I’m wasting my time trying to debate with people who simply are ignoring my posts in favour of answering fictitious or manipulated statements of their own creation which they then attribute to me, such that they can make the rant they wanted to make in the first place. Either some of you have SERIOUS reading and memory difficulties or you’re just doing it on purpose. In either case, I’d get more sense talking to a tree. Bye all!

@kev35
It doesn’t surprise me. There’s no fine involved, it’s not racially motivated, and it involves more than giving out a crime number.

@Lincoln 7
So are you now in favour of human rights for criminals, or still against?

@TonyT
Would the reduced version protect from torture and execution?

@Lincoln 7

Are you now saying there should be human rights for criminals?

Lincoln 7
I’ve already explained why Hitler is related, and what did or did not exist in those days is irrelevant as we are not speaking of preventing what Hitler did, but rather the justification of what Hitler did. Your proposition would justify what Hitler did, as you propose that it is acceptable to murder and torture, all that is required is for the person to have been found guilty of a crime. The difference between whether what Hitler did was a breach of human rights comes down then to whether the Jews had committed the crime of being Jews or not. As you say, you’re entitled to your opinion, but then you must also accept that your proposition has both positive and negative consequences.

So getting older and getting into the real world means thinking stripping people of their human rights is a good idea? That doesn’t sound very good. I’m happy to be the minority who thinks that people should be entitled to their human rights.

Many health and safety rules are a good idea, it’s just when they go overboard with them, or apply them inappropriately. Road workers for example should receive health and safety briefings, but once every month or two, not daily. Much like health and safety, human rights laws have been taken to extremes and applied inappropriately for example to prevent crazed terrorists from being deported, but that doesn’t mean all of the human rights laws are a bad idea.

I’ve no idea where you got the idea that human rights include TV, gym, library etc. I don’t think giving them a library is such a bad idea though, same with training, it depends on the reason they’re in prison.

kev35
I think we’d need to make the conditions sufficiently worse than those of the poorest families, given that many criminals are from the poorest families.

@Lincoln 7
You cannot simply state it is not equal, you must prove why this is so. Your position seems to be that when Hitler says human rights don’t apply to criminals it’s wrong, but when you say they don’t apply to criminals it’s ok, because you say your opinion of a criminal is more correct than Hitler’s. But I’m sure Hitler would say much the same about you to justify his actions. You create a slippery slope where it’s possible for anyone to disregard human rights when it suits them, simply by classifying the person as a criminal. When human rights apply to all, there is no get out clause, so any infringement becomes a clear cut abuse of human rights.

If a member of my family was killed I would want the criminal to have human rights, the same as everyone else. 3 square meals and goodies and perks e.g(a TV) aren’t human rights. But they shouldn’t be subjective to torture nor execution either. Crimes such as murder and possibly rape too, are very unlikely to be prevented by the threat of execution or torture as the offender probably isn’t concerned about the punishments anyway.

@j_jza80

But we’re not using natures standard. Natures standard would legalise murdering somone, especially if you kill their children and rape their wife at the same time. Human rights protect from torture and execution, but not from imprisonment.

It empowers all people. You don’t need to strip people of their human rights in order to punish criminals, only to impose cruel and unusual punishments on people of your choosing. Your ethos assumes that the definition of “criminal” is to your choosing, when it may not be. Who is to say a leader won’t declare Jews, Gays, Polish, Muslims etc as criminals, and strip their humans rights? When you accept that humans rights are privileges to be withdrawn depending upon some condition, then you’re going to have to accept others choosing different conditions to you, with potentially very nasty consequences.

@Lincoln 7
Except that your proposition makes what Hitler did legal and acceptable. Pass a law saying it’s illegal to be Jewish, and as you say, this means they lose all their human rights and be tortured or executed for their crime. Nobody held a gun to their head and made them be Jewish, they chose to be.

I’ve already said she has a right to know where he is buried, as our astute members would already be aware from reading the previous page. However, this doesn’t extend to stripping others of their human rights through the use of torture and such. If his human rights can be taken away, then they are no longer rights, but privilages given to those whom it is popular to give them to. Same goes for other rights such as freedom of expression, give an inch and you can pretty much kiss the lot of them goodbye.