Can people forfeit their rights

[alchemi2]

Having just read through a few threads that sort of touch on this subject but not wanting to throw them off the main topic, though i would start a new one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7338553.stm

This man preaches hatred and inspires violence and yet we are reluctant to deport him out fears for his rights(safety)

We grant serious criminals anonymity upon their release from prison.

We spend millions keeping pedophiles and serial murders safe from both society, other prisoners and themselves.

My question is should we allow these people the same rights as the ordinary law abiding people or should there be a point were you say NO you have broken societies rules, therefore you have forfeited the right to societies protection.

[Anathema]

Emotionally, I'd say screw him- he is preaching against the society that's protecting him, yet objects when he's about to be deported.

That said, people should not be deported to countries were even the most fundamental human rights are at best uncertain. I don't know much about the situation in Jordan. even the most fundamental human

If they're so certain about what he's been doing, send him to gaol.[/c

[alchemi2]

In his case he is in jail and will remain there until his appeal is heard.

As with all criminal immigrants the harshest punishment we offer is deportation back to their home country.

[nemafakei]

Hm...

"he is preaching against the society that's protecting him, yet objects when he's about to be deported"

I think this logic is totally flawed, not just mitigated by hesitancy. Our asylum system is home to some really shocking and depraved abuses. Should those in the system be deported if they speak out? If not, what levels of criticism of the nation you're in are permitted? Why should his civil rights be any less than those a native British person, just because he's come from a more repressive country?

The other thing is I'm not sure he's even been convincted of anything. I can quite believe he's an unpleasant man.

Alchemi, in your orginal question, who are "these people"? Refugees? Economic migrants? Non-EU nationals? People who've been accused of something or other? Convicted criminals?

"you have broken societies rules, therefore you have forfeited the right to societies protection."

When you have broken the State's rules (and sometimes when you haven't), the state punishes you. Sometimes the punishment is so great that it completely ruins your ability to ever fit back into society. Someone put in prison in 1978 who comes out today would be totally unable to comprehend so much of the world around them. Is this part of the punishment, rather like the 'walking dead' in '1984'? Is the fact that a criminal record is a hindrance to getting a job part of the punishment? Granted the state is completely right to stop people convicted of child abuse from being teachers, but that doesn't erase the fact that the punishment lasts longer than the however-many-years in prison you get.

[Tatar Khan]

We do take away rights from criminals when we put them in jail. However the criminal system in most countries values rehabilitation rather than punishment and so special protection is given to the people after they come out of prison on the idea that they have been rehabilitated. That doesn't mean they were rehabilitated, and often they are not.

As for that man, the freedom of expression is what protecting him, in order not to compromise it fro teh rest of the society sometimes we have to let few freaks go free.

[alchemi2]

That infact is my question Nema.

Is there a point or should there be a point when you lose your right to be protect by society?

The new article just prompted me to think about that.

In my view prison should remove certain rights to interact with society. The right to votes, freedom of movement, the use of the phone unless supervised, the freedom to watch tv or use computers for pleasure.

Prison should be used to rehabilitate and educate but within a strict structure, by which i mean much like the army have to be up at certain time in bed by a certain time, a regime of eduction and training.

But it type of regime would also depend on the crime committed and prisons should house criminals of similar levels together.

For me certain crimes do deserve the termination of life or for the term life imprisonment to actually mean that. Mass murderers and prov-en paedophiles should never be released.

Freedom of speech is important to me but inciting others to violence so not be tolerated.

Peaceful protest gains more sympathy and support more than radical violent action.

[Khan]

Surely the fact that we have a right to be protected by society, just as society has the right to be protected from some individuals, means that you cannot forfeit it. When Civil Rights become privileges that's a dark road I really don't want to go down.

[Dunenewt]

I do agree in principle, that when people break society's laws, that society can take away their civil rights.  If someone is inciting racial hatred in this country, then I see no reason why they should not be deported, wherever they came from.  If they are going to endanger people in this country, then I see no reason why they should not be deported, just because their own live could be in danger, we cannot have these kind of standards, which protect such people over British citizens.  I'm talking here in reference to the Muslim Cleric who alchemi2 refers to in the first post.

[alchemi2]

Surely the fact that we have a right to be protected by society, just as society has the right to be protected from some individuals, means that you cannot forfeit it. When Civil Rights become privileges that's a dark road I really don't want to go down.

Perhaps people would respect those rights if it was possible to lose them.

Prisoners riot and wreck the prison, we the law abiding citizens have to pay for the repairs (and luxuries), since when has a tv or phone been a basic need or a pool table. Surely crime shouldn't be rewarded but punished.

Provide education facilities and training yes but remove the things that often make prison a better place to be than home.

I not saying basic human rights like representation or fair trail or allowing torture etc.

Also on immigrants or refugees, if they came here to find work or escape war good for them BUT if they then abuse the laws of this country, why should we then offer them protection or care?

[Anathema]

Hm...

"he is preaching against the society that's protecting him, yet objects when he's about to be deported"

I think this logic is totally flawed, not just mitigated by hesitancy. Our asylum system is home to some really shocking and depraved abuses. Should those in the system be deported if they speak out? If not, what levels of criticism of the nation you're in are permitted? Why should his civil rights be any less than those a native British person, just because he's come from a more repressive country?

The other thing is I'm not sure he's even been convincted of anything. I can quite believe he's an unpleasant man.

First I'll have to admit that I haven't bothered to look up the specifics of the case.

Just advocating certain changes is fine. If someone wants to introduce the sharia, I'll agree to disagree. But people who advocate violence against the established legal order should be punished; if they originally came from somewhere else and haven't been naturalized they should be deported. I view them as disgusting hypocrites, who speak out against political rights present in their host country but try to defend their actions with it when it suits them. Deporting them back to the middle east might, as an ironic side benefit, be a suitable lesson for them.

[Khan]

Perhaps people would respect those rights if it was possible to lose them.

Prisoners riot and wreck the prison, we the law abiding citizens have to pay for the repairs (and luxuries), since when has a tv or phone been a basic need or a pool table. Surely crime shouldn't be rewarded but punished.

Provide education facilities and training yes but remove the things that often make prison a better place to be than home.

I not saying basic human rights like representation or fair trail or allowing torture etc.

Also on immigrants or refugees, if they came here to find work or escape war good for them BUT if they then abuse the laws of this country, why should we then offer them protection or care?

Taking away someone's rights just feels very awkward to me. What if they are accused and convicted of a crime they did not commit? They could be deported and tortured and there would be no way of reversing the situation.

And surely the point of pool tables and TVs in prison is that they help prevent riots. If you took away those luxuries surely prisoners would just sit and stew until they boiled over and started rioting. Besides I don't think riots go unpunished in prisons - certainly not for the instigators anyway.

[Edric O]

Can people forfeit their rights? Yes. Should the rights of this particular preacher be forfeit? No.

We cannot punish people - or worse, take away their rights - for speaking out against the current form of society. That is not only a gross violation of freedom of speech, but an outright totalitarian principle: the idea that people have no right to criticize the status quo.

As for that man, the freedom of expression is what protecting him, in order not to compromise it fro teh rest of the society sometimes we have to let few freaks go free.

Exactly. You can't pick and choose who gets free speech and who doesn't - if you do that, there is no free speech any more.

Emotionally, I'd say screw him- he is preaching against the society that's protecting him, yet objects when he's about to be deported.

Would his ideal society deport dissenters? If not, then his position is perfectly coherent. If he is not preaching to deport those who oppose him, it makes perfect sense to object to his own deportation.

I do agree in principle, that when people break society's laws, that society can take away their civil rights.  If someone is inciting racial hatred in this country, then I see no reason why they should not be deported, wherever they came from.  If they are going to endanger people in this country, then I see no reason why they should not be deported, just because their own live could be in danger, we cannot have these kind of standards, which protect such people over British citizens.  I'm talking here in reference to the Muslim Cleric who alchemi2 refers to in the first post.

What if a native British person is inciting racial hatred? Or, to put it more bluntly - what about the BNP? Do they have more rights than Muslim clerics?

Also on immigrants or refugees, if they came here to find work or escape war good for them BUT if they then abuse the laws of this country, why should we then offer them protection or care?

The law should be the same for all, whether they are immigrants or not. Having different classes of people with different rights is the road to feudalism. Immigrants who break the law should be treated exactly the same way as native citizens who break the same law.

Just advocating certain changes is fine. If someone wants to introduce the sharia, I'll agree to disagree. But people who advocate violence against the established legal order should be punished; if they originally came from somewhere else and haven't been naturalized they should be deported. I view them as disgusting hypocrites, who speak out against political rights present in their host country but try to defend their actions with it when it suits them. Deporting them back to the middle east might, as an ironic side benefit, be a suitable lesson for them.

Excuse me, but "change" does not mean "sharia", and opposition to the established legal order does not mean opposition to political and civil rights. You're talking as if Muslim extremists are the only people who want to change the status quo. That's nonsense.

I am a communist. I advocate radical change, by violent revolution if necessary. Should I be punished for my views?

[Dunenewt]

What if a native British person is inciting racial hatred? Or, to put it more bluntly - what about the BNP? Do they have more rights than Muslim clerics?

They do not have more rights than this particular Muslim clerics as such, they should merely forfeit them in different ways.  As the cleric in question originally came from...Syria I think, then we should send him back there, as theoretically, that would be cheaper than locking him up (yes I know bureaucracy means it probably isn't), but with members of the BNP inciting racial hatred, then they should be punished in other more traditional ways, such as being locked up, community service etc.

[Khan]

But when do people get to enter into the club that gets judged the same as those born in the UK? Will immigrants always be immigrants or will they eventually be the same as everyone else? It's kind of important for me to know as I'm an immigrant and not even a citizen. :O

[alchemi2]

I am a communist. I advocate radical change, by violent revolution if necessary. Should I be punished for my views?

YES if you incite people to violence then you should be punished. How do you bring about Communism through violence the very tenet's of true communism make it impossible to be brought about by violence.

I either didn't make myself clear or people are deliberately misinterpreting.

I'm  NOT saying immigrants should be deported for any crime or should have less rights than a citizen. In fact i believe people who come here to live should become citizens (not transient workers who intend going home after a year or so) that way they are seen to be making a commitment to their new country.

IF prisons are to rehabilitate then you need to educate the prisoners and give them life skill and counseling dependant on their crime.

A strict structured environment in prison along with the above will help to reform the prison habit and deter re-offending, as well as being seen as a punishment for the crimes committed.

The ultimate punishment is the termination of life, when someone is found guilty of multiple murder (beyond any doubt eg H Shipman) or is a prov-en paedophile (again without any doubt) like the man who filmed himself sexually abusing a baby. Why keep them in prison for 10 to 15 years then let them out to do it again?

Known criminals should not be allowed in to the country (where their crime is recognised as a crime here) so rapist, robbers etc NOT political refugees.

[Dunenewt]

I actually agree with everything alchemi2 says above.

But when do people get to enter into the club that gets judged the same as those born in the UK? Will immigrants always be immigrants or will they eventually be the same as everyone else? It's kind of important for me to know as I'm an immigrant and not even a citizen. :O

I think you're lying about that last thing ;) But honestly, I'm not too sure about when someone stops being an immigrant and starts being a citizen, I'll have to give that more thought.

[Anathema]

Excuse me, but "change" does not mean "sharia", and opposition to the established legal order does not mean opposition to political and civil rights. You're talking as if Muslim extremists are the only people who want to change the status quo. That's nonsense.

I am a communist. I advocate radical change, by violent revolution if necessary. Should I be punished for my views?

I mentioned sharia because that's the underlying issue here- imams who preach that violence is an acceptable means of establishing islamic law in a secular western society. If somebody says that he would like to see Sharia being introduced, but doesn't break the law in attaining his goals, that's his right. As said, with those people I can agree to disagree.

But if you advocate violent revolution in a western democracy you'll be considered a criminal, and rightly so. We're not talking about banana republics here.

[Edric O]

They do not have more rights than this particular Muslim clerics as such, they should merely forfeit them in different ways.

Why?

YES if you incite people to violence then you should be punished.

So, by the same token, you agree that dictators should punish anyone who incites people to violence against their regimes, yes? So, for example, you agree that apartheid South Africa was right in throwing Nelson Mandela in prison, because he incited blacks to violence against the racist regime?

And you cannot say that some governments have the right to punish dissenters and others don't. That is pure hypocrisy.

How do you bring about Communism through violence the very tenet's of true communism make it impossible to be brought about by violence.

I don't want violent revolution; I don't wish for violence. But I think it will probably be the only way to achieve change. Every major social change in history was achieved either through violence or the threat of violence. Hopefully the threat will be enough to achieve communism - but it probably won't be.

As for how violence fits in with communist revolution, it goes like this: Communists get in a position of power (for example they win elections or lead a huge mass strike or demonstration) and say "ok, we're going to form a government now." The capitalists say "no you won't" and send in the army to slaughter the communists. Violence ensues. Sure, we wish the capitalists would bow before the popular will, but we're not so naive as to really expect that to happen. It is very likely that we will have to use violence to defend ourselves from capitalist armies, special police forces and possibly right-wing militias.

And yes, if you advocate violent revolution in a western democracy you'll be considered a criminal, and rightly so. We're not talking about banana republics here.

So people should have the freedom to advocate the violent overthrow of regimes you don't like, but not the violent overthrow of regimes you like? You bloody liberal hypocrite. You have no right to complain about violations of freedom of speech anywhere in the world if you want to suppress it in your own country.

After all, what is "violence" anyway? Every dictatorship imprisons dissidents under the pretense that they advocate violent revolution. Your logic justifies every repressive action imaginable. What counts as violence? Killing civilians? Killing anyone - even killing soldiers in self-defence? Harming people? Shouting insults?

[Edric O]

If somebody says that he would like to see Sharia being introduced, but doesn't break the law in attaining his goals, that's his right. As said, with those people I can agree to disagree.

Obviously breaking the law should be punished by the law - that is self-evident by definition. The question is, should we punish people for talking about breaking the law? That's what you seem to be advocating.

[Anathema]

6000th post...

Feeling particuary vehement today?

Committing or advocating violence against a regime will always provoke a response from the state, unless it is weak. That much is evident. In democratic regimes, where people can implement their wishes if enough of them want it, the punishment is furthermore just because the perpetrating minority seeks to subvert the whole nation to their will.

Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. But we have to seperate pure opinion from directive. It's one thing to say that homosexuality is immoral. It's another thing to say that those who practice it should be executed.  It's one thing to say that inequality of wealth is unjust; it's another thing to say that bankers and CEO's should be dragged out of their houses and killed on their own doorsteps.

[Edric O]

Feeling particuary vehement today?

Yes, I tend to get rather vehement when you call me a criminal for my opinions.

Committing or advocating violence against a regime will always provoke a response from the state, unless it is weak.

Committing, yes, of course. Advocating - not always. Certainly not unless the people advocating violence are numerous and organized enough to be considered a real threat. And, of course, it depends on the precise kind of "violence" being advocated. I am advocating violence in self-defence if the state sends in the army to crush a revolution.

That much is evident. In democratic regimes, where people can implement their wishes if enough of them want it, the punishment is furthermore just because the perpetrating minority seeks to subvert the whole nation to their will.

That would be true if modern western "democracies" actually respected the popular will. But we both know that they don't. Ruling parties care less and less about what the people actually want, and the electoral system in most countries is designed in such a way that even the most popular policies sometimes don't get implemented (*cough* War in Iraq *cough*).

Yes, freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. But we have to seperate pure opinion from directive. It's one thing to say that homosexuality is immoral. It's another thing to say that those who practice it should be executed.

And yet there are plenty of people in western democracies - particularly in the United States - who openly proclaim that homosexuals should be executed. Would you throw these people in prison? Would you throw anyone in prison if they said that X type of people should be executed? You'd need a rather pervasive thought police...

It's one thing to say that inequality of wealth is unjust; it's another thing to say that bankers and CEO's should be dragged out of their houses and killed on their own doorsteps.

But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that inequality of wealth is unjust, that bankers and CEO's will probably try to kill us if we attempt to eliminate inequality of wealth, and that we should fight back, using lethal force if necessary, in the likely event that they try to kill us.

[Anathema]

Yes, I tend to get rather vehement when you call me a criminal for my opinions.

Sorry for offending you.

I wasn't thinking of you or anyone specific when I wrote that. I do believe though, that acts of disobedience (violence not excluded) wich I would sympathize with when directed against an opressive state, are out of place in this part of their world. In short, resisting against the state in Syria or Eritrea makes you a freedom fighter, over here it means you're at best clueless and at worst a violent criminal, or even a terrorist.

Besides, this whole thread started with a radical islamic preacher, who aren't really known for their passionate belief in civil and political rights.

Would you throw anyone in prison if they said that X type of people should be executed? You'd need a rather pervasive thought police...

I'm not in favour of Orwellian surveilance of any speech anywhere, anytime. I don't think that any sudden, emotional outburst or evidently vain statements should be prosecuted either. However, say that if someone is deliberately reaching out to a big audience like Wilders posting a video on Liveleak, or an imam preaching in a mosque, and calls upon people to bring violence against a minority (or in the latter case, the majority) prosecution should be an option.

But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that inequality of wealth is unjust, that bankers and CEO's will probably try to kill us if we attempt to eliminate inequality of wealth, and that we should fight back, using lethal force if necessary, in the likely event that they try to kill us.

On that note: how far would you go? Suppose that in the UK, Norway or any western country some workers lock themselves up in a factory or an industrial compound in the belief that this will unleash a class struggle. Suppose further that they've got some firearms. A court orders that they're acting illegally and the police approaches to remove them. Would you support the workers if they try to defend their position by firing on the police?

[Khan]

I think you're lying about that last thing ;) But honestly, I'm not too sure about when someone stops being an immigrant and starts being a citizen, I'll have to give that more thought.

I'm actually not. I'm a US/Australian Citizen but I'm only allowed residential status in the UK. :)

[alchemi2]

Once again to clarify.

I am referring to the UK system of justice, where people have rights and an amount of freedom of speech.

Violence should never be necessary to bring about change in a democratic society.

I campaigned and marched in support of Freeing Mandela and supported the ANC.

An armed struggle against a dictatorship/fascist regime is totally different to armed conflict in a democratic society.

I agreed with the armed struggle of the ANC (although not with the street bombings) BUT i could never agree with the terror tactics of the IRA, the difference between the two is quite clear to me.

Edric0 i can only hope that you're either being deliberately obtuse or playing Devils Advocate, otherwise you have seriously gone down in my estimation.

I was not intending this to be a debate about the Imam or Muslims, the article just got me thinking about rights given to people in this country, that and a few other threads on here.

Hence the new topic as i didn't want to throw them off course raising the issue there.

hehe slighly inebriated so this is Edric0 credo song

[nemafakei]

"An armed struggle against a dictatorship/fascist regime is totally different to armed conflict in a democratic society."

The more a liberal democracy is threatened with the outbreak of more progressive forms of democracy, the more likely it is to turn authoritarian. Your freedom of speech is entirely dependent on how much of a threat you are; the more desperate the rulers, the more willing they are to declare emergency situations and use extraordinary powers.

Even in times of relative conformity, documentaries like this are being suppressed: http://www.schnews.org.uk/schmovies/index-on-the-verge.htm ; the first implementation of the new government anti-terrorist legislation in Scotland was against a Quaker peace activist.

Now, I agree that the IRA's political analysis was and is sectarian, which inevitably lead it to a lot of seriously wrong-headed tactics. But at the same time, we can't ignore the shady role of the military in the other side of that.

"Besides, this whole thread started with a radical islamic preacher, who aren't really known for their passionate belief in civil and political rights."

Well, yeah, but legislation used on scary-looking foreigners then gets used on anyone posing a threat.

"Would you support the workers if they try to defend their position by firing on the police?"

Depends on the exact logistics. If the police are shooting, for example, I would be quite happy to point out that the state is now putting the artificial property 'rights' of the few over the actual lives of the many and behaving in such an authoritarian way that Sweden is no better than Syria. My sympathies would be with the workers, even if they have to fight back.