Theresa May Says She Will Rip Up Human Rights Laws To Fight Terror

[naomi24]

Senior Conservative sources indicated they were ready to opt out of the recent provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if powers to stop suspects using mobile phones and computers or to impose curfews needed to be toughened up.

http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-says-she-will-rip-up-human-rights-laws-to-fight-terror-10906543

It's about time that somebody did it!

[trt]

It would be if they stood by their words Naomi, but we all know that they all make promises to get our votes.

[Jackdaw33]

If only it were so. I, for one, will not stand in her way yelling, "Yooman rights".

[DaisyNonna]

Nobody has the right to kill an innocent person

[cassa333]

Rather a promise that could be broken than an assertion to oppose all anti terror laws.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Tess produced three bullet points (on the "enough is enough" agenda).
Longer sentences? Outreach? Stern looks?
Ah, got it, "deny safe spaces to [whomever] on the internet". Within one sentence or paragraph in the May statement "Islamist extremism" was generalised into "all extremism". So Tess can't discriminate: criticising Islam in a "hateful" manner and cons[piracy to murder are roughly equivalent.


Rubbish candidate Jeremy Corbyn produced three bullet points and got ONE right: stop Saudis exporting Wahhabism.

For the first time I think Corbyn's got it right..

[Jackdaw33]

The more I see and hear of May the less I like her, but I'm still voting for her.

[vetuste_ennemi]

My irritation about Tess apart, I subscribe to her former (but now abandoned) policy of binning the ECHR.

Outside the UK shyster lawyers and their clients should be able to find other wells to poison.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I didn't even vote for Thatcher, Jackdaw.

Her "Enough is enough" speech shows that she's incapable of honest assessment of our biggest problem which is Islam.

[vetuste_ennemi]

It's sad in a way which is hard to articulate. May isn't stupid. Most of the left-wing patsies on AB aren't stupid.

So: what is it about Islam which creates so many terrorists and nutcases?

[Kromovaracun]

It is not just terror suspects who lose human rights protections if those laws are scrapped - it's you and I as well.

This should not be a vote-winner and it speaks to how eager Britons have become to completely disregard their heritage.

What about our own Bill of Rights? Would you be happy for her to throw that away too?

[Hopkirk]

Tony Blair's wife will be jumping up and down with rage.

Go for it Theresa

[Kromovaracun]

I tried to make this point on another thread but I'll try again. You are remarkably unlikely to be killed in a terror attack. While these are horrific events, the actual risk they pose is not sufficient to support the idea that we are under siege. It is not worth chucking away generations of careful lawmaking designed to protect our freedoms and given to us by our grandparents purely out of fear.

Theresa May had it in her manifesto to limit free speech on the internet long before any of these attacks happened. She's had that agenda for years. She is an authoritarian-lite using the public's fear to strip them of protection from her government.

[redvanman]

Also try closing the MOSQUE were these brain washed nutters come from

[jim360]

The ECHR was written in the early 1950s, as a direct response to the Second World War (and also Communism, but never mind). It's hard to imagine that atrocities now are somehow worse and more threatening to Human Rights as an ideal than atrocities then.

[youngmafbog]

The problem is jim it has become twisted to such an extent it is now the "criminals charter" But I'm sure you do know that. And anyway we are in a totally different war now that needs different measures, and the only commies around are corbyn and his mates which I doubt the HRA will stop.

The HRA and ECHR are not fit for purpose for our current predicament.

[jim360]

I don't actually believe it's become twisted at all. I just think that people are more surprised than they should be that criminals are human too.

[youngmafbog]

Right-on jim.

Sorry but that is utter tosh.

[B00]

"I just think that people are more surprised than they should be that criminals are human too. "

i don't care whether they are or not, some of them should be eradicated.

[youngmafbog]

I'll be happy for them to be locked up properly or immediate deportation.

[jim360]

It's not tosh. Human rights apply to all humans, by definition. You can change the definition if you like but you can't get out of the fact that that's what you're doing. And once you've established the principle that "inalienable" rights are conditional after all then ... well, I always hesitate to go too far down the slippery slope argument, but still I stand by the idea that Human Rights should be given to all humans on only the condition that they are human. Which they are.