It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vladimir Putin Signs Law Allowing Russia To Overthrow Human Rights Court Verdicts

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
Good! Can we in the UK do the same thing. Human rights has become more of a twisted tool to aid the perpetrators of crime and terrorism.

Time to abolish this horrid law worldwide. Create a new human rights act that protects the victims of crime and doesn't kick them when they're down.


Sure, which of your human rights are you willing to give up to make this happen?




posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: benwyatt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

ANOTHER BOTTOM LINE!:

You only have the rights you can defend.

I think it is time everyone took their rights back from out of control "authorities"

I will keep my rights, all the way into the next world, like a man.



Statement that has no meaning... but sounds trumptastick...


Your rights are meaningless if you gonna have to defend them at your door steps.

We humans are on Earth together, even our cousins great apes live in community and are aware that only way to defend our self is to stay united... but to think about world globaly requires that thing... forgot what was called... brain?!

Time to sync with time and be aware that world is global house... cave does not protect you anymore...
edit on 15-12-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I didn't say abolish did I? I said get rid of the current legislation and create a new act. One which preferably doesn't aid those who play on human rights like murders and rapists Etc. Who often flout their human rights in the face of the victims.
edit on 15-12-2015 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Interesting. Everyone is applauding Russia for doing what they condemn the United States and Israel doing.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
The UK government has faced numerous difficulties when trying to deport immigrants who have committed serious crimes (after custodial sentencing). Theresa May says these immigrants are using the ECHR ie "right to family life" as a reason to fight their deportation. This can take years and costs the tax payers a significant amount of money.

I know there is a push for a British charter of human rights. If this does happen ideally a proposed draft should be submitted for public scrutiny and a referendum called to vote on this. Sadly I doubt this would happen.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: ScepticScot

I didn't say abolish did I? I said get rid of the current legislation and create a new act. One which preferably doesn't aid those who play on human rights like murders and rapists Etc. Who often flout their human rights in the face of the victims.


Human rights apply to every one (the clue is in the name). If you are suggesting that a protection isn't applied to everyone then it is not a human right. So which human right would you remove?

Or perhaps you can give an example of human rights that aid "murders and rapists etc"



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: deliberator
The UK government has faced numerous difficulties when trying to deport immigrants who have committed serious crimes (after custodial sentencing). Theresa May says these immigrants are using the ECHR ie "right to family life" as a reason to fight their deportation. This can take years and costs the tax payers a significant amount of money.

I know there is a push for a British charter of human rights. If this does happen ideally a proposed draft should be submitted for public scrutiny and a referendum called to vote on this. Sadly I doubt this would happen.




Not really.

"There's no general prohibition in our Human Rights Act on the deportation of foreign nationals. If the Government decides that a citizen from another country, with limited ties to the UK, should no longer be allowed to stay and can safely be sent back, nothing in our HRA prevents this. However, under international human rights law, the absolute prohibition on torture does prevent countries from sending people anywhere where they will be tortured. But this is entirely logical. If we abhor torture, we must also abhor its outsourcing. If governments were only prohibited from torturing their own citizens, but permitted to send people to places of torture, there'd be little distinction between deportation and extraordinary rendition. Even before the introduction of our HRA, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights prevented the UK from deporting people to places of torture.

Depending on the facts, a person’s right to a family life, as protected by Article 8, may also be interfered with in some cases if deported. But Article 8 is a qualified right, and can be overruled. As such, Home Office policy considers all the facts, including the reason for the deportation (i.e. whether a serious offence has been committed); the length of time the person has been in the UK; and whether the person has, for example, young children born in the UK, or a British spouse. This is the type of balancing exercise the Home Office would carry out regardless of our Human Rights Act, but it has provided greater transparency, accountability and oversight of Home Office decisions.

While the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has claimed that 'thousands' of people use Article 8 to stay in Britain every year, the number of deportations prevented is actually very small. In 2011, for example, 1,888 appeals were made against such deportation - only 185 of those were allowed on Article 8 grounds (less than 10 per cent of total appeals, and less than 5 per cent of total deportations).."

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk...



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

See the poster above you...sometimes it makes sense to remove a humans rights when they do something so odious that it warrants a removal of their rights. Which would then allow us to deal proper justice to these people without them grinning behind the human rights act.
edit on 15-12-2015 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: ScepticScot

See the poster above you...sometimes it makes sense to remove a humans rights when they do something so odious that it warrants a removal of their rights. Which would then allow us to deal proper justice to these people without them grinning behind the human rights act.


Where do you draw the line? Should human rights be removed for murders, rapists, burglars, tax avoiders, recreational drug users, licence fee dodgers, people who download movies illegally?

Human rights protect everyone, if you start removing them they protect no one.

ETA; Human rights in no way stop people being punished for crimes they commit. The idea that you should remove human rights to improve justice is frankly laughable.

edit on 15-12-2015 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I believe everyone is applauding the OPEN HYPOCRISY ON ALL SIDES and that we see it is time for a change that those in control now will never allow.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Though I do believe we should draw a line. Cases where another human; the victim, has been violated of their human rights should mean automatic stripping of the rights of the perpetrator.

Let's not get silly and ask where we draw the line, we can logically determine such line with common sense.
edit on 15-12-2015 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: ScepticScot

Though I do believe we should draw a line. Cases where another human; the victim, has been violated of their human rights should mean automatic stripping of the rights of the perpetrator.

Let's not get silly and ask where we draw the line, we can logically determine such line with common sense.


Can we? I can't think of a single example were a human right should be removed where as the criteria you give would deem to strip them for a huge range of reasons.

Maybe you could give an example, what human right would you remove for what crime?



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Like I said, perpetrators or serious crimes against another human causing severe mental and/or physical abuse.

And I would take away all of their human rights. If you take away the rights of others, it's only fair that you lose the right to yours.

It really is that simple in my eyes. But I believe in punishment that fits the crime. Obviously you think one size fits all should be the approach.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Thanks for putting this into context.

In relation to the OP. I find it curious that the US has never ratified the Geneva Conventions' Protocol I, relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and Protocol II,relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. All of Europe (including Russia), Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most South American countries have ratified these protocols. In fact globally, very few countries have not ratified these protocols. Could this be due to American Exceptionalism, the very thing you are accusing Russia of?

American Exceptionalism


edit on 15-12-2015 by deliberator because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21
Amazingly despite having the European convention of human rights for decades we still convict people of crimes and send them to prison. Human rights do not stop people being punished for crimes they commit. They do however among other things help stop people being punished for crimes they didn't commit.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

You're a smart guy, you know very well that isn't always true. But you feel free to keep believing that...



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3
I'm not saying this is a good thing but I wouldn't want a European court tellling me what to do if I was Putin either. He's currently at odds with NATO and Europe can't even get their own # together, who are they to dictate to others?

Which is why Russia should have a way for it's people to file grievances, they don't. This is not Russia saying they don't want European interference, it's them saying they want to do what they want and don't care and their people have no human rights.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: deliberator

I was under the impression that it had been mainly down to internal US politics, however don't really know that much about it. Looking at it now I think there are some very clear reasons why the US would't want to ratify them in the conflicts it has been fighting over the last 15 years, as it would have severely restricted some of the more morally dubious practises it has used.
Broadly I think you are probably right, In the end if you are biggest kid in the playground you are going to want to pick what rules to play by,



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21

In pretty much every example I have seen of someone supposedly taking advantage of human rights to avoid prison or get get special treatment it has turned out to be nothing at all to do with human right laws at all. There are probably cases where people do take advantage of human rights laws, but they are few and far between and I am more than happy to accept these in return for the overwhelming benefits of having the rights in the first place.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: deliberator

I was under the impression that it had been mainly down to internal US politics, however don't really know that much about it. Looking at it now I think there are some very clear reasons why the US would't want to ratify them in the conflicts it has been fighting over the last 15 years, as it would have severely restricted some of the more morally dubious practises it has used.
Broadly I think you are probably right, In the end if you are biggest kid in the playground you are going to want to pick what rules to play by,


The main reason the US declines is extradition laws. They have treaties in place with many countries because they know us citizens would be treated fairly. For example the UK their prisons isn't any different then in the US. However other countries like Saudi Arabia or even Russia is a completely different story. Many go to Russian prisons to die they are very extreme and have little regard for the prisoners. I'm sure some here would say that's a good thing. Well it's not having a someone appear for trial locked in a cage in no way can they get a fair trial for example.

So unless US law is changed and prisoner rights are removed they will never sign the Geneva accords. Obama's been working towards recognizing the court the drinking block has been where offenders would serve their time. The white house wants it to be in US prisons unless we have an ex tradition treaty with the country. However a case can be brought before a us court from the UN court the trial will occur under us law and served in us prisons.

They do recognize fines from the court and they can and do impose them on US citizens. The fine is transferred to a federal court and the judge signs the order.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join