This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- ive had enough
- Is it worth resitting my gcses ?
- Is 4 advanced Highers too much
- For those of you who have worked at restaurants, how did you poop?
- A-Level Options, PPE
- S6 subject choices for law
- Jeykll and Hyde Repression - Can someone mark my essay please?
- Help
- Has there ever been a 9 mark question in an OCR a-level science exam?
- Withdrew from Oxford(health)- reapplying to similar course at Cambridge(mature)
- Not liking a friend anymore
- Level 3 criminology
- Should I take 5 A-levels?
- Level 3 OCR Applied Science
- Dentistry gcses
- A level psychology
- GCSE English literature
- LLM (Essex vs. Edinburgh)
- Can somebody mark this essay on Macbeth: How is Macbeth presented as violent
- free science lessons vs cognito
human rights unnecessary?
Why do we need human rights agreements?
Are all people really deserving of them? What about chavs?
Are all people really deserving of them? What about chavs?
Scroll to see replies
If you think that people's choice of lifestyle and, objectionable and vulgar though it may be, should determine their right not to be arbitrarily detained by the state, tortured, etc., you need your head examined.
by-torslayshisfoe
Why do we need human rights agreements?
Are all people really deserving of them? What about chavs?
Are all people really deserving of them? What about chavs?
whilst your argument is crude, i do think the human rights agreement is completely OTT and allows for rights at odds with society as a whole.
It focuses far too much ont he rights of the individual, and too little on the rights of other individuals in society.
and it doesn't address the apparent clashes/paradoxes that occur when the human 'rights' of two groups are at once in complete opposition to each other.
Jamie
whilst your argument is crude, i do think the human rights agreement is completely OTT and allows for rights at odds with society as a whole.
It focuses far too much ont he rights of the individual, and too little on the rights of other individuals in society.
and it doesn't address the apparent clashes/paradoxes that occur when the human 'rights' of two groups are at once in complete opposition to each other.
It focuses far too much ont he rights of the individual, and too little on the rights of other individuals in society.
and it doesn't address the apparent clashes/paradoxes that occur when the human 'rights' of two groups are at once in complete opposition to each other.
Can you give an example?
Jamie
whilst your argument is crude, i do think the human rights agreement is completely OTT and allows for rights at odds with society as a whole.
It focuses far too much ont he rights of the individual, and too little on the rights of other individuals in society.and it doesn't address the apparent clashes/paradoxes that occur when the human 'rights' of two groups are at once in complete opposition to each other.
It focuses far too much ont he rights of the individual, and too little on the rights of other individuals in society.and it doesn't address the apparent clashes/paradoxes that occur when the human 'rights' of two groups are at once in complete opposition to each other.
You are vastly inept when it comes to this area, it seems.
The whole pissing point of human rights is to protect the INDIVIDUAL against the state. It is ALL about individual rights.
What does that bit in bold even mean? What an utterly confused/stupid sentence. It focuses too much on individuals, but not enough on individuals?
Doesn't address the clashes that occur when two rights ae in opposition? I think you'll find numerous amiunts of case law, from the UK and the ECJ, and the ECHR, on what happens when there are two conflicting rights. There is an actual defined process in how to work out which right, in any given PATICULAR, INDIVIDUAL circumstance should prevail. You clearly don't have a clue. I often notice how you jump into debates with no clue of what you are talking about.
Explain more what you mean bby it being OTT, and how many rights are at odds with society. I'll tell you why they aren't.
Human rights are all well and good. However they are sometimes applied in strange ways.
Like farmers getting locked away because they dared to exercise their property rights and right to self-defense against a couple of serial burglars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3027429.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2074077.stm
We are getting to the point were we hear of 'murderers rights'...and you have to think to yourself, why should they have any from the point they decided to kill someone? Even with all your rights stripped, you still have one thing your victim doesn't, you're living.
http://www.thelawjournal.co.uk/Human%20Rights%20Life%20Murderers.htm
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23380564-details/Wanted:+for+crimes+against+common+sense/article.do
(In this final link, a Constabulary refused to release pictures of two convicted and escaped murderers out of fears for their 'safety' and 'human rights'. What of the rights of the public to know who these men are? What of the publics rights to safety?)
For me it is a matter of the proper application!
Like farmers getting locked away because they dared to exercise their property rights and right to self-defense against a couple of serial burglars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3027429.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2074077.stm
We are getting to the point were we hear of 'murderers rights'...and you have to think to yourself, why should they have any from the point they decided to kill someone? Even with all your rights stripped, you still have one thing your victim doesn't, you're living.
http://www.thelawjournal.co.uk/Human%20Rights%20Life%20Murderers.htm
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23380564-details/Wanted:+for+crimes+against+common+sense/article.do
(In this final link, a Constabulary refused to release pictures of two convicted and escaped murderers out of fears for their 'safety' and 'human rights'. What of the rights of the public to know who these men are? What of the publics rights to safety?)
For me it is a matter of the proper application!
cottonmouth
You are vastly inept when it comes to this area, it seems.
The whole pissing point of human rights is to protect the INDIVIDUAL against the state. It is ALL about individual rights.
What does that bit in bold even mean? What an utterly confused/stupid sentence. It focuses too much on individuals, but not enough on individuals?
Doesn't address the clashes that occur when two rights ae in opposition? I think you'll find numerous amiunts of case law, from the UK and the ECJ, and the ECHR, on what happens when there are two conflicting rights. There is an actual defined process in how to work out which right, in any given PATICULAR, INDIVIDUAL circumstance should prevail. You clearly don't have a clue. I often notice how you jump into debates with no clue of what you are talking about.
Explain more what you mean bby it being OTT, and how many rights are at odds with society. I'll tell you why they aren't.
The whole pissing point of human rights is to protect the INDIVIDUAL against the state. It is ALL about individual rights.
What does that bit in bold even mean? What an utterly confused/stupid sentence. It focuses too much on individuals, but not enough on individuals?
Doesn't address the clashes that occur when two rights ae in opposition? I think you'll find numerous amiunts of case law, from the UK and the ECJ, and the ECHR, on what happens when there are two conflicting rights. There is an actual defined process in how to work out which right, in any given PATICULAR, INDIVIDUAL circumstance should prevail. You clearly don't have a clue. I often notice how you jump into debates with no clue of what you are talking about.
Explain more what you mean bby it being OTT, and how many rights are at odds with society. I'll tell you why they aren't.
You don't notice anything, I don't bother making a contribution unless it is an area i know quite a bit about or am personally involved in. You're just sour because you're one of my debating biatches. I kick your bum up and down these pages at will by simply applying common sense.
My point was that the laws make it me (individual) and everyone else = state. It also makes a statement that everyone is equal, and deserves exactly the same rights.
Thus when a murderer escapes, it is against their human rights to privacy 'to release their details to the public'. the public are percieved as state, not a series of other indivduals whose rights to live in safety are, frankly, being trodden on.
When someone abusive and at times violent is allowed treatment in a hospital, because to deny it is seen as a human rights violation, but the nurses/doctors treating them who are being hit, spat at and verbally abused are seen as 'state', not a series of indivduals whose right to work free from harrassment is being trodden on.
when people are arressted for making citizens arrests after being victims of a crime, only to find themselves banged up because they have infringed the crim's human rights.
Its all a terrible mess that is poorly understood and at odds with many of our own laws.
You might claim that is the fault of our laws, not the european human rights malarky, but i would question how many decent honest people have actually benefited from the intro of the european dervied human rights act (over the sensible rights that we had before hand)?
tehjonny
Human rights are all well and good. However they are sometimes applied in strange ways.
Like farmers getting locked away because they dared to exercise their property rights and right to self-defense against a couple of serial burglars.
Like farmers getting locked away because they dared to exercise their property rights and right to self-defense against a couple of serial burglars.
So killing an unarmed juvenile burglar by shooting him in the back as he attempted to run away is 'self defence'?
ducky_72
So killing an unarmed juvenile burglar by shooting him in the back as he attempted to run away is 'self defence'?
there have been more cases than just that one, and besides, the whole defence he had was that he was frightened and was firing a warning shot. wasn't he ont he stairs, so its not really surprising he killed someone.
One could argue that by killing that lad (whether rightly or wrongly) he has actually protected more people's human rights than if the lad had lived. Well, if the 'other guy' is anything to go on anyway.
Huw Davies
If you think that people's choice of lifestyle and, objectionable and vulgar though it may be, should determine their right not to be arbitrarily detained by the state, tortured, etc., you need your head examined.
Yes, I do think that people's "choice of lifestyle" should be curtailed. It should be clear that some deserve NO rights, period.
ducky_72
So killing an unarmed juvenile burglar by shooting him in the back as he attempted to run away is 'self defence'?
Perhaps not. Far as I'm concerned, that lad put himself in a risky situation born of his own stupidity and paid a price for it. Perhaps an unbalanced one, but not one he did not have some responsibility for.
Tell me what would you do, if someone came in your house with the intention to steal, and you being aware that it seems to take the police an hour to respond to anything these days? (Especially out in the country).
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/mercury/tm_objectid=14203999&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=yobs-drove-man-to-kill-himself-name_page.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/features/2004/02/tony_martin.shtml
Ray Clark: Prior to the events of 1999 had you felt threatened in your house? Had you had break-ins before?
Tony Martin: I had break-ins about 20 years ago when my aunt moved out, and there are always people poking around, who get tractor batteries and the like. But, you just don't worry about that. A battery could be that old, they could be doing you a favour!
Quote is from the second article.
The second article is about a 64yr old disabled man terrorised by youths until he killed himself. When he dared fire an air-rifle at them, he was threatened with prosecution.
The widow of a disabled man who killed himself after being repeatedly attacked by young yobs at his Midland home last night backed calls for a "Tony Martin's Law".
Teenage hooligans terrorised Martin James, 64, so many times that he eventually fired an air rifle at them to scare them off - and landed himself in trouble.
Instead of tackling the louts, who had also vandalised his property, police threatened the despairing householder with prosecution for daring to use the firearm.
Days later Mr James hanged himself in his garden shed after leaving wife Angela a note bearing a heart-breaking message that summed up his misery.
"I'm sorry," he wrote. "The kids have beaten me."
At the inquest into his death, coroner Alan Crickmore said that "a campaign of torment" had led Mr James to take his own life last August. Angela James, 38, from White City, in Gloucester, is now backing calls for new legislation to give householders greater powers to protect their property.
The campaign has been dubbed Tony Martin's Law, named after the Norfolk farmer who was jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar.
Angela met her husband, a retired demolition contractor, while using Citizens Band radio. They were married for 13 years but the constant harassment from youths put an enormous strain on Mr James.
"Every night they were there," said former British Telecom worker Angela. "They used to shout abuse and throw stones at our windows.
"There's a cemetery at the back of our house. They used to hang out there and shine torches into Martin's bedroom at night.
"Once they tied a fishing line and hooks to our door handle. I didn't realise and I went to grab it as usual, I felt something sharp on my knuckle.
"They knew that they could wind Martin up. He just wouldn't stand for their loutish behaviour.
"The police didn't help. He even went to the parents of the yobs but they said there was nothing they could do."
Again, in this case only the rights of some mattered. Until human rights are univerally and appropriately applied, they might as well not exist! Human rights are a great principle, but like so many policies of this nature have been poorly implemented.
Thud
no, we should be allowed to publically hang chavs and then beat them with sticks as the last remaining essence of life flows from their twitching body.
?
?
Why not?
Yes, I do think that people's "choice of lifestyle" should be curtailed. It should be clear that some deserve NO rights, period.
What is to stop the state from declaring that you are one of the people who should have no rights?
Just because. I'm not a chav.
Jamie
there have been more cases than just that one, and besides, the whole defence he had was that he was frightened and was firing a warning shot. wasn't he ont he stairs, so its not really surprising he killed someone.
One could argue that by killing that lad (whether rightly or wrongly) he has actually protected more people's human rights than if the lad had lived. Well, if the 'other guy' is anything to go on anyway.
One could argue that by killing that lad (whether rightly or wrongly) he has actually protected more people's human rights than if the lad had lived. Well, if the 'other guy' is anything to go on anyway.
Well in my opinion, the fundamental human right to life is more important than any other. The kid was a thieving prat, but he didn't deserve to die for it.
Lib North
Now, I am more for property rights, the rights to gun ownership and self defence than most. However I still firmly believe that Tony Martin was a ****ing animal and deserved all the jail time he got.
i remember reading an article where they presented two groups of americans with the exact same story
one showed a picture of tony martin (that awful mug shot) and one showed a sweet old man. they then asked them to decide if whathe did was right or wrong.
the results were frankly shocking.
obviously tony martin has a really offensive looking face!
Related discussions
- ive had enough
- Is it worth resitting my gcses ?
- Is 4 advanced Highers too much
- For those of you who have worked at restaurants, how did you poop?
- A-Level Options, PPE
- S6 subject choices for law
- Jeykll and Hyde Repression - Can someone mark my essay please?
- Help
- Has there ever been a 9 mark question in an OCR a-level science exam?
- Withdrew from Oxford(health)- reapplying to similar course at Cambridge(mature)
- Not liking a friend anymore
- Level 3 criminology
- Should I take 5 A-levels?
- Level 3 OCR Applied Science
- Dentistry gcses
- A level psychology
- GCSE English literature
- LLM (Essex vs. Edinburgh)
- Can somebody mark this essay on Macbeth: How is Macbeth presented as violent
- free science lessons vs cognito
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
It has been two years since I graduated and I don't know what to do
