View Full Version : May Day- A day for protest not for violence!
I hate these fools that want to smash stuff up on May Day! What does that achive? Nothing!
Then people moan at the police tatics. They have to stop these fools from smashing stuff up mindlessly!
commie kg
30th June 2003, 18:30
Oh, god, you're still here?
Dhul, somebody, take care of this...
Red Comrade
30th June 2003, 19:41
The point of smashing bourgeois property is to celebrate our workers and to show our disgust for exploitation and the ruling class. It's more like payback rather than actually aiming to achieve something.
Moskitto
30th June 2003, 20:03
Smashing a McDonalds only makes them change the window which is pretty cheap for them anyway, smashing a small shop costs the small business, some of which may be giving their workers better conditions, a lot to replace it.
Quote: from Moskitto on 8:03 pm on June 30, 2003
Smashing a McDonalds only makes them change the window which is pretty cheap for them anyway, smashing a small shop costs the small business, some of which may be giving their workers better conditions, a lot to replace it.
Very, very true!
CubanFox
1st July 2003, 08:23
RAM, you are in no position to tell us what May Day is for.
Quote: from CubanFox on 8:23 am on July 1, 2003
RAM, you are in no position to tell us what May Day is for.
May Day is about protesting, provoking the police and then when the arrest you saying its police brutality and posting on here! Err No! Only Jokeing!
What it really is about is all groups having the right to protest about issues that they feel strongly about. The polices role is to prevent trouble and violence against all buildings and if necessary intervening. But I think that the policing has improved over the years. E.g. 2001 London there was the famous images of all the protesters being penned in Oxford Circus. I agree that that was a mistake by the police with them being given no food, water or toilet facilities for 7 hours. In 2003 though the police only needed to put riot gear on at 19:00 when they had gathered in Trafalgar square. Before then the police were in a bit of padding and yellow jackets. Also there was a reduced crowd of protesters so I would say that the police are getting better although they can still improve.
(Edited by RAM at 8:45 am on July 1, 2003)
CubanFox
1st July 2003, 08:45
People are being scared away from May Day protests because they are scared that your heroes in blue will beat the living fuck out of them with nightsticks.
Quote: from CubanFox on 8:45 am on July 1, 2003
People are being scared away from May Day protests because they are scared that your heroes in blue will beat the living fuck out of them with nightsticks.
I heard that in London the coalition of proteters had broken up because of war in Iraq and dividing issues. Hey people did protest in London and around the world! If the police were so bad then they would have worn riot gear from the start of the day and they did not. Only in the evening when they were asked to leave did they finnaly put riot gear on when the protesters did not leave!
Oh and I am also annoyed when people try and apply the human rights act to the police and riot tatics!
Dhul Fiqar
1st July 2003, 10:15
Yeah, because obviously people have no human rights when they are assaulted by the police, right? You make me sick...
Human rights are UNIVERSAL you stupid fucking prick, that's the whole problem with Guantanamo, you can't just choose to say "they don't apply here"
--- G.
Dhul Fiqar
1st July 2003, 10:21
UPDATE!
I have just heard that RAM has qualified for the police, he'll eventually get to hit kids over the head with batons and use teargas on peaceful protestors, but untill then he is on bike patrol, the most glamorous of all positions in the Police. This picture was taken of him on his first patrol in Putney yesterday, where he was called in to break up a group of preschoolers that were protesting against being used for forced labour:
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/bike-cop.jpg
Congratulations! You have joined that ranks of the fine fascists that protect the legitimate hegemony of capitalism and the stranglehold of corporations on the cunsumer cattle!!
The few - The Proud - The Laughable
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:15 am on July 1, 2003
Yeah, because obviously people have no human rights when they are assaulted by the police, right? You make me sick...
Human rights are UNIVERSAL you stupid fucking prick, that's the whole problem with Guantanamo, you can't just choose to say "they don't apply here"
--- G.
Errr Ok you grant the right to freedom of movemnt to a murderer in prision then he can walk out and kill people! I belive that people should have full human rights but when they commit a crime they then lose some of them so they have limited rights. Would you want criminals being able to walk out of prision and say it my right to fredom of movement! NO!
Eg. May Day 2001 London. When the people were penned in groups like Liberty said that they were stopping the right to the feedom of movement but the police said that thye could detain them if they Were a threat to a breach of the police!
Human Rights are Univrsal but no all of the rights are universal all of the time
(Edited by RAM at 11:28 am on July 1, 2003)
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:21 am on July 1, 2003
UPDATE!
I have just heard that RAM has qualified for the police, he'll eventually get to hit kids over the head with batons and use teargas on peaceful protestors, but untill then he is on bike patrol, the most glamorous of all positions in the Police. This picture was taken of him on his first patrol in Putney yesterday, where he was called in to break up a group of preschoolers that were protesting against being used for forced labour:
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/bike-cop.jpg
Congratulations! You have joined that ranks of the fine fascists that protect the legitimate hegemony of capitalism and the stranglehold of corporations on the cunsumer cattle!!
The few - The Proud - The Laughable
I like the pink bike! It goes well with me!
Also if you have ever read the UDHR then you will know that some parts can come down to interprtation!
Would you want terroists to have full human rights with the right of free movement hvaing been put in jail?
Here are my notes from one of my Ethics classes on the History of Human Rights: -
A Brief History of Rights
3rd Cent BCE
‘STOICS’ believed in a Universal law for morality that humans can be judged against (Naturalistic)
1215
MAGNA CARTA- “Rights” was no just what the King did
1625
“The Law of War+ Peace” (Hugo Gratius)- used the notion of rights through the Latin word IUS. Ius also means ‘law’ so we have the idea, of a law of nature
1651
“Leviathan” (Thomas Hobbes) talks about ‘Rights of Nature, and mentions that humans have the ‘Right to protect themselves from attack’
1690
“Second Treaties of Government” (John Locke) spoke of rights to life, liberty, health,+ property’. Locke has been inspirational in all discussions of rights since
1776
Thomas Jefferson – ‘US Declaration of Independence’ focuses very much on the rights of citizens. Jefferson uses Locke’s broad spectrum of rights to inform the document, but substitutes ‘property’ for ‘happiness’ (as property is only a means to happiness)
1789
“Declaration of the Rights of Man” (Emmanuel Siegès) Again influenced by Locke. Introduces the concepts of freedom of speech, association, religious beliefs etc…
1785
‘Principles of Moral+ Political Philosophy’ (William Paely) separated the idea of rights into different categories
A. Natural
As per Locke
Adventitious (‘added on’)
e.g. rights that those in Power have over others/Subjects
B. Alienable
(transferable)
e.g. property passing from one person to another
Inalienable
(non-transferable)
e.g. life
NB, Also applies to ‘superiors’ over their subjects
C. Perfect
(can be asserted by force)
e.g. life, property
‘Imperfect’
(cannot be asserted by force)
e.g. employment
charity
1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drawn up by the United Nations emphasises for the first tome ‘STATUS AS HUMANS’. The UDHR draws heavily on the many classical concepts of rights (see above) but lists dozens of rights to be seen in a contempery context. It contains:
- Life, liberty, security
- Rights against enslavement
- Rights regarding due process in law
- Liberty rights
- Political rights
- Cultural rights
- Economic rights
- Welfare rights
UDHR- Seen as an ideal, but a common standard of achievements for all People of all nations.
(Edited by RAM at 11:42 am on July 1, 2003)
CubanFox
1st July 2003, 11:45
Quote: from RAM on 11:16 am on July 1, 2003
Would you want terroists to have full human rights with the right of free movement hvaing been put in jail?
They're in gaol. They should stay inside the gaol; but not be forced to wear blackout goggles, gags and be tied up outside in sweltering Cuban heat. They also should not be tortured. They should be freed if they are not terrorists. They should have all human rights given to them. To even consider withdrawing these rights is disgusting.
Quote: from CubanFox on 11:45 am on July 1, 2003
Quote: from RAM on 11:16 am on July 1, 2003
Would you want terroists to have full human rights with the right of free movement hvaing been put in jail?
They're in gaol. They should stay inside the gaol; but not be forced to wear blackout goggles, gags and be tied up outside in sweltering Cuban heat. They also should not be tortured. They should be freed if they are not terrorists. They should have all human rights given to them. To even consider withdrawing these rights is disgusting.
Remember I said that they should have limited rights not have all of there rights taken away! You are putting words in my mouth!
I agree that the US treating those people is appaling and should be stopped!
I would never go as far as saying that certain groups of people should only have certain rights as they would lead to the breakup of society. However I would say that fi you commit a crime then some rights should be removed for you sentance e.g. the right to freedom of movement as would you want a murdder walking down the street? I would keep the right to a fair trial. Well look the right to freedom of speach is a myth. Its fredom of speach until we say stop e.g. ther BNP in the UK!
Going back to the May Day part companies such as glasiers make mony to board up shops. So money irronically is made on May Day!
Dhul Fiqar
1st July 2003, 13:34
What you said was basically that human rights and policing were incompatible. The UN declaration on human rights includes passages on the treatment of prisoners, so obviously incarcerating criminals is NOT a violation of human rights.
People DO have the right to a fair trial and many other things if they are accused of a crime, but to beat protestors and abuse prisoners and suspects is a violation of human rights. There is no getting around that, either you support the notion of human rights or you do not.
"Human Rights are Univrsal but no all of the rights are universal all of the time" - sounds a lot like something John Ashcroft or his ideological brother Adolf Hitler would say (well, if they had some kind of speech impedement...) :biggrin:
--- G.
truthaddict11
1st July 2003, 20:13
(Edited by truthaddict11 at 3:14 pm on July 1, 2003)
Oh so with your full human rights you want rapists, murders to have freedom of expressnio do you and freedom of movement?
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 08:51
LOL
The ENTIRETY of the last post was to explain how it is NOT a human right to be able to walk around freely once you are accused of murder. You seem to have a VERY strange idea of what constitutes human rights.
--- G.
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 8:51 am on July 2, 2003
LOL
The ENTIRETY of the last post was to explain how it is NOT a human right to be able to walk around freely once you are accused of murder. You seem to have a VERY strange idea of what constitutes human rights.
--- G.
But I though that you wanted full human rights which acoring to me is the UDHR!
(Edited by RAM at 9:07 am on July 2, 2003)
Anonymous
2nd July 2003, 09:15
The 'UDHR' is total bullshit.
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:21 am on July 1, 2003
UPDATE!
I have just heard that RAM has qualified for the police, he'll eventually get to hit kids over the head with batons and use teargas on peaceful protestors, but untill then he is on bike patrol, the most glamorous of all positions in the Police. This picture was taken of him on his first patrol in Putney yesterday, where he was called in to break up a group of preschoolers that were protesting against being used for forced labour:
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/bike-cop.jpg
Congratulations! You have joined that ranks of the fine fascists that protect the legitimate hegemony of capitalism and the stranglehold of corporations on the cunsumer cattle!!
The few - The Proud - The Laughable
I would not use batttons just a handcuff!
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 09:37
You really are an idiot, mate.... jesus...
The declaration on human rights does NOT state that you have the right to commit murder with impunity. In fact there are VERY clear guidelines for the use of police force and custody, including right of trial and many other things (Amnesty has their own revised guidelines on this I believe).
There is nothing even REMOTELY INSINUATING that murderers have the right to be set free, that is simply ridiculous. They have the right to a fair trial and a lawyer and many other things, just like every single human being in the world.
This is worse than teaching my sister about gravity... IF YOU LET GO OF THE BALL - IT WILL HIT THE GROUND!!!
The only difference is, she got it after listening to the explanation a couple of times.
--- G.
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 9:37 am on July 2, 2003
You really are an idiot, mate.... jesus...
The declaration on human rights does NOT state that you have the right to commit murder with impunity. In fact there are VERY clear guidelines for the use of police force and custody, including right of trial and many other things (Amnesty has their own revised guidelines on this I believe).
There is nothing even REMOTELY INSINUATING that murderers have the right to be set free, that is simply ridiculous. They have the right to a fair trial and a lawyer and many other things, just like every single human being in the world.
This is worse than teaching my sister about gravity... IF YOU LET GO OF THE BALL - IT WILL HIT THE GROUND!!!
The only difference is, she got it after listening to the explanation a couple of times.
--- G.
If you have ever read the UDHR then you will know that there is a lot of grey and in some cases contradictry articles!
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 10:12
No shit, it happens, they are guidelines after all. That doesn't change the fact that you don't understand that they include guidelines for the treatment of prisoners, while you seem to think imprisonment is against human rights. Which means there is nothing more to discuss with you on the matter.
--- G.
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:12 am on July 2, 2003
No shit, it happens, they are guidelines after all. That doesn't change the fact that you don't understand that they include guidelines for the treatment of prisoners, while you seem to think imprisonment is against human rights. Which means there is nothing more to discuss with you on the matter.
--- G.
The punishment for a commiting a crime is a loss of partial human rights.
(Edited by RAM at 10:46 am on July 2, 2003)
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 10:42
ROFLMAO
"Oh so with your full human rights you want rapists, murders to have freedom of expressnio do you and freedom of movement?" - the FUCK is this, then? I said I believed in universal human rights and you said THAT. You said that I was advocating freedom of movement for murderers, and every single human being that will ever read this thread will get the exact same idea I did.
That you are the intellectual equivalent of a retarded baby chimpanzee with learning difficulties.
--- G.
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:15 am on July 1, 2003
Yeah, because obviously people have no human rights when they are assaulted by the police, right? You make me sick...
Human rights are UNIVERSAL you stupid fucking prick, that's the whole problem with Guantanamo, you can't just choose to say "they don't apply here"
--- G.
You admiited that all should have full human rights and that must include criminals!
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:42 am on July 2, 2003
ROFLMAO
"Oh so with your full human rights you want rapists, murders to have freedom of expressnio do you and freedom of movement?" - the FUCK is this, then? I said I believed in universal human rights and you said THAT. You said that I was advocating freedom of movement for murderers, and every single human being that will ever read this thread will get the exact same idea I did.
That you are the intellectual equivalent of a retarded baby chimpanzee with learning difficulties.
--- G.
You are above the law of the forum and as such an elitest. If I attacked you like you have attacked me I would be banned! (If you ban me you have proved my point entirly!)
(Edited by RAM at 10:50 am on July 2, 2003)
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 10:51
Wow, how many circles does this make now?
YES, that is what I said. Criminals have human rights, such as the right to a fair trial and etc. This is not in dispute, it is part of every convention and definition ever put together on human rights.
Yet you seem to think that incarceration by itself means that a person's human rights have been violated, and you have now stated this several times. Human rights means proportional treatment, it doesn't mean impunity.
I don't believe I have ever seen anyone have so much trouble grasping such a simple concept.
--- G.
Invader Zim
2nd July 2003, 10:53
The UN decliration of Human rights: -
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
As you can clearly see when a criminal is imprisoned then they do not have the same rights that a free person has, most noitbaly the right to freedom of movment.
To say that a criminal prisoner diserves complete human rights is foolish. If a rapist was given complete human rights, then they could simply walk out of prison and reoffend, with no consiquence.
Of course a prisoner should retain most of these human rights but logically not all.
while you seem to think imprisonment is against human rights
If you read the decliration of Human rights you can see that it is.
As you can see: -
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
If you are commit a crime then you forfit this human right for a limited period of time. It is called being put in gaol.
As for guantamino bay that is an obvious breach of these human rights according to Artical 5, Artical 9, Artical 10 and Artical 11 of the decleration of Human rights. Which the USA has signed.
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 10:54
I am stating some very simple facts, you are not answering them but continue to state that 1+1=3, it is only natural that I and everyone else here assume you are a completely idiotic person and deserve such commentary.
The difference is that you will not find me repeating the same thing ten times in a row after it has been explained to be a fundamental misunderstanding. When I do that, you can flame me, ok? ;)
--- G.
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 10:57
LOL, you too, huh AK47?
It is very simple, guys:
ALL people have the same rights in the same circumstances. If you kill someone, and I kill someone, we should be afforded the same human rights, the right to a fair trial and etc.. If I don't kill someone, and you do, you have the right to a trial as a consequence, but I haven't killed anyone so I don't need to exercise the same rights as you do, nor can you exercise the same rights as me for freedom of movement because that would violate other people's rights to being protected from crime. It's not all about the individual, it's about UNIVERSAL human rights.
The human rights we have are equal for all, criminals or not, but once you commit a crime you have a right to fair process, not to be set free. Nowhere has anyone said that was a part of human rights, and only an idiot would infer that from this or any other declaration.
Once again: you have the right to a fair trial, you do not have the right to violate other people's human rights and walk away without consequence, and no one has ever suggested such a ludicrous thing except the pair of you.
--- G.
Invader Zim
2nd July 2003, 11:03
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:57 am on July 2, 2003
LOL, you too, huh AK47?
It is very simple, guys:
ALL people have the same rights in the same circumstances. If you kill someone, and I kill someone, we have the same human rights. If I don't kill someone, and you do, you have the right to a trial as a consequence, but I haven't killed anyone so I don't need to exercise the same rights as you do, nor can you exercise the same rights as me.
The human rights we have are equal for all, criminals or not, but once you commit a crime you have a right to fair process, not to be set free. Nowhere has anyone said that was a part of human rights, and only an idiot would infer that from this or any other declaration.
--- G.
Ohh god, dont bring me into this, I was just setting the record straight by actually listing the Human rights, providing a recorce thats all. I for the most agree with what you have said, except that when you are imprisoned you obviously have lost at least one of your human rights. And you are right it is very simple, when you are imprisoned you lose a basic human right, plain and simple.
Well if not lost at least had your human rights altered accoridingly. In the USA they even kill some prisoners for some offences. That is a complete removal of all human rights.
(Edited by AK47 at 11:06 am on July 2, 2003)
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 11:09
That is true, you put it much better than RAM actually. I understand the confusion, and I suppose it seems like semantics, but it's VERY important that people understand that a phrase like: "Human rights and policing don't mix" is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of human rights.
They are universal to all people, but not all circumstances call for the same application of them. That is to say, everyone that kills someone has the same rights to due process, everyone that does not simply doesn't have to worry about that.
When a person goes to jail, you COULD say that they are losing a human right, but that would imply they are wrongly incarcerated. In fact, what you do by committing a serious criminal offence is violating other people's rights, and thus the principle of universality must be applied and THEIR rights protected.
That doesn't mean you've lost any rights, you've simply had them curtailed for a given period of time, and they are supplemented by several other rights, such as the right to an attourney and a fair trial and all that.
So sorry if I wasn't making that clear, but I am inclined to think that it was ALREADY clear to everyone except maybe RAM ;)
--- G.
Invader Zim
2nd July 2003, 11:16
Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 11:09 am on July 2, 2003
That doesn't mean you've lost any rights, you've simply had them curtailed for a given period of time.
--- G.
Thats what i said: -
"If you are commit a crime then you forfit this (Artical 13) human right for a limited period of time. "
Thats the whole point in imprisonment, to punish an offender. To do this they withdraw a basic human right for a limited period of time. The right to a fiar trial has absolutly nothing to do with punishment it self. All that is for is to allow the prisoner to be given a chance to represent their case before the law, before any punishment is given.
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 11:22
That is true, but there are many rights afforded to prisoners, such as nutritional and religious concerns and many other.
I see your point, but still stand by my definition. In the end I suppose it's a question of semantics, but I believe the principle of human rights never being outright abolished is an important one. One can forfeit certain rights temporarily, such as by committing a crime, but others come into play instead.
The point is you always have the same rights as everyone else IN YOUR SITUATION - no matter what it is.
But anyway, you make the point much better and far more reasonably, AK47. For that I thank you. I also apologize for going off too much on you RAM, I lost it with the flaming, but I still think your reactions in this thread speak volumes about your intellect and personality.
--- G.
Invader Zim
2nd July 2003, 14:10
That is true, but there are many rights afforded to prisoners, such as nutritional and religious concerns and many other.
They retain nearly all their human rights, I agree.
I believe the principle of human rights never being outright abolished is an important one. One can forfeit certain rights temporarily, such as by committing a crime, but others come into play instead.
Basically I agree with that. That is why I believe that the death centance should be repealed, as that is the breach of the most important of rights, the right to life.
The point is you always have the same rights as everyone else IN YOUR SITUATION - no matter what it is.
That is an interesting way of thinking about it, however some people depending on their prison or country are given different rights even though they may have commited the same crime.
(Edited by AK47 at 2:12 pm on July 2, 2003)
Dhul Fiqar
2nd July 2003, 14:43
True, but I believe Amnesty International and other groups campaign for as little disparity as possible. Yet there are habitual violators, from Texas who execute minors (who are legally children) to Saudi Arabia who execute "infidels".
In principle, the same rights should be afforded to all, but unfortunately these across-the-board standards are in a lot of dispute.
--- G.
Anonymous
2nd July 2003, 18:32
Everything in the UDHR up to Article 22 is OK with me. It's what's after Article 22 that I have issues with.
mentalbunny
3rd July 2003, 22:29
I found this thread very interesting, I've been reading it for a few days now! I especially want to thank AK47 for posting the declaration thingy (sorry it's almost the end of term, I'm knackered!), although I've only read up to article 20 at the moment.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.