EU must accept some erosion of civil rights’

mkpdavies · 08-09-2005, 09:55 AM

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-9-2005_pg4_13

Quote:

STRASBOURG: European Union states may have to accept an erosion of some civil liberties if their citizens are to be protected from organised crime and terrorism, EU president Britain told the European Parliament on Wednesday.

Interior Minister Charles Clarke told EU lawmakers the right to life outweighed concerns over invasion of privacy and warned judges in European courts that if they failed to recognise this, the European Convention of Human Rights may need to be changed.

“It seems to me we have to give the same rights to those humans who want to travel without being blown up on an underground train,” Clarke earlier told reporters in London. “If the judges don’t understand that message and don’t take decisions which reflect where the people of the continent want to be, then the conclusion will be that politicians ... will be saying we have got to have a change in this regime.”

That could have been a statement by Hitler.

Quote:

Clarke’s tough stance on human rights drew criticism from the EU assembly’s Liberal Democrats and Greens. “We do not agree ... that the human rights of the victims are more important than the human rights of the terrorists,” said Graham Watson, British leader of the Liberal Democrats.

“Human rights are indivisible. Freedom and security are not alternatives, they go hand-in-hand ... Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights.” Watson qouted criticism by human rights lawyer Cherie Booth - wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair - of Britain’s hardline anti-terror measures. reuters

But then we have the incompetent idiot Watson come out with a statement like this. SUSPECTED terrorist of cause have rights, as they have not yet been proven guilty. Terrorist themselves have zero rights, if they commit terror, they should fully expect to die.

Anthony Butcher · 08-09-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

the right to life outweighed concerns over invasion of privacy

Says who?

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
- Benjamin franklin

mkpdavies · 08-09-2005, 10:54 AM

Whose to say his invasion in to my privacy will make society any safer anyway.

It's a lie, and they know it!

kernow · 08-09-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Terrorist themselves have zero rights, if they commit terror, they should fully expect to die.

Slowly

C_steam · 08-09-2005, 12:25 PM

If, apparently, life is more important than liberty can someone ask Bliar what the lives of servicemen are put at risk protecting the liberty of Iraqi citizens?

mkpdavies · 08-09-2005, 01:26 PM

Anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was for the Iraqi citizens, needs a strong cup of coffee.

Anthony Butcher · 08-09-2005, 02:13 PM

This whole philosophy is typical of Labour - they aren't willing to put themselves at any kind of risk, whether it is their lives or their careers. Pure cowardice.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died over the years to build and protect our freedom, yet Blair and Clarke can't give it away fast enough.

Britain needs a political party to take a stand and start showing these cowards up for what they are.

mkpdavies · 08-09-2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Britain needs a political party to take a stand and start showing these cowards up for what they are.

The Tories ain't doing it!

The Lib Dems are making a pigs ear of doing it!

WHERE THE F*** IS UKIP?

Even if the press won't listen, the website could at least be updated.

STILL there is just EU EU EU.

The current leadership CLEARLY still have no interest in turning UKIP INTO phpbb_the real deal. They must still think the Tories will come around.

PATHETIC.

Roger Gough · 08-09-2005, 02:44 PM

This argument by New Labour is vomit provoking. Why doesn't Bliar unilaterally enact, at Westminster, the legislation Clarke is calling for TO PROTECT BRITAIN. If Europe doesn't want to follow our lead - so be it. It seems fair surely, to think that anyone attacking the UK will be making calls/e-mailing within the UK. If not - say a 9/11 type attack - then we wouldn't be able to forestall it in any case. Clarke's Europe performance is grandstanding anyway - our Security forces were unable to pick up on at least two home grown conspiracies before they happened, so the new 'rules' would only allow us to mop up the blood and jail someone for life at the expense of the taxpayer. Rather than expecting Europe to perform a volte face and allow us to send terrorists back from whence they came, they need only - in future - apply the most stringent immigration rules they can devise. THAT would almost certainly be a British life saver. Perhaps the most interesting "non event" news item to receive minimalist coverage by the media however, is the arrest last week of a man for the murder (shooting) of the three Black residents in Stonebridge Park about 6/7 weeks ago. When the Met is gagging for any good publicity it can muster after Stockwell, it's strange that this detection - 'bordering on genius' I would say - has been reduced to a footling foot note in the few papers that have seen fit to carry the story. Why should this be? Answer: the guy's an illegal immigrant - he's been charged with 'immigration offences' as well. This stunning success was not even mentioned on the front page of 'The Voice' when they reported this week on Ian Blair's visit to Jamaica. Do this Government only want to highlight Black deaths - rather than Police efficiency?

mkpdavies · 08-09-2005, 03:05 PM

More sickening evidence of the control our media is under.

08-09-2005, 10:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	Whose to say his invasion in to my privacy will make society any safer anyway. It's a lie, and they know it! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

08-09-2005, 01:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	Anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was for the Iraqi citizens, needs a strong cup of coffee. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

08-09-2005, 03:05 PM	#10 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	More sickening evidence of the control our media is under. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-09-2005, 12:25 PM	#5 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,802	If, apparently, life is more important than liberty can someone ask Bliar what the lives of servicemen are put at risk protecting the liberty of Iraqi citizens?

08-09-2005, 02:13 PM	#7 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,205 Party: None	This whole philosophy is typical of Labour - they aren't willing to put themselves at any kind of risk, whether it is their lives or their careers. Pure cowardice. Hundreds of thousands of people have died over the years to build and protect our freedom, yet Blair and Clarke can't give it away fast enough. Britain needs a political party to take a stand and start showing these cowards up for what they are.

08-09-2005, 02:44 PM	#9 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 708	This argument by New Labour is vomit provoking. Why doesn't Bliar unilaterally enact, at Westminster, the legislation Clarke is calling for TO PROTECT BRITAIN. If Europe doesn't want to follow our lead - so be it. It seems fair surely, to think that anyone attacking the UK will be making calls/e-mailing within the UK. If not - say a 9/11 type attack - then we wouldn't be able to forestall it in any case. Clarke's Europe performance is grandstanding anyway - our Security forces were unable to pick up on at least two home grown conspiracies before they happened, so the new 'rules' would only allow us to mop up the blood and jail someone for life at the expense of the taxpayer. Rather than expecting Europe to perform a volte face and allow us to send terrorists back from whence they came, they need only - in future - apply the most stringent immigration rules they can devise. THAT would almost certainly be a British life saver. Perhaps the most interesting "non event" news item to receive minimalist coverage by the media however, is the arrest last week of a man for the murder (shooting) of the three Black residents in Stonebridge Park about 6/7 weeks ago. When the Met is gagging for any good publicity it can muster after Stockwell, it's strange that this detection - 'bordering on genius' I would say - has been reduced to a footling foot note in the few papers that have seen fit to carry the story. Why should this be? Answer: the guy's an illegal immigrant - he's been charged with 'immigration offences' as well. This stunning success was not even mentioned on the front page of 'The Voice' when they reported this week on Ian Blair's visit to Jamaica. Do this Government only want to highlight Black deaths - rather than Police efficiency?