Becoming really tired of this country's attitude towards human rights

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Second, the guy was tried, convicted and served his sentence 7 years ago. Done, finished. His wife and kids are the ones with Human Rights as well. Blame the UK Immigration people if you must but I can't see it's fair to deport him now.

?

Actually, as usual it is Judges and the law - 7 years is the time it's taken to exhaust the legal avenues.

I take the point about the guys family, but surely this woman knew she was taking a chance with him - doesn't anyone accept responsibility for anything these days?

As I understand it the way the Human Rights industry explains giving convicted criminals superior treatment to victims is that it effectively doesn't matter how bad the stuff you do is, there are some rights that can't be taken off you ever, because they are basic. This, as the man with no daughter pointed out, can be perverse - for example, presumably a proflic child abuser can't claim he has a right to a life around children?

There are a lot of rights that ought to be guaranteed, but I feel there is scope to take away some for people who offend against society - and a person who is illegally in Britain, who has previous convictions, who drives illegally, injures a child and then doesn't even have the basic human decency to get out and try to help must surely be a candidate to forfeit some of his own "rights" on the basis that he plainly has no respect for the rights of others.

[xoggoth]

But when you insist on abstract rights and ignore human nature to that extent you destroy society. Any cohesive society has to be based on shared values and, more importantly, on people's sense of what is fair, a sense which is natural and present even in other primates, it's not some invention of the Daily Mail.

We mostly want to share with those we can emphathise with but if our money and our safety is given away to those who threaten us, who have contributed nothing and sometimes despise us, then we in turn ask why we should bother to contribute.

[thunderlizard]

There are a lot of rights that ought to be guaranteed, but I feel there is scope to take away some for people who offend against society - and a person who is illegally in Britain, who has previous convictions, who drives illegally, injures a child and then doesn't even have the basic human decency to get out and try to help must surely be a candidate to forfeit some of his own "rights" on the basis that he plainly has no respect for the rights of others.

I think this is the difference between human rights and civil (or citizens') rights. Human rights should be pretty basic - by definition, they are rights that you retain even if you are the nastiest scumbag on the planet. I do think that there are various things both in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and European Convention that are listed as human rights but make more sense as civil rights - the pressure being put on the UK to give prisoners the vote being the most topical.

[Dearnla]

I think you are all being whipped into a frenzy by the Meedja again. They were put on this earth for commercial gain, so watch out for their motives.

Right, I've said my piece - let the mass debating continue....

[RichardCranium]

We mostly want to share with those we can emphathise with but if our money and our safety is given away to those who threaten us, who have contributed nothing and sometimes despise us, then we in turn ask why we should bother to contribute.

That's when the parable of the good Samaritan kicks in.

Because if you help those in need, when they are not your friends, you might find they come to your aid when you think you have no friends left.

[xoggoth]

Unfortunately RC most people are not Saints and you can't govern society on a pious hope that they will be.

They might come to your aid but in the absence of any actual affinity or common purpose they almost certainly won't. Asylum seekers should be the best and most loyal citizens we have as their gratitude should ensure it. Are they?