We haven't had a good debate on here for a while so let's try this..

Do you think it's time to surrender Britian's typical constitutional outlook on parliamentary soveriengty? Do you think we can ever retain soveriegnty yet also have  an effective human rights system that gives full credit to the human rights ideology? or is there only room for one ideal being more powerful than the other? was it the convention or the human rights act that majorly effected this change?

Do you think we can have both and have them both work effectively..or if not, which one should we place more importance on? the rights of the people..or the tradition of parliament being soveriegn?

Many differing ideals coexist in our society. Many opposing stances are apparent in our world and combine to help us plod along aimlessly. Any capitalist culture will have degrees of hypocrisy so it can survive. Middle ground is often sought and found so you can really do what you like and the natural equilibrium will always be maintained in a fashion.

vampir3uk wrote:

When you say human rights do you mean actual human rights or european imposed "yooman rites" for the scum that inhabit this country.

any. refer to human rights act or the european convention..that also gives the so-called "scum", human rights. but then i kinda agree with giving the 'scum' human rights if in effect, it's going to prevent abuse of national soveriengty happening again in the future (ie. the holocaust etc). and i think the 'scum' should have human rights too because who decides what type of people do or don't have entitlement to these rights? where is the line drawn?

vampir3uk wrote:

When they break the law infringing another persons rights then they should lose theirs, as it stands in this country the criminals are more protected than the victims. If you don't view these criminals who are able to exploit our pathetic justice system to avoid getting what they deserve as scum then you are a fool.

so every criminal should loose their human rights? a theif is regarded as a criminal.. should he/she have no rights? where do u draw the line so that it doesn't evolve into abuse of power? what about the alleged criminals? for example..trying to extend the detention of alleged terrorists? thats against human rights and u don't know 100% if they have even commited a crime. or do u think it's necessary to deprive that person of their rights int order to immediatly protect the country .. if not looking into the potential long term effects of doing so.

i'm not saying your view is wrong, or that i don't agree with u.. i just think there is more to it than 'they are scum. they deserve no rights'.

jokay wrote:

so every criminal should loose their human rights? a theif is regarded as a criminal.. should he/she have no rights?

If he had not commited a crime then he would not be in that position, as it stands he commited a crime and took away the rights of another person. The "rights" of a criminal should not outweigh those of a law abiding citizen.

Quote:

where do u draw the line so that it doesn't evolve into abuse of power?

Simple really, if you break the law then you are in trouble, end of.

Quote:

for example..trying to extend the detention of alleged terrorists? thats against human rights and u don't know 100% if they have even commited a crime. or do u think it's necessary to deprive that person of their rights int order to immediatly protect the country ..

You do realise when a person is arrested as a suspected terrorists it is not simply a case of thinking somebody who is acting suspicious for a moment is a terrorist and arresting them. There is a massive amount of work that goes into following and gaining information on what these people are up to, and if you have not noticed the vast majority of those arrested under the act are successfully prosecuted for their crimes. To the police and security agencies in this country it is a valuble tool that has saved lives, in the hands of the local councils it is a tool exploited to harass law abiding citizens and peer into peoples private lives for absolutely no reason, however that is not the current topic.

Quote:

i just think there is more to it than 'they are scum. they deserve no rights'.

How is somebody who breaks into another persons property and steals from them anything but scum?

vampir3uk wrote:

If he had not commited a crime then he would not be in that position, as it stands he commited a crime and took away the rights of another person. The "rights" of a criminal should not outweigh those of a law abiding citizen.

Simple really, if you break the law then you are in trouble, end of.

You do realise when a person is arrested as a suspected terrorists it is not simply a case of thinking somebody who is acting suspicious for a moment is a terrorist and arresting them. There is a massive amount of work that goes into following and gaining information on what these people are up to, and if you have not noticed the vast majority of those arrested under the act are successfully prosecuted for their crimes. To the police and security agencies in this country it is a valuble tool that has saved lives, in the hands of the local councils it is a tool exploited to harass law abiding citizens and peer into peoples private lives for absolutely no reason, however that is not the current topic.

How is somebody who breaks into another persons property and steals from them anything but scum?

so if you loose your rights as soon as u break the law, no matter how minimal a crime, how about if parliament passed a law that enabled them to treat people as if they were criminals (when morally it wasn't really a crime..just a gateway for the government to do what they wanted) then alot of morally  'innocent' people would suffer. What if the government, did something like in the holocaust and said that to practice a certain religion was a crime..then everyone who practiced that religion would loose their human rights, according to your logic? its not as black and white to say 'bad people shouldn't have human rights'.

and in answer to your question on the person breaking into their property. on the face of it you might think they are scum..but what if it is a man/woman with no money to buy food and all they are wanting to do is afford food for their starving family..so they break into a multi-millionaires house n steal a tv. yes, we shouldn't steal..but i'd hardly describe them as 'scum' for their act. wrong in law yes..but scum? u've got to think of every possibility for such crimes. should all 'criminals' loose human rights? if so, is it proportionate? if not, then where do we draw the line on which criminals should or shouldnt have their rights taken from them?

..and no it's not a uni work piece..minglevilles hardly the best source of information on university law standard.