Human Rights inconvenient?

[5co77ie]

Immigrant ? That's a bit general isn't ?

I presume you are talking about an asylum seekers... No, I don't think they should get the same rights... They should have a reduced set of rights to this countries resources until they have been accepted.

[eFestivals]

blah blah

Like I said... You don't recognise this is our land... I do...

It's you that doesn't recognised that this is our land - the human race's land.

Being born on a bit of land gives a person no rights to that bit of land. If it did, for historical reasons I'd own half of Essex (and drive people like you into the sea ) .

What makes you think that being born here gives you greater rights as a human being than those who were not??

(note that we're talking about 'human beings' and not 'British' - we're talking about human rights and not nationalistic rights).

[eFestivals]

Immigrant ? That's a bit general isn't ?

I presume you are talking about an asylum seekers... No, I don't think they should get the same rights... They should have a reduced set of rights to this countries resources until they have been accepted.

accepted as a human being?

[eFestivals]

Yes some humans are better than others... and Yes some should have different rights applied...

Criminals are shits for example... My issue is this country not entertaining shits out of some sort of fucked up sense of human rights...

I want this country to help asylum seekrs... I don't want this country to bend over backwards for twats like highlighted in that article..

Is really that shocking ? really ?

It's most shocking for what you started off posting that's completely at odds with what you've said here. You don't believe in human rights, you only believe in Barry Fish's rights to fuck over anyone he chooses on whatever basis pops into his head on that day.

You believe for some reason - that you've not been able to give - that you are somehow special and deserve what others don't have.

[fred quimby]

We are all equal before the law.

[kaosmark2]

Immigrant ? That's a bit general isn't ?

I presume you are talking about an asylum seekers... No, I don't think they should get the same rights... They should have a reduced set of rights to this countries resources until they have been accepted.

[5co77ie]

Yes some humans are better than others... and Yes some should have different rights applied...

Criminals are shits for example... My issue is this country not entertaining shits out of some sort of fucked up sense of human rights...

I want this country to help asylum seekrs... I don't want this country to bend over backwards for twats like highlighted in that article..

Is really that shocking ? really ?

[5co77ie]

I honestly do not think it is that shocking of a thought to most people... I think most people would agree with it... Hence, it isn't shocking... You take is the shocking one...

Its simple to me... If you are in need of help we should help... If you are in need of help, you come here and give no fucking regard whatsoever to our laws etc then we should exercise the option of firing your arse right back to where you came from so we can help someone else... and if the option does not exist then we should create that options...

This isn't removing right from asylum seekers... Its ultimately removing rights from c**ts... Like the one in the article...

By all means, go and stick up for the guy, but don't ever think Joe Public is on your side with it...

[eFestivals]

or... to keep this to what I am saying...criminals....

They're not being treated as you want to treat them because of their criminality. Don't throw irrelevances into it.

You wouldn't accept those nasty smelly foreigners here on any basis if you could stop them, you've made that clear. Tho of course you'd make an exception if you could exploit them and enrich yourself, then your fine principles would fly out of the window cos what Barry Fish wants for himself is the only principle that counts.

[abdoujaparov]

Yes some humans are better than others... and Yes some should have different rights applied...

Criminals are shits for example... My issue is this country not entertaining shits out of some sort of fucked up sense of human rights...

[eFestivals]

I honestly do not think it is that shocking of a thought to most people... I think most people would agree with it... Hence, it isn't shocking...

well yes, I'm not shocked that the majority are unthinking morons, that much is true.

There's a ladder between 'animal' and 'civilised'. Some of us aim for the top, while others are firmly stuck on the bottom rung as you get to prove.

[Ed209]

Fishface - you're an idiot. Just stop and listen to yourself sometimes. You've basically just introduced a tiered system as to how much someone should be treated as a human being.

The heirachy accoring to fishface: British, foreign, criminal, foreign criminal, living in caravan

Unbelievable stuff, really is.

To quote

"Once we cease treating all people as humans, we cease being human ourselves" - no idea, just came up with it, someone's probably said it though

[5co77ie]

I see the guardian has picked up the story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/04/theresa-may-clashes-judges-cat?newsfeed=true

Although May promised the conference she was not making the story up, the judicial communications office, which represents senior judges, insisted the tale was not true and said it had told May's department as much.

"This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy – applying at that time to that appellant – for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK," a judicial communications office statement issued at the time of the case said.

"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision – the cat had nothing to do with the decision," a spokeswoman said.

The case was one of several alleged cases the home secretary used to illustrate her claim that the Human Rights Act should go, and to justify her intention to clarify the immigration rules to ensure a right to family life is not used to block immigration deportations.

>>>>>>>SNIP<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

But it was on immigration that May came unstuck. She repeated her pledge to reduce net migration to the "sustainable levels of tens of thousands", then said: "We need to make sure that we're not constrained from removing foreign nationals who, in all sanity, should have no right to be here.

"We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act. The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here. The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat."

She said she was announcing the change in the immigration rules to "ensure that the misinterpretation of article eight of the European convention on human rights, the right to family life, no longer prevents the deportation of people who shouldn't be here".

The home secretary read out the wording of the article, which says the right to family life should not be interfered with except where it is "necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of rights and freedom of others".

She said this showed that the right to family life should not be used to drive a coach and horse through the immigration system by blocking deportations.

But this definition, which has been used by judges to determine deportation appeals since Ted Heath's 1971 Immigration Act, would appear to cover all the cases of convicted foreign criminals and illegal migrant families living on benefits that the home secretary has complained about.

[kaosmark2]

Living by the law... Paying taxes... Fact there is no country to "send me back to"...

[kaosmark2]

this is where it goes pear-shaped

you believe you're part of, or connected in some mystical way, to what most other people think

and in the end, so what? If most people disagreed with you, would you change your 'opinion'? I'd hope not, otherwise, what would an opinion be, apart from a consensus

or maybe it's not your opinion... maybe you try and guess what most people want, and go along with it

[5co77ie]

more here:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/breaking-news/2011/10/04/human-rights-act-divides-tories-100252-29536649/

Mr Clarke said such cases had "nothing to do with the Human Rights Act" and cast doubt over whether they are genuine.

He offered to have a bet with Mrs May that no individual had ever escaped deportation because of ownership of a cat, and he condemned the "trivialisation" of human rights issues which, he said, are very important to British people.

Speaking in a meeting hosted by the Telegraph on the fringe of the conference, Mr Clarke said: "She has given her opinion. We all have our opinions. It is not my opinion, as it happens. I have never had a conversation on the subject with Theresa. I shall have to look into these strange cases she is throwing out. They are British cases and British judges she is complaining about and I can't believe that anybody has had deportation refused on the basis of owning a cat."

Mr Clarke suggested that some of the cases which Mrs May complained about may be down to misinterpretation of the rules by immigration officers and said he would be "quite content" for her to make changes to their procedures.

[eFestivals]

well, 6music have just reported that the cat story has been proven as false, one big tory lie.

Who'd have thought it eh, the tories lying about something to try and mislead the public into being Europe-haters. Anyone would think that there's a Europe hating faction in their party who have to be stroked and soothed to try and avoid them showing just how hateful they are.

[kaosmark2]

I didn't expect I'd say this, but good on Ken Clarke. Hopefully that'll destroy this pathetic attempt.

[5co77ie]

I notice May has now made it clear that this about scrapping Article 8 of the Human rights act:

http://www.yourright...amily-life.html

Environmental issues (noise or other pollution) may come within the scope of Article 8, because they affect both a person’s private life and a person’s enjoyment of their home. The right to respect for your home will also cover the right to enjoy your home without interference or intrusion by others and the right of access to and occupation of your home.

Edited October 4, 2011 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

Here's what Sky News reveal about that damned immigrant cat.....

The case at the centre of the row, quickly dubbed Catgate, involved a Bolivian man who came to the UK as a student and gave cat ownership as one of "many details" to prove the long-term nature of his relationship with his girlfriend in order to stay in the UK.

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16082050

Quite how May has the stupidity to get that sooooo soooo wrong only gets to show how fucking dim our politicians are.

But much more scary than May are the idjuts leaving comments on that Sky page. (I guess that's where Barry's gone since he's stopped posting here today ).

[eFestivals]

I don't mind people disagreeing but coming out with shit like Neil just did was fucking pathetic... Never said that... Said opposite...

You started off by saying that HRA is about right, and that it's good that it's formulated by the EU and not Britain.

Every post you've made since then has been counter to those opening words - showing that you don't think it's right, and that a distinctly British (and stupid, and discriminatory) view should be how things are.

You've ducked the difficult questions (as you always do), and it's a fair presumption that's because even you can recognise that your views are abhorrent.

And you've made perfectly clear with your posts both in this thread and many others that you want every advantage for yourself without morality playing much of a part, but that when it comes to foreigners you expect a level of perfect behaviour that you're not capable of or willing to aim for yourself.

I don't need to make anything up, your words are enough.

[kaosmark2]

You are a waste of typing... Will leave you to your dogma ...

[eFestivals]

I couldn't be arsed after Neil said what he said... Taking issue with "some" asylum seeker does not equate to the bullshit he put up basically saying I hate all foreigners or some bullshit like that... Will leave you all to it...

I admit I was taking the piss with the "nasty smelly foreigners" bit, tho your views do actually pan out that way all the same.

You've made clear that you think foreigners should only be in this country on any sort of permanent basis if they manage a standard of behaviour that's of a perfection that no British citizen manages - and thru that imply that all others are too nasty for us Brits to tolerate.

I'm able to see that's your view from your own words. If you can't see it for yourself it's because you're not joining up your thoughts into something coherent - aside from the part where you think you should have what you want, while others are not allowed the same.

If you don't like your own thoughts you're able to change them. I'm not to blame.

[worm]

(note that we're talking about 'human beings' and not 'British' - we're talking about human rights and not nationalistic rights).

[eFestivals]

But that only works if nationalistic law is equal throughout nations. Some nations don't pertain to human rights laws, so we are talking nationalistic laws really. It's just that in this nation we implement human rights laws into our current system.

Eh? I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about.

The UK's HRA has a basis for human rights that have nothing to do with nationality. They don't say "this right is available if you're British, but not if you're not", they say "this is the right of anyone when within this country".

They are rights for humans, not rights for the British.