epiphany Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 { arnie mode on } can you say UZI nine millimeetuh? /arnie Nothing cleeeeen. Washing day domorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 You never know a good thing could come out of this and the human rights act gets looked into and amended so we can send anyone back anywhere that we deem should not be here. I think human rights should work both ways and the human rights of the masses should over ride the rights of the few. Terrorists have no right being welcomed here by our laws or anyone elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treatment Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Which other user on this thread is treatment, is the interesting question now. Who said that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 On your other point, if "the human rights of the masses should over ride the rights of the few" then they simply are not rights. What you are talking about there is saying that some people are second class citizens and we should not be bothered about what happens to them. [godwin] Which is what happened to the jews in nazi germany [/godwin] The world in which we live in is not is not the 1930's though and we now have the likes of the UN ect. The human rights acts may have come out of that period but back then people were not as mobile and the problems we face are not the same. Its far easier to deal with countries with laws and rules that it is to deal with individul cells/groups in other countries coming here under the good will of 'human rights' only to want to hurt and destroy our way of life from within. I think the longer we keep the human rights act as it is then our own freedoms will errode further as we try and deal with the problem in a way that we would like to be treat if the boot was on the other foot. Human rights are ok for agreement between nations but terrorists by their very definition are as anti human rights as you can get and we should start looking at things in a whole new modern way to come in line with the times. Its idealism to have human rights as they stand and delusional that they are not making it difficult of dealing with the issues that come before us and are in fact tying one hand behind our backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Tell me one person who wants sharia law in this country. And please don't mention arbitration, which is what most people point to when making this claim, as they have usually misunderstood. Hint: The answer is that no-one wants sharia law over here except a few extremists, who most definitely are not "trendy wendys" How about the arch bishop of cantabury, that well known extremeist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tshombe Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Since we got rid of our equivalent to double jeopardy for some cases, exactly the same thing can happen in this country (minus the death part obviously, but then since you believe the deportation this thread is about should be allowed you can't have any qualms about the state killing people). Besides which, if the law in that country allows it to happen, then you can complain about the law, but it is not the sign of lawlessness you think it is, it is following their laws. One big flaw in your point is that it was a muslim court not the legal system that turned over the original verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depoix Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Indeedn, but then we are not talking about terrorists, we are talking about people who are accused of being terrorists. The immigration board that heard this and felt he was a risk is not the same as him being convicted of being a terrorist. On your other point, if "the human rights of the masses should over ride the rights of the few" then they simply are not rights. What you are talking about there is saying that some people are second class citizens and we should not be bothered about what happens to them. [godwin] Which is what happened to the jews in nazi germany [/godwin] not that old chestnut again surely ,the jews were not terrorists they were just victims of a mad man with an agenda ,how long do you think a terrorist or a suspected one would have lasted in nazi germany ? less than a few minutes i would say, to compare jews in germany against todays terrorists is splitting hairs,churchill would not have put up with this nonsence we have today regarding human rights that actually defend those deemed to be harmfull to britain, he would have had them ousted and to hell with the consequences of some human rights lawyer,just as he did when he turned the troops on the striking welsh miners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I see what you are saying, but a right is a right - it cannot be removed. If we say that x is not allowed the same as you or me, then it is a very short step for our leaders to then say "ok, since you agree it should not apply to him, it no longer applies to you either, since it is not a right"Fair point. but as someone that does not go abroad at all, never mind to blow anyone up, I feel comfortable in the fact that we have a system in place called democracy to keep the govt in check and a system where the people rule. I am not worried about it affecting me here unless I decide to take up terrorism for a hobby. I am not talking about scrapping the human rights but amending them so we are not tied into not being able to take action if someone wages a personal war against us. If our law or Govt decide its in the best interest not to have someone here then I go with that. After all its why they are employed to do the job they do so the likes of us can get on with our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I see what you are saying, but a right is a right - it cannot be removed. If we say that x is not allowed the same as you or me, then it is a very short step for our leaders to then say "ok, since you agree it should not apply to him, it no longer applies to you either, since it is not a right" What you seem to fail to grasp is that each country has a right to determin its own destiny. You seem to think that a law can be passed in england the eu or un and that law then applies where evry you think you want it too. Now I happen to think that pakistani law is totaly screw ball, but its their country not mine and they have a right to do what they want in their own country, ot are we planning another bomb the darky day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 uh....so what is your problem with the religious court deciding then? It is you who seems to think that our laws should be applied elsewhere, it is certainly not me. If you notice, i was defending Pakistan against being attacked for following their own laws. Hmm your deffence of pakistan although laudable as a principle is laking somewhat however in critique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.