliable sources.
    Also,why are you insulting me ? I made no personal attack against you at all.
    I didn't make the OP. It just irritates me that people will dismiss a story and an issue because of the source.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The human rights act is out of date and only protects those in custody which is why it mostly only protects criminals.

    The legislation, if it is to survive, has to be more broad in its allocation of rights. It has to give power to citizens to use the act in their own favour.

    So, for example, crime is a fundamental abuse of a persons human rights, therefore, criminals are human rights abusers. The state has a duty to protect people from human rights abuse therefore it has to become much tougher on criminals. Ordinary people, if seeing that the state is not doing enough, would have the power to sue the state.

    in other words, instead of criminals saying 'I know my rights', ordinary citizens would be able to say, 'I know MY RIGHTS!' The right to be free from crime and criminals.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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

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