FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > ECHR and Equalities Act 2010
ECHR and Equalities Act 2010
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine." Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens ." If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that" Whose country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that" So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . " Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI." There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI." Which part??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. " Companies literally published that they will be getting rid of identity based hiring targets after Trump got elected. "Positive" discrimination is part of DEI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. Companies literally published that they will be getting rid of identity based hiring targets after Trump got elected. "Positive" discrimination is part of DEI." Trump??? And the relevance to the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. Companies literally published that they will be getting rid of identity based hiring targets after Trump got elected. "Positive" discrimination is part of DEI. Trump??? And the relevance to the UK? " US companies with UK branches stopped doing it too. Mine was one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. Companies literally published that they will be getting rid of identity based hiring targets after Trump got elected. "Positive" discrimination is part of DEI. Trump??? And the relevance to the UK? US companies with UK branches stopped doing it too. Mine was one." Ohhhhh! So you are talking about positive discrimination, rather than positive action. Huge difference.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. Companies literally published that they will be getting rid of identity based hiring targets after Trump got elected. "Positive" discrimination is part of DEI. Trump??? And the relevance to the UK? US companies with UK branches stopped doing it too. Mine was one. Ohhhhh! So you are talking about positive discrimination, rather than positive action. Huge difference. "Today, even with the equality act, companies can give hiring bonus to recruiters for DEI hires. This results in discrimination. You could call it positive action or positive discrimination. But it is discrimination and it's not positive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. Companies literally published that they will be getting rid of identity based hiring targets after Trump got elected. "Positive" discrimination is part of DEI. Trump??? And the relevance to the UK? US companies with UK branches stopped doing it too. Mine was one." Sorry to add a quote . “ Positive discrimination involves treating individuals more favourably because of their protected characteristics, such as age, race, or sex, and is generally unlawful in the UK under the Equality Act 2010. This differs from positive action, which involves taking lawful steps to support and encourage underrepresented groups, for example, by advertising vacancies in specific communities or providing additional support to help them apply. Positive discrimination is only lawful in specific, limited circumstances, such as where an employer is required to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled candidate or in rare "tie-breaker" situations where two candidates are of equal merit. “ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not much. Most countries in the world don't have either of these and are doing fine. Plenty countries don’t have them and there the woman are treated like 3rd class citizens . If your country is going to treat women like that, a piece of paper or the court isn't going to stop that So the 2010 act means woman aren’t protected in the UK by these laws ? I thought the fact they fought for and won equal pay in my lifetime shows these protections are required to ensure fairness to all in the future . Sure, I am happy with that part of the equality act as long as it also bans what they call "positive discrimination" in the name of DEI. There has never been positive discrimination in respect of DEI. Companies literally published that they will be getting rid of identity based hiring targets after Trump got elected. "Positive" discrimination is part of DEI. Trump??? And the relevance to the UK? US companies with UK branches stopped doing it too. Mine was one. Ohhhhh! So you are talking about positive discrimination, rather than positive action. Huge difference.
Today, even with the equality act, companies can give hiring bonus to recruiters for DEI hires. This results in discrimination. You could call it positive action or positive discrimination. But it is discrimination and it's not positive."Really? So you have reported this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? " Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? " How do you think it will affect people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate "Farage/Reform have stated this is their stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
Farage/Reform have stated this is their stance. "You have the ability to consume information, you also have the ability to consider the information consumed. Do you think it is a viable suggestion to leave ECHR? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? How do you think it will affect people?" I've suggested in other threads. If the Equalities Act 2010 is overturned, huge impacts for LBGQ+, we have already seen the impact on the T community. Gender equality Sexual orientation Disability Pregnancy Age No protections in law as currently stand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
Farage/Reform have stated this is their stance.
You have the ability to consume information, you also have the ability to consider the information consumed.
Do you think it is a viable suggestion to leave ECHR?"What are the benefits of leaving, in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
Farage/Reform have stated this is their stance.
You have the ability to consume information, you also have the ability to consider the information consumed.
Do you think it is a viable suggestion to leave ECHR?
What are the benefits of leaving, in your opinion? "Would you like to answer the question before asking your own? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate "That's their proposal. How realistic is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
That's their proposal. How realistic is it? "That is the question I'm asking you... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I understand it, the point of a thread, especially in the politics forum, is to discuss and explore topics. So let's discuss and explore. " Which is exactly what I'm doing, I'm discussing your thread topic and exploring your view on the feasibility of leaving the ECHR. I'm happy to leave it here if you don't want to discuss this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate "How is this incendiary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia was expelled.. " Russia was expelled for invading Ukraine, not for its lack of adherence internally to democratic, political, economic, and fundamental human freedoms. Do you assert that Russia was an exemplar of these things up to the day that it invaded Ukraine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And there are 46 member states of the ECHR. Let's not skew the perspective. " Which is exactly what my post said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia was expelled.. Russia was expelled for invading Ukraine, not for its lack of adherence internally to democratic, political, economic, and fundamental human freedoms. Do you assert that Russia was an exemplar of these things up to the day that it invaded Ukraine?" So invading Ukraine did not warrant expulsion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 46 countries in the ECHR and 193 UN Member States, so unless we are arrogantly assuming that the 147 countries who aren’t in the ECHR have no human rights then the ECHR is just one mechanism by which “human rights” can be conferred on citizens." And let's not forget that the goal of Reform here is to do away with human rights (they're real, you don't need the quote marks) to be replaced in the UK with British-only rights that haven't been properly defined. Or, arguably, defined at all. "And whose company do we keep in the ECHR? Such notable exemplars of political and economic freedom and human rights as: Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Georgia Romania Russia (to 2022) Ukraine (ranked 105 out of 180 countries for corruption)" So, because some people who have subscribed to a set of rules don't follow them, the rules are automatically no good? "The problem with the ECHR has been its implementation, which is highly politicised and which has prioritised the interests of aliens over the interests of the domestic population." ... In the view of people for whom any representation at all for foreign nationals represents a de facto deprioritisation of the domestic population. "It’s inevitable in a democratic or pseudo-democratic setup that if the system deprioritises the interests of the people who vote for it, eventually the voters will change the system." Or they can be conned into voting for things that start off by deprioritising their interests by people who lie to them about what the new priorities will be. "That’s all that’s happening. It happened with the EU and it’s happening with the ECHR." Does that mean if we leave the ECHR we can look forward to Farage running for the hills a fortnight later? "Labour and the Tories can either roll with the societal change, or they can be swept aside by it. I suspect it will be the latter. " Or they can oppose it and propose better alternatives. It is just about still possible to conduct representative government in this country, we're not quite at the point of "assimilate or die" yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? " Could a consensus change the ECHR to reflect a changed world? Perhaps another option. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Could a consensus change the ECHR to reflect a changed world? Perhaps another option." It's European and it says you can't treat refugees worse than cattle, so unless those two fundamental aspects change I can't really see Farage & Co., already not known for their appetite for reasonable compromise, reversing their position on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 46 countries in the ECHR and 193 UN Member States, so unless we are arrogantly assuming that the 147 countries who aren’t in the ECHR have no human rights then the ECHR is just one mechanism by which “human rights” can be conferred on citizens. " I don't know when was the last time ECHR actually interfered in support of genuine human rights issues like freedom of speech and democratic choice. European politicians have been found chipping away on these things and yet no action from them. But preventing rapists and pedos from being deported? ECHR seems to do a terrific job there. At the very minimum, we need to revisit what it actually stands for and rewrite it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could a consensus change the ECHR to reflect a changed world? Perhaps another option. It's European and it says you can't treat refugees worse than cattle, so unless those two fundamental aspects change I can't really see Farage & Co., already not known for their appetite for reasonable compromise, reversing their position on it." The UK is not the only democracy facing tension over some of these issues. When something is inflexible, it's prone to brittleness and breaking under pressure. Many countries in Europe are starting to bubble over, and some rewording might save a worse outcome. Belgium and the Netherlands are starting to show signs of social and political stress right now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could a consensus change the ECHR to reflect a changed world? Perhaps another option. It's European and it says you can't treat refugees worse than cattle, so unless those two fundamental aspects change I can't really see Farage & Co., already not known for their appetite for reasonable compromise, reversing their position on it. The UK is not the only democracy facing tension over some of these issues. When something is inflexible, it's prone to brittleness and breaking under pressure. Many countries in Europe are starting to bubble over, and some rewording might save a worse outcome. Belgium and the Netherlands are starting to show signs of social and political stress right now." I'm not saying it couldn't stand to be tweaked. That was my position during the referendum. But Nige and his buddies have always been clear that they want the baby thrown out with the bathwater. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are 46 countries in the ECHR and 193 UN Member States, so unless we are arrogantly assuming that the 147 countries who aren’t in the ECHR have no human rights then the ECHR is just one mechanism by which “human rights” can be conferred on citizens. And let's not forget that the goal of Reform here is to do away with human rights (they're real, you don't need the quote marks) to be replaced in the UK with British-only rights that haven't been properly defined. Or, arguably, defined at all. And whose company do we keep in the ECHR? Such notable exemplars of political and economic freedom and human rights as: Albania Armenia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Georgia Romania Russia (to 2022) Ukraine (ranked 105 out of 180 countries for corruption) So, because some people who have subscribed to a set of rules don't follow them, the rules are automatically no good? The problem with the ECHR has been its implementation, which is highly politicised and which has prioritised the interests of aliens over the interests of the domestic population. ... In the view of people for whom any representation at all for foreign nationals represents a de facto deprioritisation of the domestic population. It’s inevitable in a democratic or pseudo-democratic setup that if the system deprioritises the interests of the people who vote for it, eventually the voters will change the system. Or they can be conned into voting for things that start off by deprioritising their interests by people who lie to them about what the new priorities will be. That’s all that’s happening. It happened with the EU and it’s happening with the ECHR. Does that mean if we leave the ECHR we can look forward to Farage running for the hills a fortnight later? Labour and the Tories can either roll with the societal change, or they can be swept aside by it. I suspect it will be the latter. Or they can oppose it and propose better alternatives. It is just about still possible to conduct representative government in this country, we're not quite at the point of "assimilate or die" yet." This is correct. The ECHR achieves nothing. What actually matters is whether individual countries ascribe to a set of standards and decide to adhere to them. What is going to happen now is what happened in 2016-2019. In 2016 the electorate sent politicians a message. The dim-witted politicians then spent three years going around in circles, trying to ignore the taxpayers while happily taking the taxpayers’ money. The views of the public on the current immigration crisis are quite clear. But Labour and its dumbo MP’s will spend the next four years clutching their pearls, doing and achieving nothing while desperately trying to convince the public that decisive action is being taken. So the public will have to make things clearer again in 2029. Ultimately Starmer is just a Quisling EU Colonial Administrator. He won’t do anything to upset his ideological handlers. He has zero interest or idea about what’s happening outside North London. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is correct. The ECHR achieves nothing. " 16 hearings in the last 2 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is correct. The ECHR achieves nothing." I have cited some examples of it achieving something. There are plenty more. You can argue the merits of those achievements but claiming they don't exist is factually wrong, so doesn't help your position. "What actually matters is whether individual countries ascribe to a set of standards and decide to adhere to them." Agreed. So as long as we subscribe to them and adhere to them, what does it matter if other countries don't do either or both? "What is going to happen now is what happened in 2016-2019. In 2016 the electorate sent politicians a message. The dim-witted politicians then spent three years going around in circles, trying to ignore the taxpayers while happily taking the taxpayers’ money." Also agreed. That is because it immediately became clear (as if it wasn't already) that the plan then had no upsides, infinite downsides and was almost impossible to implement, but we pressed on anyway at the behest of many of the people who are again now telling us our problems are somebody else's fault. "The views of the public on the current immigration crisis are quite clear. But Labour and its dumbo MP’s will spend the next four years clutching their pearls, doing and achieving nothing while desperately trying to convince the public that decisive action is being taken. So the public will have to make things clearer again in 2029." I agree with you that Labour are doing a piss-poor job of managing the crisis. I disagree with you that the public's views are clear. "Ultimately Starmer is just a Quisling EU Colonial Administrator. He won’t do anything to upset his ideological handlers. He has zero interest or idea about what’s happening outside North London." You lose me when you start with this Globalist conspiracy stuff. Is Starmer ineffectual, institutionalised, arrogant, out of touch? Fine, yeah, absolutely. Is he the puppet of some sinister international cabal? Come on now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Could a consensus change the ECHR to reflect a changed world? Perhaps another option. It's European and it says you can't treat refugees worse than cattle, so unless those two fundamental aspects change I can't really see Farage & Co., already not known for their appetite for reasonable compromise, reversing their position on it. The UK is not the only democracy facing tension over some of these issues. When something is inflexible, it's prone to brittleness and breaking under pressure. Many countries in Europe are starting to bubble over, and some rewording might save a worse outcome. Belgium and the Netherlands are starting to show signs of social and political stress right now." I forgot the name. But I am pretty sure someone from the ECHR circles said that we shouldn't change ECHR. Didn't David Cameron try to reform EU or at least the terms of UK's membership and was asked to fuck off? I would also prefer the ECHR be modified, considering the modern day challenges. But this has Brexit written all over it. The political elite thinking that their own opinions on this matter are more important than people's will and the people showing them that they aren't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary? "The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step. Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law. What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting. This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine. Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades. "Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge. Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants."There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First they came for the immigrants.." The refugee convention is not fit for purpose in 2025. If you believe it is, how is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades. "This sounds remarkably like what we were told about Brexit, and we would only keep the "good" parts of EU law. Yeah ... Right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today. "Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First they came for the immigrants.. The refugee convention is not fit for purpose in 2025. If you believe it is, how is it? " Needs amendments of course but reform and their support only see simple solutions such as ditching any Internationally recognised agreements and laws that allow none whites into the 'homeland'.. Even if that's detrimental to them when they travel .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive". "Removing Human Rights is not positive for all except those who want to remove immigrants whilst removing their rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question is whether the ECHR is being used or abused? We elect politicians to govern on our behalf. All too often national policy is being determined by unelected judges. " Theres very good reasons we dont have politically appointed judges.. Go there at your peril.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive". "This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return. A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection. As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny. What part of that do you disagree with? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First they came for the immigrants.. The refugee convention is not fit for purpose in 2025. If you believe it is, how is it? Needs amendments of course but reform and their support only see simple solutions such as ditching any Internationally recognised agreements and laws that allow none whites into the 'homeland'.. Even if that's detrimental to them when they travel .." To make amendments we need to leave the ECHR. Any new convention would need support from parliament, there is no free pass for Reform to present a UK refugee convention that would not be fit for purpose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with? "Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important. As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people. I can see why they want to do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
"Are you a supporter of open borders? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders? "Always with the false dichotomy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders? "Are we back to random unrelated questions game. Are you a supporter of banning macaroni? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders?
Are we back to random unrelated questions game.
Are you a supporter of banning macaroni?"It would help me to frame my responses knowing whether you are a supporter of open borders or a supporter of border control. It actually is an important position to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders?
Are we back to random unrelated questions game.
Are you a supporter of banning macaroni?
It would help me to frame my responses knowing whether you are a supporter of open borders or a supporter of border control. It actually is an important position to understand."We don't have open boarders. So the question doesn't make sense and isn't related to removing human rights from minority groups. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders?
Always with the false dichotomy."I thought you would have a wider understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders?
Are we back to random unrelated questions game.
Are you a supporter of banning macaroni?
It would help me to frame my responses knowing whether you are a supporter of open borders or a supporter of border control. It actually is an important position to understand.
We don't have open boarders. So the question doesn't make sense and isn't related to removing human rights from minority groups."It is a very simple question, I don't care if you believe in open borders, that is your belief, but it helps to know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you a supporter of open borders? Always with the false dichotomy. I thought you would have a wider understanding." What for? There's always a point in these discussions where someone says "just let them all in, would you?" to deflect the argument because they can't defend the basic injustice of their own position. That doesn't require a wide understanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders?
Are we back to random unrelated questions game.
Are you a supporter of banning macaroni?
It would help me to frame my responses knowing whether you are a supporter of open borders or a supporter of border control. It actually is an important position to understand.
We don't have open boarders. So the question doesn't make sense and isn't related to removing human rights from minority groups.
It is a very simple question, I don't care if you believe in open borders, that is your belief, but it helps to know."Not sure why you're trying to make this about me instead of the topic. We don't have open borders. You're straying further and further from the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you a supporter of open borders? Always with the false dichotomy. I thought you would have a wider understanding. What for? There's always a point in these discussions where someone says "just let them all in, would you?" to deflect the argument because they can't defend the basic injustice of their own position. That doesn't require a wide understanding." If someones position supports open borders, then the refugee convention becomes redundant, because any change to it will always be opposed on the principle of open borders. It changes the argument, and the debate would then be about whether borders should exist at all. That is why it helps if people state their position, it makes the discussion more constructive and avoids endless back and forth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question is whether the ECHR is being used or abused? We elect politicians to govern on our behalf. All too often national policy is being determined by unelected judges. Theres very good reasons we dont have politically appointed judges.. Go there at your peril.." Yes I get the need for an independent judiciary. But what if they act against the wishes of the majority? That's a perilous slope too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders?
Are we back to random unrelated questions game.
Are you a supporter of banning macaroni?
It would help me to frame my responses knowing whether you are a supporter of open borders or a supporter of border control. It actually is an important position to understand.
We don't have open boarders. So the question doesn't make sense and isn't related to removing human rights from minority groups.
It is a very simple question, I don't care if you believe in open borders, that is your belief, but it helps to know.
Not sure why you're trying to make this about me instead of the topic.
We don't have open borders.
You're straying further and further from the point.
No Johnny, I was asking you what your position on borders are, it gives me an understanding of your view. You can't do that for some reason, so we end up going back and forth. So until you can provide an argument as to why you think the refugee convention is working perfectly well today and does not need changing, I will leave it here. "Again, no idea why you're trying to make this about my opinion on an arbitrary point not related to the topic. How about this: Opinion: I don't hate immigrants, and don't want them to have their human rights removed. Information: We do not have open borders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question is whether the ECHR is being used or abused? We elect politicians to govern on our behalf. All too often national policy is being determined by unelected judges. Theres very good reasons we dont have politically appointed judges.. Go there at your peril.. Yes I get the need for an independent judiciary. But what if they act against the wishes of the majority? That's a perilous slope too." Judges act based on the law. If the majority disagree with their decisions they can take that up with the people who make the laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Provided the current preferred option, according to opinion polls, is reform, how does the removal from ECHR and the overturn of the Equalities Act 2010 affect people? Incendiary threads is becoming your go to... Do you think Farage and Reform would / could simply walk away from ECHR policies and laws? Let's try and lift the level of debate
How is this incendiary?
The dots needed joining up, this has gone to worse case scenario in one step.
Leaving the ECHR would not happen overnight, it is too embedded into our legal framework. To simply declare an exit could take 12 months. However, declaring our exit also does not mean our existing protection, policies and laws suddenly disappear, as I mentioned they are already baked into UK law.
What is more likely is that targeted areas, such as the refugee convention, would be singled out for change. That would mean creating a brand new UK framework, which would close loopholes and go through the drawn out process of tying it into our legal system. It would go through the normal parliamentary and Lords scrutiny and voting.
This would not be an overnight thing, and it wouldn't be the end of days, like people imagine.
Most of the ECHR rights / protection will remain in baked in forever, with selective changes made over decades.
Human rights removed for asylum seekers would likely be the thin end of the wedge.
Even if it takes time, the slow erosion of these human rights doesn't seem like a positive for people here, not matter how much they hate immigrants.
There will be new governments formed and many moving landscapes over the years. Removing ourselves will allow us to react in a much more timely and positive way than we do today.
Interesting that anyone would consider removing human rights from minority groups as a "positive".
This is because you might be looking at the change as negative. The idea of changing the refugee convention is to prevent, deter and deal with illegal entry by people who have no legal claim for asylum. You and I know these people exist, they use smuggling gangs and have the know how to prevent their return.
A new convention would correct the loopholes that are being exploited, but also help those who really do need our protection.
As I mentioned above any change would need parliamentary approval and scrutiny.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Quiet simply, these people are humans and having human rights is important.
As you mentioned, over time human rights could be removed for other groups of people.
I can see why they want to do it.
Are you a supporter of open borders?
Are we back to random unrelated questions game.
Are you a supporter of banning macaroni?
It would help me to frame my responses knowing whether you are a supporter of open borders or a supporter of border control. It actually is an important position to understand.
We don't have open boarders. So the question doesn't make sense and isn't related to removing human rights from minority groups.
It is a very simple question, I don't care if you believe in open borders, that is your belief, but it helps to know.
Not sure why you're trying to make this about me instead of the topic.
We don't have open borders.
You're straying further and further from the point.
No Johnny, I was asking you what your position on borders are, it gives me an understanding of your view. You can't do that for some reason, so we end up going back and forth. So until you can provide an argument as to why you think the refugee convention is working perfectly well today and does not need changing, I will leave it here.
Again, no idea why you're trying to make this about my opinion on an arbitrary point not related to the topic.
How about this:
Opinion: I don't hate immigrants, and don't want them to have their human rights removed.
Information: We do not have open borders. "I'm out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU." That could be part of it. If you look at the key rights protected by it, you can see why the far right elements are keen to remove the UK from it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU." Interesting point, however I could see that even after a decade outside the ECHR, we would not be far from where we were 10 years earlier. If a government wanted back in, it would be a quicker turnaround to rejoin ECHR compared to rejoining the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU. Interesting point, however I could see that even after a decade outside the ECHR, we would not be far from where we were 10 years earlier. If a government wanted back in, it would be a quicker turnaround to rejoin ECHR compared to rejoining the EU." Possible, but leaving the EU, then the ECHR & ripping up deals would leave a bad taste taste in EU, ECHR states about the commitment of The UK to agreements, treaties; we have already seen this with Brexit. What would prevent another UK government to remove itself again from the ECHR and/or EU after joining? Ye are not called Dubious Albion for nothing! :P | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU. Interesting point, however I could see that even after a decade outside the ECHR, we would not be far from where we were 10 years earlier. If a government wanted back in, it would be a quicker turnaround to rejoin ECHR compared to rejoining the EU. Possible, but leaving the EU, then the ECHR & ripping up deals would leave a bad taste taste in EU, ECHR states about the commitment of The UK to agreements, treaties; we have already seen this with Brexit. What would prevent another UK government to remove itself again from the ECHR and/or EU after joining? Ye are not called Dubious Albion for nothing! :P" As I have mentioned a few times, leaving the ECHR is relatively easy and short in timeframe, it is changing the policies and protections that sit in the legal framework that would take a considerable amount of time, enough for government changes and direction. I can't see us getting that far away in terms of change that wouldn't be quickly reversed. By the way, I prefer deal makers over dubious  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU. Interesting point, however I could see that even after a decade outside the ECHR, we would not be far from where we were 10 years earlier. If a government wanted back in, it would be a quicker turnaround to rejoin ECHR compared to rejoining the EU. Possible, but leaving the EU, then the ECHR & ripping up deals would leave a bad taste taste in EU, ECHR states about the commitment of The UK to agreements, treaties; we have already seen this with Brexit. What would prevent another UK government to remove itself again from the ECHR and/or EU after joining? Ye are not called Dubious Albion for nothing! :P As I have mentioned a few times, leaving the ECHR is relatively easy and short in timeframe, it is changing the policies and protections that sit in the legal framework that would take a considerable amount of time, enough for government changes and direction. I can't see us getting that far away in terms of change that wouldn't be quickly reversed. By the way, I prefer deal makers over dubious "Leaving the ECHR has major implications for the EU/UK trade deal, & for the island of Ireland. Saying it would be relatively easy sounds very much like 2016 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU. Interesting point, however I could see that even after a decade outside the ECHR, we would not be far from where we were 10 years earlier. If a government wanted back in, it would be a quicker turnaround to rejoin ECHR compared to rejoining the EU. Possible, but leaving the EU, then the ECHR & ripping up deals would leave a bad taste taste in EU, ECHR states about the commitment of The UK to agreements, treaties; we have already seen this with Brexit. What would prevent another UK government to remove itself again from the ECHR and/or EU after joining? Ye are not called Dubious Albion for nothing! :P As I have mentioned a few times, leaving the ECHR is relatively easy and short in timeframe, it is changing the policies and protections that sit in the legal framework that would take a considerable amount of time, enough for government changes and direction. I can't see us getting that far away in terms of change that wouldn't be quickly reversed. By the way, I prefer deal makers over dubious
Leaving the ECHR has major implications for the EU/UK trade deal, & for the island of Ireland.
Saying it would be relatively easy sounds very much like 2016"Leaving itself is easy, but the reality is that nothing actually changes the next day. Your point about the Windsor Framework is a good example, it shows how long it would take to move from exit to wholesale change, the legal and political fighting would grind on for years. The key difference is withdrawing from ECHR, and rewriting laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU. Interesting point, however I could see that even after a decade outside the ECHR, we would not be far from where we were 10 years earlier. If a government wanted back in, it would be a quicker turnaround to rejoin ECHR compared to rejoining the EU. Possible, but leaving the EU, then the ECHR & ripping up deals would leave a bad taste taste in EU, ECHR states about the commitment of The UK to agreements, treaties; we have already seen this with Brexit. What would prevent another UK government to remove itself again from the ECHR and/or EU after joining? Ye are not called Dubious Albion for nothing! :P As I have mentioned a few times, leaving the ECHR is relatively easy and short in timeframe, it is changing the policies and protections that sit in the legal framework that would take a considerable amount of time, enough for government changes and direction. I can't see us getting that far away in terms of change that wouldn't be quickly reversed. By the way, I prefer deal makers over dubious
Leaving the ECHR has major implications for the EU/UK trade deal, & for the island of Ireland.
Saying it would be relatively easy sounds very much like 2016
Leaving itself is easy, but the reality is that nothing actually changes the next day. Your point about the Windsor Framework is a good example, it shows how long it would take to move from exit to wholesale change, the legal and political fighting would grind on for years. The key difference is withdrawing from ECHR, and rewriting laws."Re NI, no way will half the population want to be removed from ECHR; we have enough examples of 'British justice' during The Troubles. Having an external legal arbiter outside of The UK was a major step for ending The Troubles, & bringing peace. If the UK announced they would unilaterally leave the ECHR, a Border Poll would likely be called in NI, as well as a call for Scottish Independence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder is leaving the ECHR Farage's long-term view to prevent The UK ever rejoining The EU? If The UK reapplied to The EU (& was accepted), it would be easier being in the ECHR, as it's a requirement of applying to join The EU. Interesting point, however I could see that even after a decade outside the ECHR, we would not be far from where we were 10 years earlier. If a government wanted back in, it would be a quicker turnaround to rejoin ECHR compared to rejoining the EU. Possible, but leaving the EU, then the ECHR & ripping up deals would leave a bad taste taste in EU, ECHR states about the commitment of The UK to agreements, treaties; we have already seen this with Brexit. What would prevent another UK government to remove itself again from the ECHR and/or EU after joining? Ye are not called Dubious Albion for nothing! :P As I have mentioned a few times, leaving the ECHR is relatively easy and short in timeframe, it is changing the policies and protections that sit in the legal framework that would take a considerable amount of time, enough for government changes and direction. I can't see us getting that far away in terms of change that wouldn't be quickly reversed. By the way, I prefer deal makers over dubious
Leaving the ECHR has major implications for the EU/UK trade deal, & for the island of Ireland.
Saying it would be relatively easy sounds very much like 2016
Leaving itself is easy, but the reality is that nothing actually changes the next day. Your point about the Windsor Framework is a good example, it shows how long it would take to move from exit to wholesale change, the legal and political fighting would grind on for years. The key difference is withdrawing from ECHR, and rewriting laws.
Re NI, no way will half the population want to be removed from ECHR; we have enough examples of 'British justice' during The Troubles.
Having an external legal arbiter outside of The UK was a major step for ending The Troubles, & bringing peace.
If the UK announced they would unilaterally leave the ECHR, a Border Poll would likely be called in NI, as well as a call for Scottish Independence. "That is a hurdle, and politically it is hot. However, the idea of leaving the ECHR to basically make changes to the Refugee Convention is Farage's baby. I don't believe Reform will win a GE and I don't believe Farage believes he will win a GE. This direction is in my opinion his way of gaining enough support from the left and right to influence this government and more importantly the next. He is travelling the path of leave or remain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ideas like having representative democracy through a bicaramel parliament, having an independent politically neutral judicary and being signatories to international treaties are anathema to right-wing popularist leaders. These things are too unresponsive to the will of "the people". Right-wing popularists say they want the people to control everything rather than the elite. Change should be rapid and unfetttered. Nothing should be limited by the past and certainly not by anyone considered too intellectual or foreign. As well as identitarianism, there's a particular flavour of libertarianism - where the people must be free to deny freedom to the out group. It's bordering on anarchy and could descend into it were the elite leading the revolution not so intent on authoritarian control of the people." 1) The world changes all the time 2) People's moral views are subjective and everyone tries to protect their own way of life. About 1, well-written political frameworks stand the test of time. The American constitution, in spite of its faults has stood stronger compared to the ECHR or the refugee conventions after so many years. So in spite of attempts to change them, the vast majority still believe in the constitution. And there are ways to amend the constitution too albeit more difficult. About 2, the reason why we have a liberal democracy is because the majority believe in a liberal democracy. Not because some political document says so. Same with women's rights, gay rights, etc. If the majority stop believing in these ideals, a piece of political document isn't going to change anything. The reason why people are wary of outgroups is to protect what we have. If you import half the population size from countries where people believe in Sharia, this would result in loss of women's rights and gay rights in UK. A political document isn't going to stop it. End of the day, the will of the majority will prevail. Democracy just allows people to change things peacefully instead of having to resort to violent revolutions. The political elite have to listen to people instead of taking their position for granted. In this case, they have to change the ECHR legal framework. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1) The world changes all the time 2) People's moral views are subjective and everyone tries to protect their own way of life. About 1, well-written political frameworks stand the test of time. The American constitution, in spite of its faults has stood stronger compared to the ECHR or the refugee conventions after so many years. So in spite of attempts to change them, the vast majority still believe in the constitution. And there are ways to amend the constitution too albeit more difficult. About 2, the reason why we have a liberal democracy is because the majority believe in a liberal democracy. Not because some political document says so. Same with women's rights, gay rights, etc. If the majority stop believing in these ideals, a piece of political document isn't going to change anything. The reason why people are wary of outgroups is to protect what we have. If you import half the population size from countries where people believe in Sharia, this would result in loss of women's rights and gay rights in UK. A political document isn't going to stop it. End of the day, the will of the majority will prevail. Democracy just allows people to change things peacefully instead of having to resort to violent revolutions. The political elite have to listen to people instead of taking their position for granted. In this case, they have to change the ECHR legal framework." The US constitution has had 27 amendments. The ECHR has had 17 amendments (called protocols). They are comaparable in terms of trying to lay out basic rights while being flexible enough to keep up with a changing world. What specifically do you want to change in the ECHR? Right to life Prohibition of torture Prohibition of sl*very and fourced labour Right to liberty and security Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Right to respect for private and family life Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry Right to an effective remedy Prohibition of discrimination Protection of property Right to education Right to free elections Prohibition of imprisonment for debt Freedom of movement Prohibitions of expulsions of nationals Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens Abolition of the death penalty Procedural safeguards relating to expulsions of aliens Right of appeal in criminal matters Compensation for wrongful conviction Right not to be tried or punished twice Equality between spouses | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Leaving itself is easy, but the reality is that nothing actually changes the next day. Your point about the Windsor Framework is a good example, it shows how long it would take to move from exit to wholesale change, the legal and political fighting would grind on for years. The key difference is withdrawing from ECHR, and rewriting laws." From a legislative perspective, it's super easy. Leave the ECHR but pass an act that takes on everything within it wholesale. Amendments can be made to pick and choose as needed. This way there is full continuity and any changes are deliberate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From a legislative perspective, it's super easy. Leave the ECHR but pass an act that takes on everything within it wholesale. Amendments can be made to pick and choose as needed. This way there is full continuity and any changes are deliberate." Although there are some technicalities, this has already happened in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Leaving itself is easy, but the reality is that nothing actually changes the next day. Your point about the Windsor Framework is a good example, it shows how long it would take to move from exit to wholesale change, the legal and political fighting would grind on for years. The key difference is withdrawing from ECHR, and rewriting laws. From a legislative perspective, it's super easy. Leave the ECHR but pass an act that takes on everything within it wholesale. Amendments can be made to pick and choose as needed. This way there is full continuity and any changes are deliberate." Agreed, it makes perfect sense to lift and shift wholesale (I used the term loosely ref Windsor Framework specific), but we already have that in place, just not as a specific UK treaty. The real grind would come with changing the refugee convention that’s where the political fighting and lobbying would start. I think it would be a tall order to see that delivered within a single elected term. Which then brings us to the fact we could, in theory, amend the obligations we are not in favour of under the refugee convention without leaving ECHR, but the blocker becomes Strasbourg, challenges would drag on for years. That is the political crux of the argument, making change today takes too long and risks being blocked. However, bringing it into our legal system would not guarantee it avoids challenge either, far from it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The US constitution has had 27 amendments. The ECHR has had 17 amendments (called protocols). They are comaparable in terms of trying to lay out basic rights while being flexible enough to keep up with a changing world. " US Constitution was written about two centuries before ECHR US constitution can be changed if there is two-thirds support in both senate and house of representatives. ECHR needs unanimous support from all different countries. Good luck getting that on asylum issues. " What specifically do you want to change in the ECHR? Right to life Prohibition of torture Prohibition of sl*very and fourced labour Right to liberty and security Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Right to respect for private and family life Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry Right to an effective remedy Prohibition of discrimination Protection of property Right to education Right to free elections Prohibition of imprisonment for debt Freedom of movement Prohibitions of expulsions of nationals Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens Abolition of the death penalty Procedural safeguards relating to expulsions of aliens Right of appeal in criminal matters Compensation for wrongful conviction Right not to be tried or punished twice Equality between spouses " It's easy to write the title of these rights and pretend like ECHR provides all these. For example, the ECHR article 10 is full of loopholes, it does nothing to give us freedom of speech. If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals?" Are you suggesting there should be a distinction in how much protection is offered depending on the nationality of the assailant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals? Are you suggesting there should be a distinction in how much protection is offered depending on the nationality of the assailant?" Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK could withdraw from the 1951 Geneva convention on the status of refugees, but it would not look good shall we say. But sadly some on the right seem determined to unlearn the lessons of history. " Why would it not look good? There are many countries who are not part of the convention but still take numerous refugees. It gives them the flexibility to adapt their policies depending on the resources they have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easy to write the title of these rights and pretend like ECHR provides all these. For example, the ECHR article 10 is full of loopholes, it does nothing to give us freedom of speech. If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals?" The "loopholes" as you call them are there to provide for sensible exceptions to general principles. In the case of foreign criminals Protocol 7 Article 1 allows even lawfully resident foreign criminals to be expelled. Although the UK hasn't signed or ratified Protocol 7. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's easy to write the title of these rights and pretend like ECHR provides all these. For example, the ECHR article 10 is full of loopholes, it does nothing to give us freedom of speech. If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals? The "loopholes" as you call them are there to provide for sensible exceptions to general principles. In the case of foreign criminals Protocol 7 Article 1 allows even lawfully resident foreign criminals to be expelled. Although the UK hasn't signed or ratified Protocol 7. " Sensible exceptions? The article 10 for free expression has an exception for "moral reasons". Tomorrow, a theocracy could technically pass a law against criticism of religion and claim the "moral reasons" exception. This is how countries are passing blasphemy laws in Europe and the ECHR does nothing about it because the law is toothless when it comes to protecting freedom of expression. As for foreign criminals, can we expel a rapist who claims that his life will be in danger in his home country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would it not look good? There are many countries who are not part of the convention but still take numerous refugees. It gives them the flexibility to adapt their policies depending on the resources they have." Which countries not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention take in numerous refugees? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK could withdraw from the 1951 Geneva convention on the status of refugees, but it would not look good shall we say. But sadly some on the right seem determined to unlearn the lessons of history. " This is not a right wing problem, it is a problem with an outdated treaty. The convention is out of date, if signatories had not buried their heads in the sand and updated the convention at regular intervals, keeping it current, we would not be having this conversation along with many other countries who are also facing the same problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would it not look good? There are many countries who are not part of the convention but still take numerous refugees. It gives them the flexibility to adapt their policies depending on the resources they have. Which countries not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention take in numerous refugees?" Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and most middle eastern countries. Having a global convention that forces you to do it one particular way ironically works against the whole cause. Countries do not have enough flexibility, they can't react to changing circumstances or misuse of the laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals? Are you suggesting there should be a distinction in how much protection is offered depending on the nationality of the assailant? Yes. " In a strong field, that is by far the most problematic thing I've seen you say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals? Are you suggesting there should be a distinction in how much protection is offered depending on the nationality of the assailant? Yes. In a strong field, that is by far the most problematic thing I've seen you say." If someone immigrates here and commits a violent crime, we have to make a choice between protecting the right to safety of people of this country and the right of the violent criminal who is not our responsibility to remain in this country. Looks like an easy choice to make. Your choice is the one that's problematic to me. Why would you hate people in your own country so much? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sensible exceptions? The article 10 for free expression has an exception for "moral reasons". Tomorrow, a theocracy could technically pass a law against criticism of religion and claim the "moral reasons" exception. This is how countries are passing blasphemy laws in Europe and the ECHR does nothing about it because the law is toothless when it comes to protecting freedom of expression." I agree with you that the "moral" clause in Article 10 should't have been included. I suspect it was insisted on by some conservatives who wanted to insert something of a catch-all. But nonetheless it only applies if the reasons are "prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society". The ECtHR works in reaction to cases being brought to it. Has anyone brought a case to the court against blasphemy laws? "As for foreign criminals, can we expel a rapist who claims that his life will be in danger in his home country?" A foreign criminal can be expelled but only to a destination that is relatively safe. Otherwise we would in effect be bringing back the death penalty (although only for foreigners). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals? Are you suggesting there should be a distinction in how much protection is offered depending on the nationality of the assailant? Yes. In a strong field, that is by far the most problematic thing I've seen you say. If someone immigrates here and commits a violent crime, we have to make a choice between protecting the right to safety of people of this country and the right of the violent criminal who is not our responsibility to remain in this country. Looks like an easy choice to make. Your choice is the one that's problematic to me. Why would you hate people in your own country so much?" You literally suggested that citizens of this country should have more protection from crimes committed by foreigners than from the same crimes committed by their fellow citizens. Either that's a massively problematic position or you didn't write what you meant to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sensible exceptions? The article 10 for free expression has an exception for "moral reasons". Tomorrow, a theocracy could technically pass a law against criticism of religion and claim the "moral reasons" exception. This is how countries are passing blasphemy laws in Europe and the ECHR does nothing about it because the law is toothless when it comes to protecting freedom of expression. I agree with you that the "moral" clause in Article 10 should't have been included. I suspect it was insisted on by some conservatives who wanted to insert something of a catch-all. But nonetheless it only applies if the reasons are "prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society". The ECtHR works in reaction to cases being brought to it. Has anyone brought a case to the court against blasphemy laws? " ECHR supports the ban. Search for "The European Convention on Human Rights Bans Desecrating the Quran" This why the first amendment shits all over ECHR when it comes to protecting freedom of expression. The first amendment clearly draws the line on what's wrong. The line is much in favour of freedom of speech. Even if there is a grey area where there are doubts, the recommendation is always to err in favour of freedom of expression. " A foreign criminal can be expelled but only to a destination that is relatively safe. Otherwise we would in effect be bringing back the death penalty (although only for foreigners)." Them going back to a dangerous country is not our problem. Why is his right more important than the victims in this country? If they really cared, they have you know... not commit murder or r&pe. Is it too much of an ask to avoid doing such atrocities to the people of a country that has been charitable to them? You were ranting about how the right wingers are turning people against the elite. Here is the reason why. The people who come up with these idiotic laws are the elite who most probably don't have to face such violent crime in their lives. It's easy to pretend to be morally superior when you are in such a position. But people whose safety is affected by such rulings can't afford to do that. This is why they turned against the elite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If we are taking in terms of rights, how about right to safety from foreign criminals? Are you suggesting there should be a distinction in how much protection is offered depending on the nationality of the assailant? Yes. In a strong field, that is by far the most problematic thing I've seen you say. If someone immigrates here and commits a violent crime, we have to make a choice between protecting the right to safety of people of this country and the right of the violent criminal who is not our responsibility to remain in this country. Looks like an easy choice to make. Your choice is the one that's problematic to me. Why would you hate people in your own country so much? You literally suggested that citizens of this country should have more protection from crimes committed by foreigners than from the same crimes committed by their fellow citizens. Either that's a massively problematic position or you didn't write what you meant to say." That's not what I meant. I meant human rights protection to criminals. I think it's fair to treat foreign criminals differently compared to criminals who are a country's citizens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question is whether the ECHR is being used or abused? We elect politicians to govern on our behalf. All too often national policy is being determined by unelected judges. Theres very good reasons we dont have politically appointed judges.. Go there at your peril.. Yes I get the need for an independent judiciary. But what if they act against the wishes of the majority? That's a perilous slope too. Judges act based on the law. If the majority disagree with their decisions they can take that up with the people who make the laws." Indeed, and the inestimable Mr Farage appears to have reached the same conclusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's not what I meant. I meant human rights protection to criminals. I think it's fair to treat foreign criminals differently compared to criminals who are a country's citizens." Okay, fair enough. In that case are you not risking all of the issues of a two-tier justice system where the outcome is different depending on the criminals' nationality? How does that guarantee equitable justice if the outcome for e.g. the victims is different depending on whether they're victims of a Brit, or let's say an Afghan asylum seeker? What does it do to jurisprudence? Is there not a risk of some crimes going effectively unpunished if all we're doing is sticking the criminal on a plane? And above all, what does it say about us as a society if we treat some people in our care (which prisoners de facto are) better or worse than others, by design? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" That's not what I meant. I meant human rights protection to criminals. I think it's fair to treat foreign criminals differently compared to criminals who are a country's citizens. Okay, fair enough. In that case are you not risking all of the issues of a two-tier justice system where the outcome is different depending on the criminals' nationality? " We already have two tier justice system when it comes to immigrants. Every single country has one. Immigrant criminals can be deported unless they can argue based on some human right laws. And there is valid justification for a two tier justice system here. People who grew up in this society are this society's responsibility. People who grew up elsewhere and then came here aren't. For the same reason why you would still have someone from your family in your home after they misbehaved but would happily kick out a guest who misbehaved. " How does that guarantee equitable justice if the outcome for e.g. the victims is different depending on whether they're victims of a Brit, or let's say an Afghan asylum seeker? What does it do to jurisprudence? Is there not a risk of some crimes going effectively unpunished if all we're doing is sticking the criminal on a plane? " They can be made to go through the sentencing and then put on a plane. " And above all, what does it say about us as a society if we treat some people in our care (which prisoners de facto are) better or worse than others, by design?" It says we care for people who grew up in our own society more than people who come from other societies. Just like every society does, no matter your size. People care for their own immediate family over friends, friends over strangers. There isn't anything morally wrong with it. Why do we prefer jobs to be given to citizens first and look for immigrants only if the job cannot be filled by someone here? Is it also unfair because we are treating citizens better? That's just the natural thing to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ECHR supports the ban. Search for "The European Convention on Human Rights Bans Desecrating the Quran" This why the first amendment shits all over ECHR when it comes to protecting freedom of expression. The first amendment clearly draws the line on what's wrong. The line is much in favour of freedom of speech. Even if there is a grey area where there are doubts, the recommendation is always to err in favour of freedom of expression." Are you referring to E.S v Austria and the 480 euro fine? "Them going back to a dangerous country is not our problem. Why is his right more important than the victims in this country? If they really cared, they have you know... not commit murder or r&pe. Is it too much of an ask to avoid doing such atrocities to the people of a country that has been charitable to them? You were ranting about how the right wingers are turning people against the elite. Here is the reason why. The people who come up with these idiotic laws are the elite who most probably don't have to face such violent crime in their lives. It's easy to pretend to be morally superior when you are in such a position. But people whose safety is affected by such rulings can't afford to do that. This is why they turned against the elite." If we send someone to their likely execution then we are responsible for this. Even if they are the worst murdering scumbag one can imagine then we still don't execute people in the UK. We have higher standards than that. Although given polling I suspect most people on the right want to bring back the death penalty. But that's perhaps too big a subject to squeeze into this thread. What's ironic is that so many on the right actually look up to the elite like Trump and Farage and see them almost as working class heros. It's comical. Although to be fair to Farage he puts on a better show of being one of the people with a fag in one hand and a pint in the other compared with Trump who surrounds himself with gold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question is whether the ECHR is being used or abused? We elect politicians to govern on our behalf. All too often national policy is being determined by unelected judges. Theres very good reasons we dont have politically appointed judges.. Go there at your peril.. Yes I get the need for an independent judiciary. But what if they act against the wishes of the majority? That's a perilous slope too. Judges act based on the law. If the majority disagree with their decisions they can take that up with the people who make the laws. Indeed, and the inestimable Mr Farage appears to have reached the same conclusion." Which is something that seems to pass by those on the left. They are too busy attacking Farage who has clearly read the room, that those in the room become even more convinced those on the outside are crazy and out of touch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you referring to E.S v Austria and the 480 euro fine? " Yes " If we send someone to their likely execution then we are responsible for this. " The criminal is responsible for this. We should make the rules clear when they enter UK. If they commit violent crime, they will be sent back irrespective of what happens back in the country. If they go on to commit crime even after that, it's their responsibility. " We have higher standards than that. " On what basis? The standards invented by the elite. The rest of the world only laughs at Europe for this. No one thinks Europe is holding better standards. " What's ironic is that so many on the right actually look up to the elite like Trump and Farage and see them almost as working class heros. It's comical. Although to be fair to Farage he puts on a better show of being one of the people with a fag in one hand and a pint in the other compared with Trump who surrounds himself with gold. " Though I am not a big fan of them, what they do is much better than telling the working class, "you are stupid", dumping more criminals on them and expecting them to pay the price for the moral framework created by the elite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Whoever, in circumstances where his or her behaviour is likely to arouse justified indignation, publicly disparages or insults a person who, or an object which, is an object of veneration of a church or religious community established within the country, or a dogma, a lawful custom or a lawful institution of such a church or religious community, shall be liable to up to six months’ imprisonment or a day-fine for a period of up to 360 days." " Isn't this basically a long-winded description of blasphemy? " "57. In conclusion the Court finds that in the instant case the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements, and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. They discussed the permissible limits of criticism of religious doctrines versus their disparagement, and found that the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims. In addition, the Court considers that the impugned statements were not phrased in a neutral manner aimed at making an objective contribution to a public debate concerning child marriages (contrast Aydin Tatlav and Giniewski, both cited above), but amounted to a generalisation without a factual basis. Thus, by considering them as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate and classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam " Again, just justifying blasphemy laws. " It wasn't a ban on free expression, It was one particular case where the court agreed with the decision of the Austian courts to impose a modest fine." If you are going to impose fine on someone for expressing their views against a religion, it's a ban on free expression. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The criminal is responsible for this. We should make the rules clear when they enter UK. If they commit violent crime, they will be sent back irrespective of what happens back in the country. If they go on to commit crime even after that, it's their responsibility." A criminal is responsible for their crime. We are responsible for our reaction to it. "On what basis? The standards invented by the elite. The rest of the world only laughs at Europe for this. No one thinks Europe is holding better standards." The rest of the world don't seem to be laughing at us. I get the impression that they generally like what they see, with the exception of some people on the right. "Though I am not a big fan of them, what they do is much better than telling the working class, "you are stupid", dumping more criminals on them and expecting them to pay the price for the moral framework created by the elite." I don't think many people think that people fit into any kind of stereotypical class model anymore, certainly not that eveyone of a particular income level thinks the same way. However, many people on the right do seem rather gullible. They miss what looks to us lefties like obvious misdiirections and sleights of hand by elitist like Trump and Farage. It's like the popularist politicans have worked out exactly how to present the illusion that they are on your side but you are completely blind to the fact that they aren't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you are going to impose fine on someone for expressing their views against a religion, it's a ban on free expression." Assuming it's the same incident I'm thinking of she wasn't simply expressing her views on religion though, was she ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A criminal is responsible for their crime. We are responsible for our reaction to it. " If you go to prison for a crime, you are responsible for it. Not the one who imprisons you. These criminals have free will you know? " The rest of the world don't seem to be laughing at us. I get the impression that they generally like what they see, with the exception of some people on the right. " Would be funny to tell this story to yourself. Tell anyone from a non-european country that you won't deport child rapists and murderers if they face danger in their home country, people will only laugh at this idea for being weak and stupid. The elites pretend to believe they have better morals when they aren't the ones facing consequences of these brain-dead decisions. No other culture has such idiotic morals. Remember that facing danger in home country is just one of the reasons to avoid deportation. There is also things like right to family life. " However, many people on the right do seem rather gullible. They miss what looks to us lefties like obvious misdiirections and sleights of hand by elitist like Trump and Farage. It's like the popularist politicans have worked out exactly how to present the illusion that they are on your side but you are completely blind to the fact that they aren't. " The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you are going to impose fine on someone for expressing their views against a religion, it's a ban on free expression. Assuming it's the same incident I'm thinking of she wasn't simply expressing her views on religion though, was she ?" Taken from the judgement - "The court found her guilty of publicly disparaging an object of veneration of a domestic church or religious society – namely Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam – in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you are going to impose fine on someone for expressing their views against a religion, it's a ban on free expression. Assuming it's the same incident I'm thinking of she wasn't simply expressing her views on religion though, was she ? Taken from the judgement - "The court found her guilty of publicly disparaging an object of veneration of a domestic church or religious society – namely Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam – in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation" " So she was hardly just expressing her views against religion, insult and inciting hatred at an organised seminar maybe she deserved it then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Taken from the judgement - "The court found her guilty of publicly disparaging an object of veneration of a domestic church or religious society – namely Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam – in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation" " And what was it that she said? Context is useful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you are going to impose fine on someone for expressing their views against a religion, it's a ban on free expression. Assuming it's the same incident I'm thinking of she wasn't simply expressing her views on religion though, was she ? Taken from the judgement - "The court found her guilty of publicly disparaging an object of veneration of a domestic church or religious society – namely Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam – in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation" So she was hardly just expressing her views against religion, insult and inciting hatred at an organised seminar maybe she deserved it then " She insulted a religious figure. What's wrong with it? If you believe it should be a punishable offence, you are supporting blasphemy laws and you don't care for freedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought right-wingers were all for subsidiarity. If Austria wants to make its own laws and the ECtHR judges that individual cases brought to it are within the framework of the ECHR then everyone ought to be happy. We aren't talking about a blanket ban here just a single modest fine against some far-right jerk stoking up trouble for political advantage. Personally I would have just taken the piss out of the Freedom Party event. I'm not sure if there's a Scared Ketchup or South Park type of thing going on in Austria. " A fine for doing something, it's a ban. If we impose fine for every homosexual act, do you still say "it's just a fine and not a ban"? The argument is about how well the ECHR protects freedom of expression. It clearly does a terrible job at it if blasphemy laws are imposed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Taken from the judgement - "The court found her guilty of publicly disparaging an object of veneration of a domestic church or religious society – namely Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam – in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation" And what was it that she said? Context is useful. " Calling the Prophet a pedo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought right-wingers were all for subsidiarity. If Austria wants to make its own laws and the ECtHR judges that individual cases brought to it are within the framework of the ECHR then everyone ought to be happy. We aren't talking about a blanket ban here just a single modest fine against some far-right jerk stoking up trouble for political advantage. Personally I would have just taken the piss out of the Freedom Party event. I'm not sure if there's a Scared Ketchup or South Park type of thing going on in Austria. A fine for doing something, it's a ban. If we impose fine for every homosexual act, do you still say "it's just a fine and not a ban"? The argument is about how well the ECHR protects freedom of expression. It clearly does a terrible job at it if blasphemy laws are imposed." Austria has. Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code, called ‘Vilification of Religious Teachings’, criminalizes: “Anyone who publicly disparages a person or thing that is the object of worship of a domestic church or religious society, or a doctrine, [or other] behavior is likely to attract legitimate offense…” This de facto ‘blasphemy’ law has been used in practice to prosecute and fine individuals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought right-wingers were all for subsidiarity. If Austria wants to make its own laws and the ECtHR judges that individual cases brought to it are within the framework of the ECHR then everyone ought to be happy. We aren't talking about a blanket ban here just a single modest fine against some far-right jerk stoking up trouble for political advantage. Personally I would have just taken the piss out of the Freedom Party event. I'm not sure if there's a Scared Ketchup or South Park type of thing going on in Austria. A fine for doing something, it's a ban. If we impose fine for every homosexual act, do you still say "it's just a fine and not a ban"? The argument is about how well the ECHR protects freedom of expression. It clearly does a terrible job at it if blasphemy laws are imposed. Austria has. Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code, called ‘Vilification of Religious Teachings’, criminalizes: “Anyone who publicly disparages a person or thing that is the object of worship of a domestic church or religious society, or a doctrine, [or other] behavior is likely to attract legitimate offense…” This de facto ‘blasphemy’ law has been used in practice to prosecute and fine individuals." Yes, it's a blasphemy law and the ECHR does nothing to stop it. So why pretend like ECHR protects your freedom of expression? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people." I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. The working class includes larges numbers of left-wing people. Do you imagine they think they themselves are stupid because they are working class? Gullibility isn't a class thing. Many of the elite are even more gullible than the poor. Some even imagine that the brave new world they are promoting will be to their advantage. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. Most people have no interest in politics or history. That doesn't make them stupid, it makes them uninformed about politics and history. This is exploited by elitists like Trump and Farage who know how to manipulate people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. " It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. " Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. " Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. " Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. " The country has been getting worse by many factors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This de facto ‘blasphemy’ law has been used in practice to prosecute and fine individuals. Yes, it's a blasphemy law and the ECHR does nothing to stop it. So why pretend like ECHR protects your freedom of expression?" Get real, it wasn't "freedom of expression" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Austria has. Section 188 of the Austrian Criminal Code, called ‘Vilification of Religious Teachings’, criminalizes: “Anyone who publicly disparages a person or thing that is the object of worship of a domestic church or religious society, or a doctrine, [or other] behavior is likely to attract legitimate offense…” This de facto ‘blasphemy’ law has been used in practice to prosecute and fine individuals." How could anyone ever speak out against FGM? (Genuine question)  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. " How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How could anyone ever speak out against FGM? (Genuine question) ""We're not terribly sure that exposing the labia and clitoris of young girls and having a stranger (male) poking around and slicing them off, whilst being held down by close female relatives, is the best idea..." (Channeling Greta) "How dare you! Blasphemer!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here... " Like Belarus and Russia? The only countries in Europe not in the ECHR 
Not great states to associate with | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How could anyone ever speak out against FGM? (Genuine question)
"We're not terribly sure that exposing the labia and clitoris of young girls and having a stranger (male) poking around and slicing them off, whilst being held down by close female relatives, is the best idea..."
(Channeling Greta) "How dare you! Blasphemer!""It's usually the female family members doing the slicing. BAWSO deliver some very disturbing training on the topic. Some images are indelibly imprinted in my mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated." That's the narrative you have been fed. But being left and being working class aren't mutually exclusive. Yes there was a correlation by education and age in the Brexit voting pattern but that's just reflecting the facts, not sneering at the working class. I'm from a very working class background and left school at 16 by the way. "Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here." I wasn't talking about the impact of leavng ECHR then, I was talking about the maximalist wet dream of popularist right-wing leaders. Where all state regulation and taxation (other than consumption tax) is done away with. "The country has been getting worse by many factors." This is a myth that I've been trying to show is false with evidence in recent economic threads. The UK isn't in great shape but things now are much better than they were in the past. But for the strategy I outlined earlier to work people like Trump and Farage have to convince people like you that things are falling apart and we are all doomed if we don't follow them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This de facto ‘blasphemy’ law has been used in practice to prosecute and fine individuals. Yes, it's a blasphemy law and the ECHR does nothing to stop it. So why pretend like ECHR protects your freedom of expression? Get real, it wasn't "freedom of expression" " It was. Read a bit about what freedom of expression means | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here... Like Belarus and Russia? The only countries in Europe not in the ECHR
Not great states to associate with "Why do you pick only states in Europe? You know there is a huge world outside of Europe right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ?" Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How could anyone ever speak out against FGM? (Genuine question)
"We're not terribly sure that exposing the labia and clitoris of young girls and having a stranger (male) poking around and slicing them off, whilst being held down by close female relatives, is the best idea..."
(Channeling Greta) "How dare you! Blasphemer!"
It's usually the female family members doing the slicing. BAWSO deliver some very disturbing training on the topic. Some images are indelibly imprinted in my mind.
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum." In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But being left and being working class aren't mutually exclusive. " Never said it was. The working class has been historically leaning towards left wing. The moment the left wing politicians started to push on their social views, the working class started moving away " Yes there was a correlation by education and age in the Brexit voting pattern but that's just reflecting the facts, not sneering at the working class. " Come on. You know very well that these articles were clearly an attempt to sneer at people who didn't vote the way they wanted. We even have few posters on fab going around making such comments. " I wasn't talking about the impact of leavng ECHR then, I was talking about the maximalist wet dream of popularist right-wing leaders. Where all state regulation and taxation (other than consumption tax) is done away with. " That's the economic side of things which needs a whole different thread. ECHR is about social issues. " This is a myth that I've been trying to show is false with evidence in recent economic threads. The UK isn't in great shape but things now are much better than they were in the past. " Well, one example, the number of sexual assaults has been increasing over the last few years. You may not give a fuck about women's safety. But many do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ?" Sending them back to their own country or a third country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country." They arrive on a boat with no documentation, will you send them to France, Afghanistan or just some random flight with empty seats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here... Like Belarus and Russia? The only countries in Europe not in the ECHR
Not great states to associate with
Why do you pick only states in Europe? You know there is a huge world outside of Europe right?"Erm..... EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights. That's in the original post, funnily enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, one example, the number of sexual assaults has been increasing over the last few years. You may not give a fuck about women's safety. But many do. " From the person, in another thread, didn't see any problem with women being protected BY men, when in actual fact, women need protecting FROM men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, one example, the number of sexual assaults has been increasing over the last few years. You may not give a fuck about women's safety. But many do. From the person, in another thread, didn't see any problem with women being protected BY men, when in actual fact, women need protecting FROM men. " But that's another thread, again! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never said it was. The working class has been historically leaning towards left wing. The moment the left wing politicians started to push on their social views, the working class started moving away" There you go again claiming that the working class all think the same way. "Come on. You know very well that these articles were clearly an attempt to sneer at people who didn't vote the way they wanted. We even have few posters on fab going around making such comments." More stereotyping. A few people said X so everyone on the left agrees with X. "That's the economic side of things which needs a whole different thread. ECHR is about social issues." But as I'm sure you know economic and social issues are closely intertwined. "Well, one example, the number of sexual assaults has been increasing over the last few years. You may not give a fuck about women's safety. But many do." When all else fails insinuate that your debating opponent does not care about women's safety. Sad but predictable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can't imagine France agreeing to accept returns "You’ve got more chance of Evri taking a return than France.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country." Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? " Which safe country would that be ? Would they have to volunteer to accept or should the government bribe the Taliban to take some and promise to be kind to them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And there is valid justification for a two tier justice system here. People who grew up in this society are this society's responsibility. People who grew up elsewhere and then came here aren't. For the same reason why you would still have someone from your family in your home after they misbehaved but would happily kick out a guest who misbehaved. " In above scenario, what if someone comes here, fulfills all the requirements to be a citizen, a.k.a. naturalised, and commits a crime? He is a citizen, in the eyes of the law, there is no distinction between a citizen who was born here and naturalised, shall we send them back? Or someone who was born overseas to British parents, grew up somewhere and comes to the UK when he or she is an adult and commits crime? Shall we send them back where they were born? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The refugee convention is not fit for purpose in 2025." That's quite a bold assertion. Can you defend that statement and explain yourself ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? Which safe country would that be ? Would they have to volunteer to accept or should the government bribe the Taliban to take some and promise to be kind to them?" I was hoping the person who suggested a third country might elaborate. Your guess is as good as mine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. They arrive on a boat with no documentation, will you send them to France, Afghanistan or just some random flight with empty seats " Hence I mentioned third country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here... Like Belarus and Russia? The only countries in Europe not in the ECHR
Not great states to associate with
Why do you pick only states in Europe? You know there is a huge world outside of Europe right?
Erm..... EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights. That's in the original post, funnily enough. "So? Are you saying that European countries alone are special and are incapable of running a country without being part of ECHR? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, one example, the number of sexual assaults has been increasing over the last few years. You may not give a fuck about women's safety. But many do. From the person, in another thread, didn't see any problem with women being protected BY men, when in actual fact, women need protecting FROM men. " Protected by good men from bad men. Seriously, how hard is it to understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There you go again claiming that the working class all think the same way. " Strawman argument. I never said "all". " More stereotyping. A few people said X so everyone on the left agrees with X. " If media does it, it won't be seen as "few people" doing it. " But as I'm sure you know economic and social issues are closely intertwined. " Little bit, not much. " When all else fails insinuate that your debating opponent does not care about women's safety. Sad but predictable. " If you did, you wouldn't be sacrificing women's safety at the altar just so that you can pretend to have superior moral values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? Which safe country would that be ? Would they have to volunteer to accept or should the government bribe the Taliban to take some and promise to be kind to them?" Who cares if Taliban is kind or not kind to rapists and murderers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well, one example, the number of sexual assaults has been increasing over the last few years. You may not give a fuck about women's safety. But many do. From the person, in another thread, didn't see any problem with women being protected BY men, when in actual fact, women need protecting FROM men. Protected by good men from bad men. Seriously, how hard is it to understand? " And how do women know the good from the bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? Which safe country would that be ? Would they have to volunteer to accept or should the government bribe the Taliban to take some and promise to be kind to them? Who cares if Taliban is kind or not kind to rapists and murderers?" Ok so your not going to send all asylum seekers home, just the murderers and rapists. Where will they be tried for these crimes ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here... Like Belarus and Russia? The only countries in Europe not in the ECHR
Not great states to associate with
Why do you pick only states in Europe? You know there is a huge world outside of Europe right?
Erm..... EUROPEAN Court of Human Rights. That's in the original post, funnily enough.
So? Are you saying that European countries alone are special and are incapable of running a country without being part of ECHR?"The thread is about the UK leaving the ECHR and the overturning of the Equalities Act and the impact on people in the UK. There's no suggestion that countries are more or less capable from being in or out of the ECHR. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Strawman argument. I never said "all"." You said... "The working class has been historically leaning towards left wing. The moment the left wing politicians started to push on their social views, the working class started moving away" I don't see any qualifying language to indicate that really you meant only some of the working class. "If you did, you wouldn't be sacrificing women's safety at the altar just so that you can pretend to have superior moral values." Says someone posturing as a morally superior being. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. They arrive on a boat with no documentation, will you send them to France, Afghanistan or just some random flight with empty seats Hence I mentioned third country " Which country do you think will accept them ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. They arrive on a boat with no documentation, will you send them to France, Afghanistan or just some random flight with empty seats Hence I mentioned third country " Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? Please qualify. You seem to have omitted to answer this earlier on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. They arrive on a boat with no documentation, will you send them to France, Afghanistan or just some random flight with empty seats Hence I mentioned third country Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? Please qualify. You seem to have omitted to answer this earlier on. " Whichever country takes them first. We don't care what happens to rapists and murderers when they are sent there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The left is losing most of the working class votes to the right. Just like they did during Brexit. As always, instead of saying directly that the working class or stupid, they indirectly blame them by saying that people who voted the other side are "gullible". It's just a lame story the left wingers tell themselves for their inability to understand the problems faced by other people. I wasn't talking about the working class being gullible I was talking about the right. It's just an indirect attack on the working class because you are all worried about saying it directly. I still remember the articles written be left wing newspapers comparing education levels of remain and leave voters, sneering at leave voters for being uneducated. Even though if their wet dream came true society would collapse and they'd have to hide in tiny fortresses being served by robots. Many countries aren't part of ECHR and are doing fine. If you believe that the society would collapse because of leaving ECHR, you are the gullible one here. Much of the agenda is driven by the narrative that the country is f*cked and people say - yeah, my life could be better so that must be true. Everything else flows from this. The country has been getting worse by many factors. How would the UK benefit by leaving the ECHR ? Dealing with criminals better. Reduce spending on asylum. In what way ? Toss criminals and asylum seekers in the sea ? Sending them back to their own country or a third country. They arrive on a boat with no documentation, will you send them to France, Afghanistan or just some random flight with empty seats Hence I mentioned third country Their own country, where they are likely to be killed, for arguments sake, or a third, safe, country? Please qualify. You seem to have omitted to answer this earlier on. Whichever country takes them first. We don't care what happens to rapists and murderers when they are sent there." You mean YOU don't care. Please don't assume anyone else shares your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Strawman argument. I never said "all". You said... "The working class has been historically leaning towards left wing. The moment the left wing politicians started to push on their social views, the working class started moving away" I don't see any qualifying language to indicate that really you meant only some of the working class. " I have seen people tell Men are dangerous to women. Does that mean all men? " Says someone posturing as a morally superior being. " You are the one expecting other people to follow "standards" that the elite set. Others just want their own safety and do not let some elitists trade it away just to feed their own moral superiority complex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
