Theresa May Says UK Will 'Tear Up' Human Rights Laws If Needed For Terror Fight (bbc.com) 306
Hours ahead of the UK general election, the prime minister and Conservative party leader Theresa May proposed to "tear up" human rights law which, she asserts, stops her government dealing effectively with terrorism. From a report: She said she wants to do more to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and to deport foreign suspects. The UK could seek opt-outs from the European Convention on Human Rights, which it has abided by since 1953. Labour said the UK would not defeat terrorism "by ripping up basic rights." The Lib Dems said it was a "cynical" move ahead of Thursday's election. The Conservatives have faced criticism over police cuts and questions about intelligence failures following the terror attacks in London and Manchester. Her remarks come days after she expressed desires to assume more controls and regulation on the ways the internet works.
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that she, as Home Secretary, gutted those services should be enough to tell you that she doesn't actually care about the problem, she's just using it as an excuse.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
What if she wants attacks to happen?
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad to see our cousins across the pond aren't the only ones having to deal with this caliber of bullshit from their politicians.
Apparently living in a free society does have certain unfortunate and tragic costs; but that doesn't mean you should cash in your chips and go full frontal Stasi.
What would Churchill say about this turn of events.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
What would Churchill say about this turn of events.
Winston did have this to say about what his country finds itself up against:
http://thefederalistpapers.org... [thefederalistpapers.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I had no idea he said that.. To be clear I was referring to Churchill's stoicism during the Blitz -- aka 'a stiff upper lip'
Re: (Score:2)
>> What would Churchill say about this turn of events.
> Winston did have this to say about what his country finds itself up against
I prefer to think that he would deliver a speech more like this:
https://www.winstonchurchill.o... [winstonchurchill.org]
Skip through to the last para at the bottom, it's quite a long speech being a report back to the House of Commons. The final line includes the phrase "New World" - that's the US and thankfully they did pile on in because we were pretty close to fucked. It is a speech that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alt-Right? If by Alt-Right you mean Spencer and his band of idiotic misfits then you just lumped in Libertarians (Cato, von Mises, Federalist ) in with white nationalists.
You don't like free-market philosophy? Fine. Not in favor of limited government? OK. Persuade people that your economic and regulatory model is superior. But Spencer and his band are not for the free market and The Federalist and other Free Market organizations are not in favor of the almighty state (whether distributionalist o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That article and the links to other articles on the page were not libertarian, there were full onset wingnut crazy. A real libertarian would believe in religious liberties. A libertarian also would not be buying into conspiracy theories.
Libertarian: climate change may be real, but I don't approve of big government programs to combat it.
Wingnut: government is setting up a program to combat climate change, therefore climate change is a plot!
authenticity of Churchill quote (Score:2)
Here's Snopes claiming this quote as authentic:
Snopes [snopes.com]
Snopes refers to the Churchill Centre to back up its claim. It also mentions that many versions of this quote omit one sentence of praise for "Moslems". The Federalist Papers site does not omit this but is correct in this detail as well as the rest.
[I accidentally posted this as an AC a few minutes ago.]
Re: (Score:2)
The point of my post was not to echo Churchill about Islam but rather to suggest that one can gain confidence in an information source by looking for other sources on the Internet. Yes, I know that's obvious. The poster to whom I was replying, though, either didn't understand it or didn't make the effort.
Re: (Score:3)
What would Churchill say about this turn of events.
Be afraid.
Run for your lives!
Re: (Score:2)
What would Churchill say about this turn of events?
"The only thing we have to fear . . . is Theresa May herself!"
. . . then, he'd light up a Partagas Lusitania . . . and, with apologies to "The Cramps", bellow out a round of:
Well, come on little mama, let's tear this damn place up.
Come on little mama, let's tear this damn place up.
Come on little mama, let me see you do your stuff.
Tear it up, up-up-up-up
Tear it up, up-up-up-up
Tear it up
Tear it up
Come on little mama, tear this damn place up.
Yeah, move back baby, turn my way
Turn around again and
Re: (Score:2)
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is the phrase. Freedom isn't free (beer) but it requires vigilance to protect it against those who seek to take it away. Which include those people jealous of freedoms enjoyed by others and wish to take it away (your traditional terrorist), as well as those who seek to remove the freedoms in order to "pro
Re: (Score:2)
"Human Rights" in Europe are pretty much terrorists rights.
For instance, anyone leaving Europe to go fight on the side of ISIS should not be allowed to come back, but the Human Rights Commission in Europe wouldn't allow that.
Re: (Score:2)
What would Churchill say about this turn of events.
What are we fighting for?
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess you are not buying into the whole "you need to become terrorists to defeat terrorists" thing. Especially when the government is not targeting their terrorism at the terrorist but at the terrorists victims. In order to make you safe, we need to terrorise you before the terrorists do, now that is a hard sell. The tories seem to have gone full blown nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply look at the loss of freedom in Poland after the fall of Communism
The Catholic church has turned women into brood cows.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
Free society means having the ability to have free thought and free will. To turn an Atheist argument, Atheistic states banning religions are exactly the same as religious totalitarian states that ban all but one, just one more. And I would suggest to you, that individual freedom hurts far less than elite thinking statism does ;)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have a free society without freedom of religion. People have a right to believe in fairy tails and talk and sing to an imaginary creature, however silly and pointless that may sound to people who are not religious.
I believe they were providing an indirect quote of Churchill in answer to the poster that asked what Churchill would say:
(from http://thefederalistpapers.org... [thefederalistpapers.org] )
Churchill: [...]"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."[...]
While I agree that freedom of belief and religion are essential to a f
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Both yes and no.
First of all, religion is like a penis. It's fine that you have one, it's fine that you're proud of it - but don't start showing it off in public.
Second of all, religion is ... well, it's basically insanity. Imagine that I stood up in public and declared that I found it justified to murder anyone who prefers Star Wars over Star Trek, or Lord of the Rings over Harry Potter. I'd be hauled off to jail and/or a psychiatric evaluation before my second breath.
Imagine I said that my invisible friend tells me to cut off a piece of my newborn child because it says so in the Silmarillion. That child would be taken away by Child Protective Services.
Imagine I pointed to Jabba the Hutt's slave girls and said THIS is proof that a man has a right to own his wife as if she was property.
But ... Point instead to a bunch of stories told by illiterate goat shepherds thousands of years ago, and suddenly it is religion and protected. Not just islam, but all of religion. Christianity doesn't get a free pass on this one.
Religion is pure and simple collective insanity. Religious wars are akin to a toddler tantrum over WHOSE invisible friend is the BEST (only) invisible friend.
Freedom of religion should extend to within your own four walls, not a step beyond them. In the public space it should be freedom FROM religion.
Re: (Score:2)
No, in fact you would not.... at least not in any society that actually practices religious freedom. Instead, you would likely only be ignored by people who didn't want to listen. Law enforcement w
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But somehow religious preachers seem to be exempt from those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Hanged them
Pedant OFF.
Meat is hung, people are hanged.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where did this thought come from? More funding for the police could have stopped this attack how exactly? Their response time was pretty good. But "stopped the attackers" to me actually implies you think they could have prevented the attack.
You do realize that they knew about these guys right? May is absolutely right that they need to tone down some of the more retarded human rights protections that are getting in the way of deporting or at least jailing jihadis.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. More cops would have just been sitting around wishing they could arrest these wackjobs or even deport them.
Re: (Score:3)
Those three suspects WERE investigated and "looked into." What good does that do when you don't have the authority to arrest or deport them until they've actually committed an act of terrorism? It's not a crime to associate with terrorists, or be a terrorist sympathizer, or to espouse terrorist ideology. So what were these extra cops going to be able to do after their big investigation besides shrug their shoulders?
Even if you doubled the number of cops, you wouldn't be able to keep every suspected terroris
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, in the UK being associated with terrorists is often a crime. You are legally required to snitch on them.
Also, there are various things like Control Orders that they can use to control and restrict people without even convicting them.
The problem appears to be that they don't have enough people or resources to handle the volume of work.
Re: (Score:3)
That is, they don't have Control Orders anymore, not since 2011. They were scrapped and replaced by T-Pims (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures), which was claimed to be "more flexible" but in practice was heavily watered down.
Guess whose idea that was? Then-Home Secretary Theresa May.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-122... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize what you're advocating is a guilty-without-trial option, right?
No, I'm advocating for a country's right to rescind the invitation for an immigrant to stay.
Re: (Score:2)
I hold and offer no opinions on this matter, in specific. Please understand that and understand that I am only going to say something pithy and nearly pointless - unless you want to think about it deeper.
Very, very few things are simple. Chances are, if you think there's a simple answer to complex problems (such as those involving humans), you're wrong. Chances are, you're not just wrong - you're not engaging in critical thinking.
There's a chance you're right. There's a chance that the answer to this is sim
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place
Ahhh, always nice to treat the symptoms and not the cause.
Ergo (Score:5, Insightful)
We're going to fight the terrorist agenda of disrupting our way of life in order to make their voices heard, by disrupting our way of life thus making their voices heard.
Can't imagine why people continue to use terrorist tactics. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Can't imagine why people continue to coddle foreign terrorists to the detriment of their own people. Oh, that's right, they think we can hug it out. If we only show them how nice we are, they would surely leave us alone. That hasn't worked since . . . ever.
Neat how these attacks have been domestic terrorists, brought up and raised in country.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
Having more police wouldn't have helped if the police are powerless to arrest someone until they act, or even to deport a suspect if they're known to associate with terrorists and be sympathetic to them (as the three koran-thumpers in the last attack were).
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Having more police wouldn't have helped if the police are powerless to arrest someone until they act,
So....arrest them before they commit a criminal act? Do you have to be Muslim for that to be ok? Or can the police arrest a guy standing outside a bank because they think he might be about to rob it, too?
or even to deport a suspect if they're known to associate with terrorists and be sympathetic to them (as the three koran-thumpers in the last attack were)
So it's now illegal to be around people that might be terrorists or to sympathize with them (but not in any way help them)? Tell me, are you trying to fight ISIS, or become them?
Re: (Score:2)
This is unlike nazism - where the undesireables didn't get the option to leave in peace - they were killed off deliberately.
They didn't [wikipedia.org] huh? And they only started deliberately killing them after the Battle of Britain prevented Germany from deporting millions of Jews to Madagascar [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, she couldn't be bothered to fund actual police and security services that could have potentially stopped the attackers in the first place, with information and methods they already had available to them. The fact that she, as Home Secretary, gutted those services should be enough to tell you that she doesn't actually care about the problem, she's just using it as an excuse.
Aside from that, the fact that after 6 years as both Home Secretary and then Prime Minister, all of this just grew makes it clear that she's a pathetic choice to lead the UK. Except that Jeremy Corbin is another Bernie, and I hate the idea of Sadiq Khan becoming any more powerful than he already is. He is more of a Jihadist than even some of the specimens residing in Doha.
USA and now UK (Score:5, Insightful)
You are being manipulated to give up your essential freedoms. Statistically, terrorism is a tiny concern compared to the danger you submit yourself to daily.
Re:USA and now UK (Score:5, Insightful)
More impotantly, Western people giving up their freedom is exactly what the terrorists want.
Re: (Score:2)
Westerners don't need to give up their own freedom. They can discriminate, and give up the freedom of muslims.
Get on Netflix and watch Homecoming King by Hasan Minhaj.
Hasan Minhaj is a 1st gen American, who talks about his upbringing and the racism he faced. He has a very strong piece of what happened to his family after 9/11. Just watch it, and then rethink your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Islam is not a race, it is a religion. More than that, it is a religion which now has a serious violence problem, and there's a moment when someone must be held responsible for choosing his religion. I won't forbid him to choose Islam, but I will certainly not pity him or defend him if he considers he's a victim of discrimination.
Re:USA and now UK (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be true. But in this case May is just looking for the ability to "deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries." That hardly seems unreasonable to me. If you immigrate to my country and start engaging in terrorist activity (or associating with known terrorists) your invitation to stay should be rescinded.
Re:USA and now UK (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true. But in this case May is just looking for the ability to "deport foreign terrorist suspects back to their own countries." That hardly seems unreasonable to me.
You seem to be using a definition of the word 'reasonable' I have not come across before. Deporting anyone on the basis of suspicions without a fair trial is, to me, by definition unreasonable.
Re:USA and now UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Khuram Shahzad Butt, a 27-year-old British national born in Pakistan. Again a British national, how do you deport him?
I understand the feeling, but what you are supporting is a violation of due process, is Britain going to start a department of pre-crime. Where if they think you may commit an act they will arrest you? When we start punishing people for what they think instead of their actions, any pretense of a free society gets obliterated.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but where do you expel someone to when they were born in your country? The Norway thing is a little different: those people were immigrants, who were born elsewhere, and then became naturalized citizens. Presumably (I haven't read the specifics of that case, I'm just going on your writing here) they lied about something on their naturalization application, so the country was able to legally revoke their citizenship (because it was acquired under false pretenses), which means they just reverted back
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They have no dump in Manchester and London?
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorism is the product of a faith and that people can be stopped.
I remember how I felt... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I remember how I felt... (Score:5, Insightful)
The mistake is simple: it's easier to keep an orderly society if everyone is enslaved by a small, powerful policing force with severe response to any deviation from orderly behavior; however, this does not provide people with security.
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope is almost universally a bullshit argument. Yes it's theoretically possible that this could evolve into a horrible police state that disappears innocent people. But realistically if they use it to lock up jihadis, it'll be a good thing. If the kind of people who would start using it on regular people get elected, it seems like you're kind of screwed anyway because wouldn't they just do the same stuff secretly?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except that this isn't new behaviour for May. She's been trying to get privacy invading laws through since even before she was Home Secretary.
Her personal politics are that if the state can see everything, they can arrest people for thought crime and pre-crime offences, and save money on investigative policing. I do not like it one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically possible? Did you miss your history lessons on East Germany and Mao's China? Based on history, it's a guarantee.
Re:I remember how I felt... (Score:5, Informative)
Slippery slope is almost universally a bullshit argument. Yes it's theoretically possible that this could evolve into a horrible police state that disappears innocent people.
I'll just leave this [wikipedia.org]here
Re: (Score:2)
It's bullshit. They already have cameras on every corner and all kinds of spying in place. The problem is one of competency. They have what they need they're just mismanaging it. She could start by pulling all the coverage off of Asange. How asinine to waste millions penning a journalist in an embassy. So what if he escapes? He's done nothing to the UK.
Is "Tear Up" a direct quote? (Score:3)
Not an punctuation expert but the headline and summary seem to indicate that the use of the words "Tear up" came from May's mouth. Did she really say that?
Re:Is "Tear Up" a direct quote? (Score:5, Informative)
Not "Tear up", per se, but here's a quote from her in the article:
"And if our human rights laws get in the way of doing it, we will change the law so we can do it."
Yeah, that doesn't sound fucked up at all.
Re: (Score:2)
But she only says she'll change the laws so they can do what they want. Are you REALLY SURE you want the law changed to "Anyone voting against Theresa May's party can be locked up indefinitely."?
Re: (Score:2)
They've got two speeches mixed up. That bit's from one about what she intends to do to some animals when she wins.
It's interesting to note that anti-terror legislation has been aimed at animal rights & other groups of dirty scruffy hippies before. Some of them are a bit crazy, but the IRA they ain't.
You gotta figh!, for your right! (Score:2, Insightful)
to tear up their rights!
Oh yeah, bin laden won! He is dancing in his watery grave.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not your "right" to stay in a country if you immigrate there and start engaging in terrorist activity or associating with known terrorists. A country should have every "right" to deport you for it, though. And it sounds like that's all May is asking for here.
What if you were born there [slashdot.org] and start engaging in terrorist activity?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we should stop teaching schoolchildren about the evils of "whiteness" and "western civilization". Maybe that'd stop these Muslims from radicalising. Who'd have thought that a bunch of disaffected children of immigrants, fed a steady stream of propaganda about how evil their host country is, would fall back on their own radical traditions instead of jumping up in solidarity to bravely fight the Capitalist oppressors? Nice fucking work by the well-meaning but ultimately naive and self-defeating Marxi
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunatly (Score:4, Insightful)
Dishonest Use of "Tear Up" (Score:5, Informative)
May actually tweeted, "I'm clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe." (https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/872181737933217794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Ftheresa-may-if-human-rights-laws-get-in-our-way-we-will-change-them)
There's no need to compromise your integrity to sully May. She's doing well enough on her own.
Captain Picard has the answers! (Score:5, Funny)
Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Foolishness. (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking after Saturday's London attack, Mrs May said "enough is enough" and that "things need to change" in the terror fight.
The death and injury of people is tragic but destroying the rights of your own people is just idiotic. Terrorists aren't killing millions, they killed maybe 100 in the last decade. More people die from drowning than terrorist attacks!
You hit the nail on the head there (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are meeting, funding and supporting terrorists. That can be stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
People are meeting, funding and supporting terrorists. That can be stopped.
That's fine, just don't sacrifice people's basic rights to do that because it's shitty trade.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal peoples basic rights are still protected.
A normal person can comment on a political party, start a political party, read a book, buy a book, go to a movie, worship, start a faith, meet to question government policy.
Groups in the UK or sneaking into the UK for generations can be stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal peoples basic rights are still protected.
The problem is that you working under the presumption of guilt. If they get it wrong then normal people have been stripped of their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Why such laws are not been used on all the people in the UK or who have entered the UK who support, fund and help with illegal activities could be another question.
Ob-ManForAllSeasons (Score:5, Insightful)
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Clearly, think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because May is the epitome of liberalism.
Please, if you want to be stupid, be my guest, but try to do it in the privacy of your home instead of publicly.
Hey, it might work! (Score:3)
If the common rhetoric is true -- that terrorists just hate our freedom -- then the most obvious way to stop them is to just have no freedom! Win-win, right!
Re: (Score:2)
I realize you're joking here, but I wanted clarify what "They Hate Us For Our Freedom" means.
To be blunt: It does not mean there are terrorists sitting around in their caves saying, "Those filthy Americans! They're just so FREE! Why, if they weren't so FREE we'd all be better off! DEATH TO AMERICA AND THEIR FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!"
Instead, think of "They Hate Us For Our Freedom" in light of the individual freedoms we have in the west. What freedoms might such zealous individuals be angry at? Simple. They
No longer "in the highest degree odious"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just compare this to what Winston Churchill famously said in 1942: "The power of the Executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist." And the UK was in thousand-fold greater danger then than it is now.
Why everyone appears to be so thin-skinned these days? And why the first objective of modern-day rulers is to dispense with the rule of law and civil liberties, even when they have vast resources at their disposal?
I'm afraid that in the future, people will indeed say WWII era was the UK's "finest hour", but it will be for reasons Churchill had not envisioned.
Re: (Score:2)
People funding and supporting groups or activities in the UK are issues "known to the law".
Unworthy (Score:2, Informative)
We are officially unworthy of the society and protections envisioned, negotiated and fought for by our founding fathers.
V For Vendetta: Cautionary tale? (Score:2)
Theresa May, A Woman for One Season (Score:4, Interesting)
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Reality Check, UK (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's some facts to consider:
Given these figures, it would make more sense to take away their right to drink and/or drive.
Or, at least, get rid of the bees and wasps...
Oh please (Score:3)
Could we just tear her up instead?
Early exit polls say ... (Score:2)
Tories largest party, but no overall majority - a hung parliament.
Nothing if not logical... (Score:2)
Mrs May's logic is impeccable.
"Why do they attack us?"
"Because they hate us for our freedoms".
"Simple, then: we'll abolish our freedoms, so then they won't hate us any more".
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause nobody ever escapes from Arkham now do they?
France's bad precedent (Score:2)
If they want to prevent terrorism maybe (Score:2)
Hint: it has just the tiniest bit to do with the West's foreign policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-sense.
Muslim commit terror attacks on other Muslims even more than they do non-Muslims.
Hint: it has just the tiniest bit to do with Islam's perfect example. You know, a man who was himself a murderer, a rapist, a slave owner and trader.
No Islamic terror in Poland or Japan (Score:2)
Follow their lead?
Re: (Score:2)
If only the traditional moderate third party hadn't turned itself into a single-issue campaign group this time, and picked an issue heavily opposed by public opinion at that. The Lib Dems' political incompetence and ability to make strategic blunders seem almost boundless, and until they do something about that weakness, they're never going to attract and maintain enough support to actually do anything about policies that matter. I fear we are now doomed to a generation of two-party politics in England, wit
Re: (Score:2)
Horseshoes and hand grenades. Fuck the Lib Dems.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps that explains it. As they say, if you can't beat them - join them.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Does she care? Certainly not.
Re: (Score:2)
Please. In this time and age, if you want to revolt, you don't need any guns. Actually, they wouldn't even help you at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Places of worship are been used to protect, support and fund military age men.
The command structure hides behind freedom of religion.