NationStates Jolt Archive

I will confess to being a little right wing at times, however I cannot be the only person who cannot abide the current constitution of human rights ans the capacity for relativism and legal fraudulence it facilitates, or for that matter the very concept's intrinsic to political correctness. I would, however, appreciate some insights from others as to their opinions,and possible rectifications...

Could you point out a flaw in this bill, just as an example so we can get on your wavelegnth Chris?

You might want to elaborate a bit. What exactly bothers you about it? Please provide an example, not just a nebulous "relativism".

You might want to elaborate a bit. What exactly bothers you about it? Please provide an example, not just a nebulous "relativism".

Simply that a murderer can be acquitted since "it was his upbringing" or it was acceptable to his moral principles, whilst the state can be prosecuted for impinging upon the human rights of a terror suspect. I have no objection to basic human rights, nay I laud them, however the current bill is excessive and imposes overly upon the law itself :(

You might want to elaborate a bit. What exactly bothers you about it? Please provide an example, not just a nebulous "relativism".
Those god damn queers are allowed to live in peace, that's what's wrong with it.

Simply that a murderer can be acquitted since "it was his upbringing" or it was acceptable to his moral principles, whilst the state can be prosecuted for impinging upon the human rights of a terror suspect. I have no objection to basic human rights, nay I laud them, however the current bill is excessive and imposes overly upon the law itself :(
Uhuh. Mind showing us a case in which a murderer was acquitted because "it was his upbringing".

Simply that a murderer can be acquitted since "it was his upbringing" or it was acceptable to his moral principles, whilst the state can be prosecuted for impinging upon the human rights of a terror suspect. I have no objection to basic human rights, nay I laud them, however the current bill is excessive and imposes overly upon the law itself :(

A murder can't be acquitted but it can be taken into consideration. Which is fair enough.

Secondly, a terror suspect is just that, a suspect. He's, at this stage, just an ordinary member of the public just because the charge is significant should not affect his right to human rights. Human rights always apply, the idea is that you can't remove them, whatever someone does (I know hanging around on here with these right wing Americans may have clouded that view but please remember that a conviction, much less being a mere suspect doesn't mean you lose your human rights).

Simply that a murderer can be acquitted since "it was his upbringing" or it was acceptable to his moral principles, whilst the state can be prosecuted for impinging upon the human rights of a terror suspect. I have no objection to basic human rights, nay I laud them, however the current bill is excessive and imposes overly upon the law itself :(

Also: Terror suspect. It's obvious from recent events that in the UK, running while in possession of brown skin qualifies you as a terror suspect. The state should definitely have to respect the rights of suspects.

Edit: Ah, you beat me to it...

Those god damn queers are allowed to live in peace, that's what's wrong with it.

Not in the slightest, please don't assume that nayone who retains any objections to modern "liberalism" has been transmitted from the Third Reich, I have no objections to the majority of current human rights acts and legislation, merely those that impose upon the capacity of the state to prosecute those who are guilty, or to conduct the full power of the law.

I'm largely with you, Chris. I am a non-homophobic, non-racist, non-sectarian etc etc person, but I despise political correctness and so-called affirmative action. The Bill of Rights that they are attempting to introduce in Northern Ireland, and other forms of human rights legislation in the UK, seem to feel that people should be rewarded on the basis of their skin colour/sexuality etc, rather than on their merits and the intrinsic responsibilities than come with having rights. Or rather, that is how they are interpreted; there are clauses that stipulate rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, but these often seem to be forgotten.

I am a big believer that anyone who makes an effort and achieves something - however small it may be on the world stage - should be rewarded, regardless of their status. I am not a believer in being rewarded for status' sake, which seems to be the thinking that permeates current human rights issues.

I also agree that one's upbringing does have an impact on the criminal justice system (I'm a criminologist), and I really don't see why it should. Yes, there are 'deprived' people who commit crimes for material/social/familial gain (among a multitude of reasons), but there are also a hell of a lot of people from deprived backgrounds, worse oftentimes that those of the criminals, who consider criminal acts to be abhorrent. Yet the current system, with its obsession on rights (again, forgetting responsibilities) consistently fails to account for this and other anomalies.

It's obvious from recent events that in the UK, running while in possession of brown skin qualifies you as a terror suspect.

White skin, shurely?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Menezes.jpg/200px-Menezes.jpg

I'm largely with you, Chris. I am a non-homophobic, non-racist, non-sectarian etc etc person, but I despise political correctness and so-called affirmative action. The Bill of Rights that they are attempting to introduce in Northern Ireland, and other forms of human rights legislation in the UK, seem to feel that people should be rewarded on the basis of their skin colour/sexuality etc, rather than on their merits and the intrinsic responsibilities than come with having rights. Or rather, that is how they are interpreted; there are clauses that stipulate rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, but these often seem to be forgotten.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you can sit there and say gay people are being given preferential treatment in the UK, especially in Northern Ireland with regards to the unbelievably homophobic MP Ian Paisley, the Ulster Unionist thugs and the "gays don't exist here" Londonderry area. Even the BBC tries to denigrate us at any opportunity where they they know they'll get away with it. For goodness sake, at least wait until we have something resembling legal equality before you make that statement.

I will confess to being a little right wing at times, however I cannot be the only person who cannot abide the current constitution of human rights ans the capacity for relativism and legal fraudulence it facilitates, or for that matter the very concept's intrinsic to political correctness. I would, however, appreciate some insights from others as to their opinions,and possible rectifications...

Then your neither right wing, nor an actual conservative. Just a goddamned neo-con and religious right.

Conservativism is the belief of CONSERVING old principles. One of them is the bill of rights which was created by America's founding fathers. If you aren't pro-bill rights, your not really American in faith, just in name.

What country is this?

Those god damn queers are allowed to live in peace, that's what's wrong with it.

Those damn queers are also allowing YOU to live in peace, so I believe it's a fair trade.

Believe me, you DON'T want to get whipped to death by a gay bear wearing leather chaps :D

Those damn queers are also allowing YOU to live in peace, so I believe it's a fair trade.

Believe me, you DON'T want to get whipped to death by a gay bear wearing leather chaps :D

I do

Then your neither right wing, nor an actual conservative. Just a goddamned neo-con and religious right.

Conservativism is the belief of CONSERVING old principles. One of them is the bill of rights which was created by America's founding fathers. If you aren't pro-bill rights, your not really American in faith, just in name.

Not only do you assume that he must be American but you can't even be arsed to read the thread to find out he's from the UK. Well done :)

I do

Then you, my friend, are much kinkier than I.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you can sit there and say gay people are being given preferential treatment in the UK, especially in Northern Ireland with regards to the unbelievably homophobic MP Ian Paisley, the Ulster Unionist thugs and the "gays don't exist here" Londonderry area. Even the BBC tries to denigrate us at any opportunity where they they know they'll get away with it. For goodness sake, at least wait until we have something resembling legal equality before you make that statement.Um, if you had read what I'd written, then you'd know that I was singling out gay people; I did not at any point say they were getting preferential treatment. If you also had read the legislation, you'd know that non-discrimination against one's sexuality is written in to just about all of it. The point I was making was that codifying human rights in the current manner leads to the possibility of preferential treatment. Indeed, it already exists for some sections of the community - here and elsewhere. Never did I say that applied to gay people specifically.

For the record, I have three close gay friends and have known a number of other gay and lesbian individuals over the years, and none of them have or had any less legal rights or equality than anyone else. Some people have have old-fashioned views in moral terms, but in legal terms any gay person I've ever met was as equal as anyone who is straight. Paisley may be homophobic, but those that write the laws and put them into practice (which, even if the Assembly was up and running again, Paisley would only have a small input in, and not all of the DUP hold to his homophobic views) either are not, or do not let their silly views impact upon their work.

I will confess to being a little right wing at times, however I cannot be the only person who cannot abide the current constitution of human rights ans the capacity for relativism and legal fraudulence it facilitates, or for that matter the very concept's intrinsic to political correctness. I would, however, appreciate some insights from others as to their opinions,and possible rectifications...

Being American, I will look at the Bill, in context of the EU's overview as such in Annex of CM 3872 as presented to Parliament.

Article 2.. (Prohibition against taken of another life, unless necessitant with the just carrying out of law, or protection of the public)

1-2. Such seems applicable and just in the sense as historically understood by the Jurisprudence of my own state... And thus can see little problem with it in the context of any other Commonlaw nation.

Article 3.. (Against cruel and unusual punishment)

Once again, seems like a fair and just application...

Article 4.. (Against slavery and indentured servitude)

Once again, I see nothing here which runs contrary to the principles of the commonlaw...

Article 5.. (Security of person, Habeus Corpus, Arraignment...)

Also not objectionable...

Article 6.. (Presummed Innocence, Informed of charges, right to defense and representation, right to preparation for defense, right to face his accusers)

Also seems historically and justly sound...

Article 7.. (Against Ex-Post-Facto rulling)...

Also historically and justly sound...

Article 8.. (Lawfull search and seizure... Specific against illegal monitoring, or violation of security of the persons private life..)

Also well established...

Article 9.. (Right to freedom of Conscience and Religion)...

Another well established point of view...

Article 10.. (Freedom of opinion and speech)...

Also well established...

Article 11.. (Freedom of assembly and association)...

Another well established principle...

Article 12.. (Freedom to marry)...

Someone original, being uncodified... But historically sound within context of the Commonlaw...

Article 14.. (Prohibition of discrimination upon grounds of sex, color, nationality, religion, language or opinion)...

Seems just and fair...

Article 16.. (Allowance to restrict Alien activities in state...)

Reasonable...

Article 17.. (Against the use of force by one to remove the rights of another)..

Logical consequence...

Article 18.. (Against proscription of rights not prescribed, movement of proscriptions from one right to another)..

Also a logical consequence...

First Protocol:
Article 1.. (Right to property)...

Seems logical...

Article 2.. (Right to education, right of parents over their children's education)

Also logical...

Article 3.. (Electorial Rights, Rights to privacy in elections)

Also logical...

*****

What exactly do you object to?