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

[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?

[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.

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Alf W]

Without pride and prejudice and not wanting to sound right-wing (I'm anything but)


What would the British press headlines be if this story were in the UK?

Good on the pensioner I say...

Pensioner shoots dead teen intruder - The Local



Instead we have those limp wristed idealists coming out of the woodwork defending people like this..

BBC News - Blackburn death crash driver will not be deported I mean seriously? A man whose family has probably lived here for generations is trumped by this failed asylum seeker? This is wrong.


Throw away the keys for this... why is it even a story.

BBC News - Killer Kearney claims Royal Mail breached human rights

Looking at these three. In the first case you have the right to defend yourself with appropriate force in this country just as you have in Germany. There has to be some rigour around establishing that force was appropriate otherwise you'd have people assaulting and killing other people on their own property and claiming they were being burgled.

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.

Thirdly, this is massively important. Employers can't just be given carte blanche to sack any of their employees who happen to get charged with something. Loads of people are found innocent

Then that's us 'Lefties' always thinking about the people element eh?

[Bagpuss]

Spare me the "high brow" crap.

I think that translates as (in modern parlance) Pwned

[DodgyAgent]

At least I am in the right place

[EternalOptimist]

A week or so ago, NF asked why we were all squabbling over something minor. Cant even remember what it was now.
Anyways, I see this human right malarky in the same way, albeit writ large. I know what happened to the little girl is a massive tradegy for that family, but I take comfort from the fact that if we are arguing about the act, then we dont have much biggers issues, like anhialating each other, to argue about.

[ThomasSoerensen]

Then spare us all the low brow crap.

I recommend unibrow crap. Classy stuff.

[Mich the Tester]

Spare me the "high brow" crap.

Then spare us all the low brow crap.

[DodgyAgent]

Spare me the "high brow" crap.

[gingerjedi]

Really, suggesting (explain away the 6 million pairs of shoes) that someone's a holocaust denier because he states that Germany has a good human rights record (granted, record of Federal Republic of Germany since 1945), is a massive Godwin.

You cant invoke a 'Godwin' when there's such an enormous elephant in the room, it wasn't me that used 'Germany' and 'human rights' in the same sentence.

[Mich the Tester]

You cannot have it both ways.. it all goes with the territory of being a leftie. Perhaps you need to be a bit more honest with yourself these "rights" and "equality" policies are worn proudly by the left.

Human rights are anything but a leftie concept. The European Convention of Human Rights was written on the orders of Sir W Churchill, not exactly a bleedling heart liberal; it took inspiration to some extent from Jefferson and the US constitution, plus British thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Bacon, Hume, Smith, Burke etc and European thinkers like Spinoza, documents like Magna Carta and the US and UK bills of rights, none of which can be considered 'leftie' people or concepts.