Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

It came across as a rather fatuous and obtuse comment.

I doubt these protestors give a sh*t about the 'inalienable human rights' of those they hate.

They are in Britain, no doubt as British citizens, yet they have no interest in assimilating into British culture however peacefully that process may be allowed to evolve, if such a lunatic assumption (integration) was ever even a remote possibility or ambition for people like these.

By their own proclamations they wish Islam to dominate and would destroy anything in its way.

Without doubt, they are a proselytizing 'enemy within' and by their own agenda they are hateful and non humanitarian.Yes, 'scum'.

The fact that the English Defence League exists speaks volumes about the way many British people feel their way of life is being purposefully and strategically eradicated and subverted at an unprecedented and alarming rate, and yes, there will always be thugs who attach themselves to such organisations and have no genuine political agenda beyond a good scrap.

Our elected politicians are doing nothing to address certain realities beyond voicing vacuous promises and soundbites, largely because they are on the whole 'career politicians' and the main criteria for getting elected in recent times is excelling in media skills and spin; policy is an almost redundant concept.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

It would be impossible to have a fundamentalist Islamic state under universal, inalienable human rights, wouldn't it? So why do you object to the defence of such a powerful weapon?

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

These particularly odious protagonists appear by their chants and placards to be aggresively advocating a univeral fundamentalist Islamic state meaning by default they have already accepted the relinguishing of their own 'inalienable human rights'; such an idea is an irrelevant concept to them since subservience and obedience to dogma and doggerel has already been embraced and accepted.

Your proposition is more theoretical than real, and do you not think the sweeping away of such humanitarian notions as inalienable human rights is at the core of their belief/doctrine?

I feel no obligation to defend their human rights when it is a foregone conclusion that their agenda is to deny me mine.

I do not see it as a 'powerful weapon' that we afford them such privilege, infact I take it as grotesquely insulting and if that implies a limitation on freedom of speech and demonstration then I advocate there are times and circumstances when such measures are necessary and in the national interest.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

I feel no obligation to defend their human rights when it is a foregone conclusion that their agenda is to deny me mine.

I do not see it as a 'powerful weapon' that we afford them such privilege, infact I take it as grotesquely insulting and if that implies a limitation on freedom of speech and demonstration then I advocate there are times and circumstances when such measures are necessary and in the national interest.

Well said :thumbsup:

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Human rights are universal -- they apply to everyone.
Human rights are inalienable -- they cannot be removed.
Human rights are not a privilege.

However, it is a privilege to live in a country where human rights are respected.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Human rights are not universally applied.

Human rights are only theoretically inalienable - they are repeatedly suppressed and removed.

Human rights should not be a privilege - though in the real world, they are discretionary.

Depending on your viewpoint - and we obviously disagree - some privileges are willfully abused.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Why the need to give these radical extremist groups frequent publicity on a Goa forum? Baroness Warsi on TV has previously described one member as a "Nutter" .
As to the EDL they have targeted our town on four occasions when there were military events in order to provoke the small Moslem community who live their ordinary peaceful lives here. They failed each time; the only arrests were of their own members. On one occasion I saw them arriving by coach in the centre car park, all in late teens and early 20s wearing identical woolly hats and pockets bulging with beer cans.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Well!! they should respect OURS and not ram Islam down our throats after all this is our Country and if they live here they should respect that and live by UK rules.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

On the above, I'm in agreement.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

Oh gawd!

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

SHOULD BRITAIN DITCH THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

SCORES of foreign murderers, rapists and violent offenders are still living in the UK after using human rights laws to beat ­deportation, shock figures reveal.


Some 88 dangerous criminals, including two killers and seven rapists, were allowed to stay after resorting to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The other 79 offenders were convicted and jailed for serious sexual and violent offences.


All will have claimed they had the “right to a family life” or faced danger in their home countries to avoid being kicked out after being served deportation orders.



taken from Daily Express.

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

If we got rid of those 167, we would still have plenty of criminals left would we not??
Many lawers agree that the European Convention needs updating, and wording more clearly defined but that is not the same as ditching it. Remember why we have the Convention; it was introduced after the 2nd war and because of the atrocities to Jewish people (the Nazis thought of them as 'scum').

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

The Nazis believed Jews to be genetically inferior and embarked upon a eugenics programme to eradicate them - and other non members of the 'Aryan master race' - based on false notions of genetic superiority.

The word 'scum' is generally used as a commonplace insult meaning 'the lowest of the low' and does not to my knowledge invoke an invitation to genocide.

Your correlation in this context is tenuous beyond the fact that the ECHR was certainly drafted post WWII.

Deporting 167 criminals is a start - unless you enjoy your tax contributions being used to shelter and sustain them indefinitely. Whether we would still have a lot of criminals or not is a bit silly.

Personally, I believe the UK has many greater fiscal priorities but then maybe I'm being a bit harsh advocating rescinding certain human rights of terrorists?

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

http://library.thinkquest.org/C01260...tml?tql-iframe

As stated the 'rights' in the Declaration formed the ground work for example the European Convention.

This discussion started when a suggestion was made to withdraw human rights of a group of lunatic protesters!!

Re: In To-day's Newspapers
 

How many of those advocating the Human Rights Act have actually fully read it in its entirity and fully understand the whole of it?
If you actually do this fully you would actually realise that prior to this act being enforced in the UK, the majority of it was already covered within existing British law..... except the sections which seem to be frequently used by terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants to avoid deportation !

Of course, that is just my opinion, having studied the law in some detail...

Dread - x