QuicheFontaine
Member
Huh, it's so weird but lately I've been noticing that in every election recently there's a 'correct' vote and then the other option that makes you a hateful bigot.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Theresa May to campaign to take UK out of ECHR in 2020 election
- Thread starter Royal_Phalanx
- Start date
- Status
Huh, it's so weird but lately I've been noticing that in every election recently there's a 'correct' vote and then the other option that makes you a hateful bigot.
Pyramid head
Banned
Perhaps not every election, just the ones in which race hate and actual Nazi propaganda are used to win over voters
May has wanted this for so long and it still never ceases to be grimly suspect. Kinda weird thing to have as her legacy along with the snoopers, but she is a cunt so I guess there's no surprises.
We witnessed real life quiet bat people photographed on that aide's notes recently. There's no plan, no one knows what they're doing.
We witnessed real life quiet bat people photographed on that aide's notes recently. There's no plan, no one knows what they're doing.
Yet another thread where Centre Left posters blame Corbyn for Tory policies. Can anyone tell me how Theresa May's proposed General Election strategy is related to Corbyn...at all? This isn't even something she's proposing to do in the current term, it's something she said would be a manifesto pledge in four years time. She'd be proposing it whether or not Corbyn is the leader and we all know it.
So appearing stupid and clueless = a feature, not a bug?
I can blame both of them. At least with the Tories they're doing what's expected of them, with Corbyn it's his job to be the Leader of the Opposition. To help mitigate the impact of the government's policies on vulnerable demographics, and he seems to be doing his hardest to let them rule unopposed.
Look at it like a tug of war, should you find yourself pulling on the same team as racists, bigots, and the KKK, perhaps it's time to reconsider your stance if you don't want to be lumped in with the hateful bigots
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
When you have the full backing of racist bigots, you might be on the wrong side of the discussion.
And the vote no longer matters, it's decided. The shitstains in charge should be expected to conduct themselves to a higher standard than the frightening incompetence displayed up to this point.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
FTFY
Well if youre constantly finding yourself on the side of hateful and bigoted rhetoric....
Im sure theres a way to vote for what you want without high fiveing the KKK while youre at it.
There's nothing in the context of this to be opposed right now. This is a claim about a manifesto for a general election in four years time. What is Corbyn supposed to do, start waging psychic warfare against Theresa May's hopes for the medium-term future?
Besides which, we all know that there's plenty of people in the Labour Party, particularly in the centre and right, who would have absolutely no issues with this.
That's an utterly ridiculous claim re the ECHR. Given it was a labour government that signed us up to it, and no manifesto has contained any language about repealing it, I'm going to suggest you are just talking about the phantom Blairite boogeymen again.
I'm also struggling to see any labour active politician who would classify as right wing mind you. Centre left doesn't mean right wing.
Not every election, just those in dysfunctional two-party states where at least 1 party is more than happy to appease hateful bigots to scare up votes.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Uh huh. Keep it up guys. Keep devaluing the terms "racist", "bigot", etc. It's worked great so far, and I imagine it will work great in the future too.
Didn't you get banned for posting racist shit about gypsies? Its hardly a baseless accusation
QuicheFontaine
Member
If there was ever an example of attacking the man, not the ball here it is. Go and dig out those posts and reply to them if you want.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Oh, I'm sure you're extremely concerned about the "strength" and "value" of those terms.
So, what would you call people voting to literally strip away their own rights to MAYBE have them replaced with something not guaranteed to actually give them the same rights they had before, because they think and have been convinced it will only affect the "other" peoole?
I should watch Children of Men again.
Damn 'fugees.
Devaluing? I don't think that's what it is: it's giving the correct term to what this is.
The UK unfortunately became a prime example of the above and this last move from the PM seems to be in line with the trend. Not that this will bring any change to a population that get their news from the Daily Mail and The Sun, obviously. Hell, not a single shit was even given for the IPBill, imagine for this.
It's hard to believe these people exist, sadly they exist within my family too, sometimes it's like talking to a bag cement when discussing why such things as human rights are a good thing.
I've even heard from a family member "what we need is a war to toughen people up again".....Yeah I'm the outlier lefty in my family.
I mean, presumably because Corbyn shows every sign of completely dividing his party and being incompetent at the basics of leadership, ergo the main opposition is weak and can be relied upon to spend as much time fighting themselves as fighting this policy and offering lots of lines of attack for the government. I guess the point is that with a strong united opposition under a leader considered credible by the press and electorate the govt would have to be a lot more cautious about introducing such a significant policy.
Roberto Larcos
Member
If you're on the side that doesn't support basic human rights, then you are scum. Plain and simple scum. You are either completely uninformed (not excusable when you're already preaching or policy-making), so cruel and heartless that you have somehow lost all humanity, or you're a utilitarian neo-fascist. These words are strong, but they are not hyperbole.
With human rights, there is no middle ground. Human rights are fundamental to democracy, to society. Anyone that seeks to remove them is extremely dangerous. Not only to current democracy, but to future democracy. Thy are the lowest of the low, they seek to propagate the systematic abuse of anyone for any arbitrary reason. We fought tooth and nail over centuries to get the fairly weak human rights we have today, and we should be fucking marching on the streets to protect them.
But we're British, so we won't. People like you are the reason I'm leaving the country. Have your fucking island.
Calm down Rob, I don't think he has thought things through or understands what he's saying.
Roberto Larcos
Member
It's fine to be uninformed. It's not fine to preach from a position of ignorance. When you do that, you open yourself up to criticism.
If there is one thing about the ECHR that needs amending it's the fact that there are no exceptions for non-refoulement.
Art 3 EHCR: non-refoulement (meaning you can not deport criminals into their homecountry if they're under threat of torture/war/persecution) is absolute and has no exceptions
Art 33(1) Geneva Convention on Refugees: there are exceptions to non-refoulement, if the person poses a threat to public safety or was convicted of a serious crime you can deport
It's an absolute joke that european countries, who in the context of cultural differences have the biggest burden, have to tolerate and pay the prison stay of for example rapists or murderers from such countries etc while anyone else who's only bound by the GCR can deport them.
Leaving the ECHR != not supporting basic human rights. Inform yourself before you insult people to the extreme and make the broadest generalizations possible.
Art 3 EHCR: non-refoulement (meaning you can not deport criminals into their homecountry if they're under threat of torture/war/persecution) is absolute and has no exceptions
Art 33(1) Geneva Convention on Refugees: there are exceptions to non-refoulement, if the person poses a threat to public safety or was convicted of a serious crime you can deport
It's an absolute joke that european countries, who in the context of cultural differences have the biggest burden, have to tolerate and pay the prison stay of for example rapists or murderers from such countries etc while anyone else who's only bound by the GCR can deport them.
Leaving the ECHR != not supporting basic human rights. Inform yourself before you insult people to the extreme and make the broadest generalizations possible.
Roberto Larcos
Member
You're talking about violating Article 3. That's as basic a human right as it gets! It's inviolable! It's unconditional! The other ECHR Articles you seek to violate (Art. 6, right to a fair trial), while not unconditional, is still fundamental. I don't know what more there is to say here, we've recognised that torture is bad, and won't allow it. Lots of other countries agree with us there. We probably shouldn't base our standards on those of Saudi Arabia and North Korea.
There is no way to remove fundamental aspects of human rights without undermining them.
If the ECHR needs anything, it's an effective enforcement mechanism. It's a joke that we still have a blanket ban on prisoner voting over 10 years after Hirst was decided.
SporeCrawler
Member
In context of the UK yes it is. For other countries, like france or germany there is always the national constitution that includes a catalogue of constitutional rights. UK however has no constitution (which is why nobody knows if May can just trigger Article 50 without consent of the Parliament for example) and any act that supports basic human rights is just a simple statute of parliament that can be amended at any time. The ECHR is the only thing that is actually somewhat like a catalogue of constitutional rights.
I see. Well there is still the ICCPR and ICESCR that are binding the UK and the UN Charta of Human Rights, while not binding, is seen as codified common law. So there's not totally nothing. I also read that there is supposed to be a new British Bill of Rights - would it really be that easy for parliament to just randomly replace stuff within? Would it be so easy to reach majorities for that?
I see, so the GCR and everybody who hasn't signed the ECHR is on the same standard as North Korea and Saudi Arabia. Sorry but I'm not going to discuss further with this as you seem to lack basic knowledge of the matter and let emotions control you into continuing to openly insult people.
*edit* sorry for doublepost
Interface_2037
Banned
Running away when things don't go the way you want is no way to live your life.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Seems like a bit of an overreaction! Oh well, best of luck wherever you go.
We know why they want to leave the ECHR, namely those pesky privacy rights. Are you okay with a government spying on all their citizens? They just lost a case about this in the ECHR. As for the deportation, blame the UK for writing it like that. The Winner of the war dictated the terms, not the loser.
My post about non-refoulement wasn't really in relation to the UK specifically, more a general rant about this part of the ECHR. Yeah I heard the UK has big problems with privacy laws. Unfortunately the procedure of "lose case in international court -> retire from court submission / charta" is quite common all around the world.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Pretty much, though I'd say that the UK does have a constitution of sorts, it's just not codified. Parliamentary sovereignty is quite terrifying though.
The ECHR is a minimum standard, a floor, not a ceiling. If May wanted to grant us new rights, she could absolutely do that without withdrawing from the ECHR. So we're replacing with less, guaranteed. Rights that can be violated more easily. Rights removed. More derogations.
The clue is in the name for ECHR, European. The only non-signatory in Europe is Belarus. I'm saying firstly that for a country to remove human rights is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. Secondly, yes - if we want to roll back human rights, we will face uncomfortable comparisons with other countries that have poor human rights records. As alluded to above, we will automatically fall below all other countries in Europe (except Belarus), so Saudi Arabia is a new bedfellow. Is that not nice to hear? Not too many countries condone torture these days.
I agree. Emigrating when human rights are under threat is a different matter entirely, however.
Interface_2037
Banned
I guarantee you there are few places on this earth with more rights for the individual than the UK.
Declarations of human rights are just the superficial, headline grabbing, virtue signalling layer. Places like France & Germany for example can impose far more draconian restrictions on their peoples rights, right now, today, than the UK government can.
The UK, with it's mostly common law system, gives far more power to an individual than any other country on the continent to challenge the legality of edicts from government.
The current state of emergency in France for example is something that wouldn't stand up to the first challenge in UK courts.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
Her first election this mad bitch will be out...no one voted for her and a lot of people want her out.
The Friendly Monster
Member
What's wrong with emigration?
Dude. Come on.
Also from what I can see the tories are further ahead in every poll than last election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Roberto Larcos
Member
The courts can't protect shit when there's legislation that can't be interpreted any other way. How can the courts stand up for privacy when the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 exists? How can the courts stand up for the rights of prisoners when the Representation of the People Act 1983 exists? The court is powerless against Parliament, while in the rest of Europe, there are written constitutional protections that cannot be overridden (easily).
And the state of emergency in France wouldn't stand up to challenge? What could the courts challenge, after the 'Emergency Powers Act 2017' sails through Parliament?
The Incarnation
Member
Good grief, that's a lot of terrorist were going to have to release in the next 3 years to get people on side.
Clearing you've been ignoring the polls. The Tories are miles ahead. They've no competition.
Jezbollah
Member
I'm afraid you're in for a shock.
Don't. And polls show the opposite.
Interface_2037
Banned
Well for you, rights written in stone are a strength, for me they're a weakness with no flexibility taking into account the realities of the times.
The 'written in stone way' that you advocate, leads to the absurdity of the American constitutions 'right to bear arms', written in the 18th century, giving people in the 21st century the ability to commit mass murder when they've had a particularly bad day, and there being no chance in hell of getting such 'written in stone' laws changed to reflect modern times.
The current 'flexible' system of the UK means that whatever laws are brought in by one government can be changed/dropped by another.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Racists usually don't notice the racism in a campaign they agree with because to them it's just 'telling it like it is'.
Roberto Larcos
Member
That's a ridiculous argument. Can you see a point in the future where it would be better to torture people? Better not to have fair trials? Better to allow for punishment without law?
Also, other constitutions are less entrenched - as I'm sure you know, but chose not to represent. The US has a famously inflexible constitution. The Republic of Ireland is the model I'd base a UK democracy on.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Until you tell it like it is and call them racists. Then its 'lets have a discussion and try to understand me'.
Fucking vile.
Interface_2037
Banned
If the UK didn't torture captured Nazis during WWII, or suspend the rule of law when the country's very existence was at stake, I find it hard to imagine a scenario where such measures would be necessary.
Can you think of one?
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Honestly at times I forget the Labour party still exists and wasn't disbanded.
Corbyn and his dumb populist toadies have seemingly fully destroyed politics in this country for half a decade. The most draconian and villainous government we've had in decades and no push back. It's insane.
Roberto Larcos
Member
It's clearly economic anxiety, guys.
Necessary, no. As I've made perfectly clear, I don't believe it's ever 'necessary' to violate Article 3. I am in full agreement with the ECHR on this matter.
However, would a government try to? I think there's a chance - and so we must protect against that possibility from occurring. If a British Bill of Rights is all we have, then even the terms of that can be silently impliedly repealed.
- Status