shocking abuse of human rights
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 15 Mar 16 6.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Brevik does actually have, in the midst of the madness a valid complaint, around being kept in isolation. Ironically, had he been convicted as a terrorist, Norway could suspend his human rights (the articles of Human Rights in EU law do not apply to Terrorists). The bloke really should have been sectioned. He started his appearance in court with a Nazi salute. Scrambled eggs in his head.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stuk Top half 15 Mar 16 9.22pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
Of course, if those stupid, backward, non-progressive Norwegians had not foolishly voted to stay out of the EU, the persecuted mass-murderer would be able to bathe in moisturising cream - probably made from the boiled down bodies of those evil Zionists. Norway do make good moisturiser to be fair to him. Though I can't see him getting much chap from the weather if he's also arguing that he doesn't get to spend enough time outside. Norway is not EU by the way but they do subscribe to the ECHR.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stuk Top half 15 Mar 16 9.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well it that's the case, its not a right, its just innocent until proven guilty. The notion of a right is that its inalienable. Key fact of the ECHR is that its not them telling us 'prisoners have the right to vote' its our law that stipulates Prisoners have a right to vote (as all citizens have access to the right to vote). Our Judicary referred the conflict between prisoners being unable to vote and having the right to vote to the ECHR, who said in response, essentially, that the UK needs to address its laws according to include some kind of rules around enfranchisement for prisoners. Its only the UK media and Conservative government who seem to think the ECHR is actually ordering them to do something. In fact the ECHR is just doing what the UK judiciary and court of appeals asked them to do, in response to the laws of the UK. In this case he's more than conclusively guilty. As for the UK we already have got it covered with the Representation of the people act 1983, that the EU deem it insufficient is a laugh. It's as simple as it gets.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 15 Mar 16 9.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Norway do make good moisturiser to be fair to him. Though I can't see him getting much chap from the weather if he's also arguing that he doesn't get to spend enough time outside. Norway is not EU by the way but they do subscribe to the ECHR. I believe the moisturizer you talk of is called Boy Butter or Gutt smør in Norwegian Stukkers
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 15 Mar 16 10.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
They do love a bit of smør.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 9.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
In this case he's more than conclusively guilty. As for the UK we already have got it covered with the Representation of the people act 1983, that the EU deem it insufficient is a laugh. It's as simple as it gets. Doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent, rights apply to everyone, even if they're the best of us, or the worst of us. Our rights, are only trumped by a state of national emergency or national security issues such as terrorism. Does he deserve them, certainly not, but its something that separates us, from 'them' our capacity to respect their rights and attribute them with protections from abuses of power. Its our Judicary that deems it in conflict, not the EU. They passed it to the ECHR.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| exitstageright London 16 Mar 16 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent, rights apply to everyone, even if they're the best of us, or the worst of us. Our rights, are only trumped by a state of national emergency or national security issues such as terrorism. Does he deserve them, certainly not, but its something that separates us, from 'them' our capacity to respect their rights and attribute them with protections from abuses of power. Its our Judicary that deems it in conflict, not the EU. They passed it to the ECHR. The problem is that the term 'human rights' has come to include absolutely anything you can think of. Ludicrous claims are taken seriously and much time and tax-payers' money is spent on considering the nonsense.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 11.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
The problem is that the term 'human rights' has come to include absolutely anything you can think of. Ludicrous claims are taken seriously and much time and tax-payers' money is spent on considering the nonsense. The nonsense of enforcing citizens legally defined rights against the state. I don't see how that's ludicrous or nonsense. Its worth noting that UK human rights were established in 1998, very little of the legislation was anything new to UK law, most of it was simply in precident rather than law. The failure of governments to actually legislate for the rights of their citizens is the problem, NOT the existence of the rights. You say its a waste, I say that the rights of citizens should always trump the state, as the states duty is the representation of all citizens, not just some. Its fashionable to blame the ECHR, but in truth, all they do is ratify existing UK law, which the Government has failed to implement or has legislated against.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| exitstageright London 16 Mar 16 12.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
The nonsense of enforcing citizens legally defined rights against the state. I don't see how that's ludicrous or nonsense. Its worth noting that UK human rights were established in 1998, very little of the legislation was anything new to UK law, most of it was simply in precident rather than law. The failure of governments to actually legislate for the rights of their citizens is the problem, NOT the existence of the rights. You say its a waste, I say that the rights of citizens should always trump the state, as the states duty is the representation of all citizens, not just some. Its fashionable to blame the ECHR, but in truth, all they do is ratify existing UK law, which the Government has failed to implement or has legislated against. How much time and money would you say the Norwegians should spend on investigating Brevik's lack of moisturiser?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Deabo2030 Ipswich. Suffolk 16 Mar 16 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Human rights surely go hand-in-hand with human responsibilities, i.e. you are responsible for your own actions!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 1.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Deabo2030
Human rights surely go hand-in-hand with human responsibilities, i.e. you are responsible for your own actions! No, they don't, rights are not about individuals responsibilities, but the responsibility of the state to citizens. The law covers individual responsibilities of the citizen to the state. Originally posted by Deabo2030
So if you choose to kill someone in cold blood (premeditated murder) then you choose to forgo your rights, because you have taken someone else right to live. Rights aren't from individual to individual, but from the state to individuals. As such, provision exists within the law on Human Rights to allow for justice and law enforcement, provided it allows for the preservation of rights. Surrendering the states rights to prisoners because they've become prisoners, serves no purpose except to allow the state unlimited power over a group of people who have no political representation or influence. The state still has a responsibility to its citizens, even if they're convicted of a minor or major crime. Originally posted by Deabo2030
Breivik has chosen his own destiny by doing what he did, surely he has to pay for his actions! He is paying for his actions though, he's been convicted and received the maximum sentence in Norwegian law for murder. The same as anyone else who has been convicted of the same crime. Just because he is Breivik, doesn't mean the state gets a special pass to treat him differently to anyone else convicted of the same offence. Originally posted by Deabo2030
My question is why does he have to right to live if he is guilty of the crimes for which he has been charged? Because at the time Norway did not have a death penalty (and still doesn't). I don't think that even the Human Rights Act comes into that, as none of the signatories had a death penalty except in 'obsolete legislation' at the time. Norway abolished Capital Punishment in 1979. Ironically Breviek seems to actually want the death penalty, which to me is a very good reason to not give it to him.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Mar 16 1.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Side note, Norway, in peacetime, hasn't executed someone since 1876. Between 16-25% of the population favour the idea of capital punishment.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.