An Iraqi immigrant, with a criminal record, banned from driving, runs over and kills a 12 year old girl. He runs off, only to be caught as he left his wallet and phone behind.

He is found guilty and, despite already being earmarked for deprtation, is allowed to stay in this country because he has fathered 2 children, and his human rights to a family would be infringed if he was sent back to Iraq.

Apparently, the human rights of the parents of the girl have no bearing on this. They have lost them due to this "man" murdering their child. Thei person has a record of dangerous driving, drugs, violence and theft. But he is considered suitable to stay in the United Kingdom because he has fathered children.

What kind of father will he be? What will he contribute to the country? What kind of message does this send to every other illegal immigrant who wants to sponge of the UK system?

I feel ashamed and saddened to be British, once something to be proud of. The law in this case is a complete farce and I have given up pretending that the UK is a good place to be. I hope my contract in Norway stretches out as long as possible as I really don't want to go back to the disgustingly one sided society we have created.

Andy   

The article in question

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12007100

Quoting skidmarks (Thread starter): I feel ashamed and saddened to be British, once something to be proud of. The law in this case is a complete farce and I have given up pretending that the UK is a good place to be. I hope my contract in Norway stretches out as long as possible as I really don't want to go back to the disgustingly one sided society we have created.

Yep, and who do we have to thank for all this nonsense? Yeah Gordon Brown and "Europe" - it stinks, it sucks and its downright unbelievable really. The sooner the laws are changed to stop this kind of thing, the better.

Oh and, why does the guy still bleat that "its not safe back home" (Iraq) any more? He came from the North of the country, which has been relatively peaceful now for a long time! I suppose the free house, cash and all that stuff he's been "given" by the [previous] British government is too good for him - something he will not get back home......


Makes you wonder "why" myself and thousands of other troops were in the gulf to start with.....

[Edited 2010-12-17 05:03:54]

Quoting skidmarks (Thread starter): human rights to a family would be infringed if he was sent back to Iraq.

He lost his right to human rights as soon as he committed his first crime.

The sad thing with this issue is that there probably are several similar cases all over Europe with lax laws preventing the deportation of criminals to their home countries. And even in cases where possible, it takes years of paperwork to get the 'job' done.

This is sad for the parents of the girl who was killed as a result of this man's actions. I can understand the outrage that people may feel, but the parents of the dead child will not get their daughter back whatever happens.

As you haven't provided a link to in-depth details of the basis to the decision it is hard to judge it. In your summary you don't say whether the man was living with the children that he fathered and in a marital or de facto relationship with the mother (assuming that the children are from the same mother). You also haven't said whether the children are British which they might be if the mother is. If the answer is yes, those children and the mother can not be deported. The man's deportation would have meant splitting up the family if the mother and children did not wish to, or could not afford to join him overseas.

These circumstances may have influenced the decision to allow him to stay. The court may have not simply looked at his right to a family, but the rights of the children, which include the right to remain with their parents unless they are at risk. Either way, it is a sad situation.

Cameron wanted to re-write the Human Rights Act or replace it with a British Bill of Rights. That was in 2006. In 2008, he again called for the Act to be scrapped. Glegg, however, supports the Act. So far this Act has been used to halt the deportation of several scumbags. The criminal's rights trumping the victim's rights it seems.

Quoting Quokka (Reply 3):

I did try to find a link detailing this but I was getting ready for work and couldn't find one.

You are right in what you say regarding the decision to allow him to stay. They considered the fact he had children and were looking at their welfare. However, I, and many others, feel this is simply a tool to allow him to remain. In my view, which is shared by many, many people in UK, is that by running the girl over while disqualified and leaving the scene, he demonstarted a singular lack of compassion and by his actions condemmed himself. Which in turn overshadows his "human rights". He has no thought for others, why on earth should others have a thought for him?

This is an emmotional subject and it is easy to get caught up in a wave of revulsion and anger. But it does demonstarte the extent to which the rights of ordinary British people have been eroded in order to satisfy the demands of the so-called Human Rights Campaigners, who seem intent on undermining any sense of decency and compassion in this country in order to allow refugees to remain here despite their obvious criminal bent and taking no account of their total lack of usefulness to the country.

It may be correct in Law, but the law is shown to be flawed where the rights of others are concerned. The man who lost his daughter to this Iraqui has no rights, no justice, no daughter. What happens to him?

Andy   

Quoting skidmarks (Reply 5): It may be correct in Law, but the law is shown to be flawed where the rights of others are concerned. The man who lost his daughter to this Iraqi has no rights, no justice, no daughter. What happens to him?

I don't understand this comment. Weren't his rights met with the conviction and subsequent jail time of the Iraqi immigrant? Why is deportation required to give justice to the father? If his daughter had been run over by a British citizen, I assume they can cause accidents too, he could not have had a similar feeling of injustice. I can see a link between the illegal status and the matter of deportation but not between the accident and deportation.

This man has lost his daughter. The killer serves 4 months in jail and escapes a deportation order, which has already been made, by managing to father two children. You call that Justice?

The link is the fact that this Iraqi has managed to remain in this country, which he entered illegally, free to continually break the law of this country under a technicality. He has ruined a family who feel they have not had justice served. And I agree. As do many other lawabiding citizens of this country.

I wonder how you would feel had this been you. Having listened to the father today I am amazed at his composure and cannot believe how he managed to maintain his dignity while trying to make sense of this decision.

The man is a criminal, he is here illegally and he is escaping punishment by a technicality in law. That is what I am angry about.

Andy   

Quoting wolbo (Reply 6): I don't understand this comment. Weren't his rights met with the conviction and subsequent jail time of the Iraqi immigrant

Wolbo, I agree with this ststement, however this person has proved to be a habitual breaker of British law especially ehere that concerns driving. He has been given many chances in the past and abused them all esulting in the death of this little girl.
There comes a point as a foreigner when if you keep abusing your host country's laws then you have to leave. Just look at this article to see the list of abuses before and after the little girls death


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rahim-let-girl-12-die-stay-UK.html

littlevc10

Quoting skidmarks (Thread starter): Apparently, the human rights of the parents of the girl have no bearing on this.

Quoting aviationmaster (Reply 2): He lost his right to human rights as soon as he committed his first crime.

You guys should perhaps stop talking about things so boldly you don't understand.

1) Human rights are the individual's rights facing administrative power.
In other words: If I (a private person) kill you, I would commit a crime, but no human rights violation. If your local major or governor orders to have you killed, he would commit a human rights violation.
Same with censorship and similar things. Only administrative institutions can censor (though shouldn'be allowed to), not newspapers or bloggers.

2) A human, no matter how sickening, cannot lose his human rights.

[Edited 2010-12-17 10:42:54]

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9):

Yuo are probably quite right. I don't understand how someone who kills has any "human rights" when he takes the life of another person. Whether he be "the State" or an individual.

What I do understand is that he has claimed his "Human Rights" would be violated if he were deported, as he was going to be, because he managed to father children.

I also understand that the family of the girl have no human rights because they have only lost their child and off course, in the eyes of the law, that doesn't matter a fig.

Frankly, anyone who actually condones this sort of crap is condoning violence, theft, murder and any other crime. The law has to be precise, it has to differentiate but it also has to be just. And, I am afraid it fails on this bigtime.

Whatever the legal fraternity think, whatever the liberal do gooders may say, this man murdered (for want of a better word) a girl and got away with it thanks to a law that says he must have some sort of rights. Maybe this is why the dregs of the world are making their way to the UK because they know they can do what they will with impunity because the feelings of the populace are inconsequential. And the rest of the world couldn't give a toss as long as it doesn't happen there.

Andy   

Criminals having more rights than the victims... not surprised.
Bleeding heart activists tripping over themselves to help illegal immigrants exploit the system...not surprised at all.

What left me completely flabbergasted is the fact that he ended up with just 4 MONTHS sentence for causing an accident with such fatal counsequnces, causing it while being under driving ban and on top of that leaving the accident scene without providing first aid.
I'm used to criminal sentences being too often a total joke over here, but this is absurd even by local standards.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9): 2) A human, no matter how sickening can lose his human rights.

Surely you meant "can NOT" lose his human rights?

Quoting skidmarks (Reply 10): Yuo are probably quite right. I don't understand how someone who kills has any "human rights" when he takes the life of another person.

I'm sorry to hear you don't understand the concept of human rights.
It is a bit like saying "I don't understand democracy: how can people with an IQ less than 80 be entitled to vote?"
Both, democracy and human rights, are two main achievements of modern, civilized times. Many have died or were incarcerated (others still are) to bring these ideas to life.

Quoting skidmarks (Reply 10): What I do understand is that he has claimed his "Human Rights" would be violated if he were deported,

Just because he claims that he his human rights would be revoked if he were deported, doens't mean it is true.
I cannot tell if this would be true, and if yes he should face justice in Britain.

Quoting skidmarks (Reply 10): I also understand that the family of the girl have no human rights because they have only lost their child and off course, in the eyes of the law, that doesn't matter a fig.

As I said everyone is entitled to the same human rights.
Of course it does matter that the girl died. Itz would even matter if it wasn't the daughter but an old, ugly, loathsome stepfather. Perhaps not to the public, though.
The man who killed the daughter should be brought to justice. Bringing somebody to justice is inherently different , not to say mutually exclusive, from depriving somebody of his or her human rights.

Quoting aloges (Reply 12): Surely you meant "can NOT" lose his human rights?

*gagh* Yes, please! Thanks.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13): I'm sorry to hear you don't understand the concept of human rights

I didn't say that I didn't understand the concept. I simply don't understand the idea that someone who breaks as many laws as they can can have the same rights as anyone else who doesn't break the law. Laws are made to act as guidleines to behaviour. Anyone who blatantly flouts those laws should not expect them to apply when and how they choose.

Andy   

Things like this make me ashamed to be English.

Send him home, send his kids home and have done with it. We have enough shit of our own and we have enough of it in Iraq with UK service men being killed, we don't need more of it, thanks.

There's this culture of not offending immigrants in this country, and it's a load of crap. If you are here legally, then fine, that's ok. If you aren't you leave your rights at the Channel Tunnel. You are automatically a criminal if you are here illegally, and criminals have no human rights. Prisons don't give them any, I don't see why criminals should get rights outside of the Prison system.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13): I'm sorry to hear you don't understand the concept of human rights.

I don't think you understand the concept that some people have shown by their anti-social behavior are not deserving of "human rights". Do you think:

Hitler deserved "human rights"?

Stalin deserved "human rights"?

Mao deserved "human rights"?

Pol Pot deserved "human rights"?

A habitual criminal, that has shown no respect for the law, kills a 12 year old girl while breaking a law, is just like my other four examples, only on a smaller scale and he deserves "human rights"

I don't get how sending a guy back to Iraq violates his human rights. It isn't like the government is hanging the guy upside down or something. Are the people who are living in Iraq having their human rights violated just because of where they live?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9): A human, no matter how sickening, cannot lose his human rights.

Maybe, but who grants those rights?

Some say God grants humans rights, but then there are lots of people who don't believe in god. Governments grant you rights because governments can take them away. Time and time again we see governments step on the rights of individuals. Rights can vary. I beleive it is my god given right to own firearms, but there are a lot of people who disagree with my right.

Apparently if he was sent back home he claims his human rights to have a family life would be violated, well

1] If we sent him to jail he would be seperated from his children and this would also deprive him of a family life, so surely this is not an option

2] If he is so keen on a family life he can take his family back home with him, so his Human rights would not be infringed

This court's power I feel should be examined and I believe limited, as it has now got out of hand when a group of judges can over rule national laws that were introduced by a democraticlly elected government.

An example is the recent case of the judgement from this court regarding abortion in Ireland. Whether you like this law or not it was kept on the books after 3 seperate referendums in Ireland on the matter, which sounds very democratic to me. So why should some group of judges rule against it.

littlevc10

Quoting skidmarks (Reply 15): I didn't say that I didn't understand the concept. I simply don't understand the idea that someone who breaks as many laws as they can can have the same rights as anyone else who doesn't break the law.

This is not what I am saying, nor should that happen. Somebody who breaks the law, will get deprived of some rights, such as to roam freely. This is no human rights violation, unless the trial itself was not fair.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 17): I don't think you understand the concept that some people have shown by their anti-social behavior are not deserving of "human rights".

Oh, I do understand the concept of "an eye for an eye", hence I don't like it.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 17): Hitler deserved "human rights"? Stalin deserved "human rights"? Mao deserved "human rights"? Pol Pot deserved "human rights"?

Difficult to bear, but yes, they would. Otherwise you would have to tell were we are supposed to draw the line. Which criminal offender deserve human rights and which don't?
Would you deprive them of their humans rights before or after they were found guilty? And which human rights exactly would you deprive them of? All of them or "only" some? Would you be allowed to steal his 2-day ration of food or shoot a bullet in his knee? Please elaborate.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 18): I don't get how sending a guy back to Iraq violates his human rights. It isn't like the government is hanging the guy upside down or something.

Hence I said not to have an opinion on whether deporting him would be a human rights violation or not.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 18): Maybe, but who grants those rights?

It is not that somebody comes and grants you those rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. It is not least the direct result of Shoah and WWII.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 18): Governments grant you rights because governments can take them away. Time and time again we see governments step on the rights of individuals.

Hence the idea of universal human rights, a set of basic rights, that can and must not be infringed. Never.

[Edited 2010-12-17 12:54:06]

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 20): Difficult to bear, but yes, they would. Otherwise you would have to tell were we are supposed to draw the line

Not having read the Universal Declaration of Human rights could there not be times when giving one person their rights maybe infringe upon the rights of others. Forcing a movable line even though that may not be what is wanted?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 22): Not having read the Universal Declaration of Human rights could there not be times when giving one person their rights maybe infringe upon the rights of others.

No it is not possible, as human rights are a bunch of very basic rights, plus they are the right of individuals facing administrative power. Human rights do not say that you must not kill somebody else if you own life or well-being is at stake.

You should read them btw, after all they are your rights too.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 23): No it is not possible, as human rights are a bunch of very basic rights, plus they are the right of individuals facing administrative power. Human rights do not say that you must not kill somebody else if you own life or well-being is at stake. You should read them btw, after all they are your rights too.

Maybe I am thinking along the lines of certain laws that could include or exclude someone. To the person making the law it may seem like a right but to anotherr it may not. But thanks for the answer.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 20): Difficult to bear, but yes, they would.

That is why skidmarks's countries criminal justice system is such a mess. People can not see right from wrong.

474218, I don't think it is justified to say that Britain's judicial system was in a mess because of this single occurrence.

While I concur that it is at the very least embarrassing for him to stress his "human right to enjoy family life" (if he really did say so) after he has ruined another family's life forever, I don't even see what this or a seemingly very mild verdict has to do with human rights at all. If he was sentenced to say: 12 years imprisonment he could not demand not to get imprisoned in order to enjoy family life either.

Maybe you are right by saying (some) people could not tell right from wrong, but depriving others of their human rights is never right. The dictators you listed above were - well: dictators. They committed serious human rights violation every day they were in power (the fact not withstanding the Universal Declaration was only drafted in 1948, three years after Hitler's dead). So if anything, human rights need to be enforced more rigorously rather than diluted.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26): 474218, I don't think it is justified to say that Britain's judicial system was in a mess because of this single occurrence.

Having lived in the UK for a little over two years, I have experience the UK judicial system and was not impressed.

My favorite was when a man was on trial for sexual assault. His wife testified that he was with her when the assault took place. After he was found guilty they charged his wife with perjury.

Their theory was since he was found guilty, she had to be laying when she testified she was with him at the time of the assault?

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 16): Things like this make me ashamed to be English.

Quoting skidmarks (Thread starter): I feel ashamed and saddened to be British, once something to be proud of.

While I 100% agree that this guy should be deported, I think this type of reaction is also just a result of S**t-stirring manipulation by the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun. Overall, human rights law is important in the modern world. And funny enough, the likes of Nick Griffin will run crying for its protection the moment it is convenient even after railing against it if it helps immigrants.

Just because the law is good overall does not mean there won't be abuses and misjudgments. Yes, there are a few absolutely ridiculous cases (hook preacher and so forth)--but the same happens in most other countries (And there are by the way also examples I'm sure of UK citizens getting away with things elsewhere).

The point is that these miscarriages of justice don't mean that the whole country is going to pot, it definitely doesn't mean that all asylum seekers are getting free televisions and Ferraris. And there are also plenty cases of abuse of legitimate asylum seekers that only the left-wing papers report, while that is ignored by the right-wing papers that only report the spongers and scammers. Really, the truth is somewhere in between; not all asylum seekers are angels, and certainly not all are spongers. The level of outrage generated about this type of thing is all part of an orchestrated campaign to generate anti-Europe and anti-immigrant "fury" to sell tabloids.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 17): I don't think you understand the concept that some people have shown by their anti-social behavior are not deserving of "human rights". Do you think:

Basic Human Rights: Life, Liberty, Property.
5th Amendment to US Constitution: "No person shall be...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The way I interpret that says "If you screw up, we can take away your rights." And in fact, if you commit a crime, some or all of your rights are taken away.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 21): Hence the idea of universal human rights, a set of basic rights, that can and must not be infringed. Never.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26): So if anything, human rights need to be enforced more rigorously rather than diluted.

So you would support military intervention in China, Iran, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. where human rights violations are occurring daily and are well known? If so, would you sign up to be part of such a military campaign? If you don't support military intervention but rather something else, what do you think should be done to sway their minds and and not only get them to stop, but also bring those guilty to justice?

Quoting 474218 (Reply 27): My favorite was when a man was on trial for sexual assault. His wife testified that he was with her when the assault took place. After he was found guilty they charged his wife with perjury. Their theory was since he was found guilty, she had to be laying when she testified she was with him at the time of the assault?

Depending on what evidence was used to convict, that actually makes sense. If his DNA was found on the victim, that would prove he was with the victim, even if the wife "testified" that she was with him at the time. What if the prosecutor presented clear evidence to show she was lying too? I'm not saying she was lying or that he was in fact guilty, I'm just saying that this shouldn't be a surprise.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 29): So you would support military intervention in China, Iran, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc. where human rights violations are occurring daily and are well known?

No. Whether or it is justified to start a war to promote or enforce human rights must be considered for each individual case.
But first and foremost it is a completely different question than discussed here.

[Edited 2010-12-17 17:10:54]

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 30): No. Whether or it is justified to start a war to promote or enforce human rights must be considered for each individual case. But first and foremost it is a completely different question than discussed here.

First, nice attempt at a dodge. But it didn't work. We already have moved beyond the one person being addressed in the OP by discussing Hitler and Pol-Pot among others - and you were even part of that. Amusing how you try to shy away now.
Second, since you couldn't answer my question of "If you don't support military intervention but rather something else, what do you think should be done to sway their minds and and not only get them to stop, but also bring those guilty to justice?" with some form of an answer, are you admitting to only being a champion of human rights on the internet, but admitting that that's as far as you'll go (you won't put any expense or burden on yourself or your country)? I left it open for you. Military action was one possible route. That left the chance for you to bring up others. But you didn't. Yet you're the one who said this:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 21): Hence the idea of universal human rights, a set of basic rights, that can and must not be infringed. Never.

Yet human rights are infringed on all. Many times over. So when they are infringed on in such countries, why do you not propose action of some form? Surprises me that you didn't. No, actually wait - I'm not really surprised at all. It never ceases to amuse me that those who are most vocal about "human rights" are always the ones who are least willing to take or even support action to defend them (and often are the most vocal about OBJECTING to such actions). But if "defending human rights on the internet" makes you feel better about yourself and makes you sleep easier at night, more power to you.

[Edited 2010-12-17 18:09:34]

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 31): First, nice attempt at a dodge.

It wasn't.
I said "no". I said I would not support attacking the countries or one of the countries you mentioned. Can I be any more clear?

I also said

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 30): Whether or it is justified to start a war to promote or enforce human rights must be considered for each individual case.

I wasn't opposed to going to war in Kosovo, I wasn't opposed to going to war in Afghanistan. As for Iraq, I always said toppling Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was the only good thing that came out of the war.

So there are cases when war, as last resort, is justified - the lesser of two evils. Most often, however, it is not.
Having said that, the rest of your post, especially the part where you blame me of being "a champion of human rights on the Internet" only (without even knowing me, who worked for amnesty international for more than ten years and did a couple of more things) , could be dropped. Besides, stressing the value of human rights on the Internet can have an effect on some individuals if they then have second thoughts on their previous stance that it would be ok to deprive e.g. criminals of their rights.
By the way: what have you done so far, other than doing some saber-rattling on the Internet? Just asking.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 31): Second, since you couldn't answer my question of "If you don't support military intervention but rather something else, what do you think should be done to sway their minds and and not only get them to stop, but also bring those guilty to justice?" with some form of an answer, are you admitting to only being a champion of human rights on the internet,

Relax, I just accidentally skipped that part. There's diplomatic pressure, sanctions, support of the opposition, and if all those measures fail, then it doesn't necessarily mean that war would be the lesser of two evils. How this makes me "a champion of human rights on the internet" only is beyond me, but that's probably just your aggressive and premature discussion style.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 31): Yet human rights are infringed on all. Many times over.

That was never disputed, or was it? Your constitution, especially your Bill of Rights, our Grundgesetz (or its first 10 articles) as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights draft an ideal world. Sadly our world is not ideal, and if you think it would make the world more ideal would we start battling against China - well that's your opinion, not mine.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32): By the way: what have you done so far, other than doing some saber-rattling on the Internet? Just asking.

I'm in the military. I'm not blood thirsty by any means, but I am looking forward to the opportunity to deploy, if I get the chance, to go make a difference in one of these corners in the world where grave human rights abuses occur.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32): There's diplomatic pressure, sanctions, support of the opposition, and if all those measures fail, then it doesn't necessarily mean that war would be the lesser of two evils.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And maybe my history is a bit fuzzy, but just how many times have diplomatic pressures and sanctions been able to stop a government responsible for human rights abuses from continuing and how have such sanctions worked at bringing those responsible to justice?

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32): and if all those measures fail, then it doesn't necessarily mean that war would be the lesser of two evils.

You don't have to go to all out war. That doesn't mean a few Tomahawk Cruise Missiles or JDAMs into someone's house or special forces operations to target key people are bad ideas though.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32): Besides, stressing the value of human rights on the Internet can have an effect on some individuals if they then have second thoughts on their previous stance that it would be ok to deprive e.g. criminals of their rights.

Never ceases to amuse me how some people put the rights of criminals ahead of those of everyone else. And some criminals deserve to be deprived of their rights. I like how you say you don't believe in "an eye for an eye". I guess it's never been "your eye" up this point, has it?

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 33): I am looking forward to the opportunity to deploy, if I get the chance, to go make a difference in one of these corners in the world where grave human rights abuses occur.

Look where your previous post (#29) is going to lead us to against the background of the original post ("Human Rights 'Law' is an Ass"). We could now argue about the exact moment when human rights abuses (thanks for not using quotation marks this time) are grave enough to justify your deployment. You mentioned Cruise Missiles and JDAMs, but are you positive a limited strike would not trigger a full-scale war? Are you positive a special forces command would be successful? When President Carter sent Marines(?) to Iran, German Intelligence Service or the military warned your administration that the moment when such an action had a somewhat promising prospect was aready gone. Much to the embarrassment of the U.S. the action failed.
When is it appropriate to use even limited military power, and would you fire those missile with or without the world's approval? Would concentration camps in North Korea all of a sudden cease to exist would you enter NK's airspace and drop a JDAM over one of Kim's palaces? Or would you only make things worse?

You are right, however, that pressure and sanctions alone have rarely or never thoroughly improved the human rights situation in any given country. Small steps, however, are possible. Take China or some African countries. Our politicians cannot publicly celebrate those achievements, as those would signal that "China bows to the USA/Germany/France/Britain".
Turkey does no longer torture (at least that's no longer a standard procedure in the south-east of the country) thanks the European Union and human rights organisations.
Human rights organizations and diplomats have contributed to the release of political prisoners and have helped greatly to at least limit torture and mock trials.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 33): Never ceases to amuse me how some people put the rights of criminals ahead of those of everyone else.

Who does? Certainly not me. When I say everyone is entitled to the same human rights, I do not put the rights of a criminal over those of anybody else.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 33): And some criminals deserve to be deprived of their rights.

Which rights? Certainly not their human rights. Else we could forget the idea of a set of universal rights altogether and fall back to times pre 1948 at least if not pre French Revolution.
I appreciate that you are willing to using your profession and "make a difference in one of these corners in the world where grave human rights abuses occur". I would appreciate it even more were you more familiar with the idea of human rights. Don't soldiers in the U.S. have to attend courses on the Bill of Rights, human rights and the Geneva Conventions?

Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 33): I like how you say you don't believe in "an eye for an eye". I guess it's never been "your eye" up this point, has it?

It has been my ear, my hearing ability up to this point.

[Edited 2010-12-18 13:49:37]

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9): 2) A human, no matter how sickening, cannot lose his human rights.

Despite all the double-speak, it all really boils down to the definition of "human rights" (and yes they can and sometimes should lose their human rights). As I understand it, the claim is he would be deprived his human right to a family life. Patently false. He can have a family life in Iraq. Apparently "human rights" are only possible in Britian or EU?

Parents are deproted all the time here. The children have the option to go with them or stay. I guess we are depriving "human rights" too?
When you stretch the meaning of the phrase, you really do little more than eventually destroy the whole concept through incredibility.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 35): As I understand it, the claim is he would be deprived his human right to a family life. (...) When you stretch the meaning of the phrase, you really do little more than eventually destroy the whole concept through incredibility.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13): Just because he claims that his human rights would be revoked if he were deported, doens't mean it is true. I cannot tell if this would be true, and if yes he should face justice in Britain.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 26): While I concur that it is at the very least embarrassing for him to stress his "human right to enjoy family life" (if he really did say so) after he has ruined another family's life forever, I don't even see what this or a seemingly very mild verdict has to do with human rights at all. If he was sentenced to say: 12 years imprisonment he could not demand not to get imprisoned in order to enjoy family life either.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 21): Hence I said not to have an opinion on whether deporting him would be a human rights violation or not.

It would really do your credibility good to first read the thread and then start insulting me if you must.

[Edited 2010-12-18 14:34:24]

I wonder how involved this man is in the lives of his children? One would think the law would be trying to protect his kids from him, considering the reckless decisions he's made. I can only imagine how his kids will turn out if he's in their lives.

I have to agree. Human Rights have been taken too far to the extreme by many organizations and by the justice systems in many countries.

In Argentina citizens and more incredibly still illegal immigrants can as we speak usurp government or private property and they cannot be removed by law enforcement because it is deemed ''oppresive repression'' by the police. It has come to a head this last two weeks and now because of this precedent there are land grabs, albeit small, in many parts of the country.

If Argentina tries to deport the illegals, the politicians favoring this are deemed ''xenophobic and racist'' by opportunistic crooked populists and human rights groups, including some that are quite frankly overly respected or revered overseas like the Mothers of the Disappeared, which has morphed from a genuine HR entity to a political far left tentacle, that wants wide open borders and immediate legalization so that they get more votes in elections.

The recent events in the country with illegal immigrants has turned off huge sectors of society, and has sparked ethnic tensions that harm ALL immigrants, sadly. And many of these judges that are so keen on being seen as ''champions of human rights'' are in fact promoting increasingly bad behavior of entitlement by certain groups of people.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 36): Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13): Just because he claims that his human rights would be revoked if he were deported, doens't mean it is true. I cannot tell if this would be true, and if yes he should face justice in Britain. Quoting NoUFO (Reply 21): Hence I said not to have an opinion on whether deporting him would be a human rights violation or not. It would really do your credibility good to first read the thread and then start insulting me if you must.

You're quotes only solidify my point. You will not say that deporting an illegal immigrant engaging in criminal behavior is NOT a human rights violation. Pure double-speak.

Quoting skidmarks (Thread starter): I hope my contract in Norway stretches out as long as possible as I really don't want to go back to the disgustingly one sided society we have created.

You think it would be any different in Norway.

Quoting skidmarks (Reply 7): This man has lost his daughter. The killer serves 4 months in jail and escapes a deportation order, which has already been made, by managing to father two children. You call that Justice?

An English couple I knew in Molde were killed by a truck crossing the center line, they left behind 2 young children, the truck driver wasn't gaoled, he lost his license for 6 months, the excuse was he had a medical problem, he's now back driving trucks.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 40): An English couple I knew in Molde were killed by a truck crossing the center line, they left behind 2 young children, the truck driver wasn't gaoled, he lost his license for 6 months, the excuse was he had a medical problem, he's now back driving trucks.

Well, although it's a very sad, and not very satisfactory decision, was the truck driver a convicted illegal immigrant? And without the details of the story then it's hard to draw a comparison. Although I do understand what you are saying.

I know that the world in general seems to have lost the power to properly punish people who commit acts like this, and the UK isn't the only place it happens. But UK seems to be the place for people to go to when they want to perpetrate any sort of crime and get away with it. And things like the Human Rights Act are abused without question by unscrupulous politicians, lawyers and criminals.

Andy   

I suggest you look up Mullah Krekar who Norway is currently powerless to remove due to some daft law that says he can't be returned home if he faces the death penalty, Krekar is a topflight A1 super terrorist and should be either dead or in Gitmo, the govt wants him gone but all the bleeding heart liberals and the courts won't allow him to be removed. This guy is a super scumbag, he's made death threats to various ministers yet is living with his very large family who came here on a family reunification visa, all on the taxpayers kroner. The UK is not alone in being toothless, justice in Norway is about as rough as being bitten buy a 100 year old women with her dentures out.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42): The UK is not alone in being toothless, justice in Norway is about as rough as being bitten buy a 100 year old women with her dentures out

An interesting analogy, and quite scary!

It seems these people take advantage of any place that is stupid enough to allow them a platform to spout their rhetoric and denounce the so called free world while all the time taking everything they can get.

I actually didn't realise there was anyone like this living here. Makes it just a little less comfortable. It just goes to show that making laws and rules to help genuine sufferers is a minefield when scumbags like him take advantage.

I do wish some people would realise we don't live in an ideal world and that sometimes you too have to be brutal and harsh in order to maintain the freedom and liberty of the population. Human Rights Acts and Laws are fine when applied correctly. When they enable terrorists and criminals to escape justice and carry on with their actions, then they are flawed.

Andy   

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 42): look up Mullah Krekar who Norway is currently powerless to remove due to some daft law that says he can't be returned home if he faces the death penalty, Krekar is a topflight A1 super terrorist

Quoting skidmarks (Reply 43): I actually didn't realise there was anyone like this living here. Makes it just a little less comfortable. It just goes to show that making laws and rules to help genuine sufferers is a minefield when scumbags like him take advantage.

Hi Andy!

Here's more:
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/12/16/government-passive-on-krekar/

Scooter01   

Whatever the human rights arguments are, we have enough scumbags in our country we can't get rid of without keeping ones from other countries. Get rid of him. This is an embarrassment.

With regard to Mullar Krekar you could argue that it is better to keep him where he is, if he is as bad as reports make him out to be. I would also guess that it is easier for the intelligence services to keep track of him, he may even provide useful information.

With regard to the guy that killed the little girl, probably not worth sending him back because If he really does love his family then all he going to do is try and get back. However you could argue that the sentence handed to him was unfair and not long enough.

With regard to the Human Rights Act. It is an absolute farce and in disarray. I think somebody on here argued that it should be tightened. I absolutely agree. I used to work for an agency in the UK, where we was required to do some basic surveillance, and before it coud take place I had to complete a 7 page document with regards to how my surveillance would not impact on the persons human rights. What an absolute joke. With regard to other acts too. 3 page document for data protection and a 5 page document for another act. 15 pages of wasted paper just to watch someone. Oh and the documents had to be reviewed by some person much higher in the organization and signed off. Its one of the many reasons I left, it appeared that the power was swinging in favour of the criminal.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 21): It is not that somebody comes and grants you those rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is considered a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 21): Hence the idea of universal human rights, a set of basic rights, that can and must not be infringed. Never.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is for all intents and purposes irrelevant and quite worthless. .. and human rights are being broken every day all over the world, in serious and less serious manner. But it is happening, so human rights - that which we Westerners define as such - are not particularly holy.

You're right that there is a UN declaration of human rights, but you're quite wrong in its value, legality and authority (none, none and zero)

You're also wrong that human rights cannot be removed - that is standard practice by states everywhere. Sentencing a man to prison is a violation of his human rights, but it is overlooked because human rights are neither sanctified nor eternal.

They're defined each day anew and differ between one part of the world and the next.

Think about this: any right that can be given by an authority can be removed by the same authority. Thus human rights given by the state can indeed be removed by the state (for indeed the state is sovereign and will do this at its own risk naturally) - and for those who believe the basic human rights are God given rights, well God could then remove the same rights, naturally.

Human rights have begun to deteriorate a lot and a huge reason for that is actually that many people consider them to be an unalterable fact of life. They become diluted and meaningless - not the least because people take them for granted and don't know the value of the most basic ones. The only ones that really matter - life, liberty and property. Without extrapolating that - because the terms life, liberty and property can be applied to anything. So you have to understand them, protect them and fight for them - not just claim that there is some "magic" international law that decrees that "human rights" are forever and ever amen. Because that's not how the world works.

asturias

Quoting aviationmaster (Reply 2): He lost his right to human rights as soon as he committed his first crime

The principal of human rights is that they cannot be lost. Every human has them. Now if you commit a crime then you face consequences as set in law but you do not loose your human rights. So paraphrasing the thread title you could say "The American justice system is an ass" but not human rights.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 18): Quoting NoUFO (Reply 9): A human, no matter how sickening, cannot lose his human rights. Maybe, but who grants those rights?

That's the whole point. No one - every human has them from the moment they're born.

Quoting Danny (Reply 48): The principal of human rights is that they cannot be lost. Every human has them. Now if you commit a crime then you face consequences as set in law but you do not loose your human rights. So paraphrasing the thread title you could say "The American justice system is an ass" but not human rights.

Quoting Danny (Reply 48): That's the whole point. No one - every human has them from the moment they're born.

The real problem boils down to the fact that there are people that refuse to believe:

o That there are people so evil they do not deserve "human rights"

o That some crimes are so heinous, like taking a life, that the person convicted of that crime should have their "human rights" suspended or ended.