Theresa May Vows To Rip Up Human Rights Laws To "Restrict The Freedom Of Terrorist Suspects"

in uk •  last year

Following a series of devastating attacks in the U.K. and mounting criticism of her counter-terrorism record, Theresa May has vowed to do whatever necessary, if re-elected later this week, to "restrict the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects" even it means ripping up "human rights laws that get in the way."  Among other things, the Prime Minister has said she will make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and will extend existing laws that restrict the freedom of British suspects on whom authorities "have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court." Per The Telegraph:

"When I stood on the steps of Downing Street after the London attack I said enough is enough and things have got to change."

"We need to take on the ideology that unites and motivates the perpetrators of these attacks."

“We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court."

"And if human rights laws get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them."

"If I am elected as Prime Minister on Thursday, I can tell you that this vital work begins on Friday.

As the Telegraph further notes, other contemplated actions would include efforts to force internet service providers to restrict access to extremist websites, tighter restrictions on mobile device usage by terror suspects and more aggressive curfews.

May had already announced plans for longer prison sentences for terrorists and a clamp down on internet firms that enable access to extremist material, but she now wants to go further.

She will extend the powers of police and the courts to restrict the movements of terrorist suspects using Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (Tpims).

It will mean suspects can be kept under curfews for longer periods each day, tighter controls on suspects associating with each other and more people being banned from using mobile phones and the internet.

Human Rights laws also held up the deportation of the hate preacher Abu Qatada to his native Jordan, and Mrs May says she will find ways to prevent future deportations being delayed.

If not for the artful wording, one could almost confuse the comments above for Trump quotes.  Of course, if Trump dared to propose such aggressive measures to combat terrorism the accusations of racism would ring out far and wide and Maxine Waters would have impeachment proceedings scheduled by the end of the day.

At the very least, those actions (if they are ever enforced) will have a more tangible impact than prayers...

However, will they be able to apply those measures without restricting the individual freedom and liberties of the general population?

ZeroHedge

For only the best of ZeroHedge and articles relating to Steem, Follow me @Zer0Hedge

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

This post received a 14% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @zer0hedge! For more information, click here!

I find this a grotesque overreach. I heard May's comments on the radio this morning and could hardly believe the brazen nature of openly promising to turf one of the pillars of cultured society; the support of civility, privacy and human rights.

Subversion of proper process in the context of what many have proposed is a manifested situation with nefarious motivations is indefensible. I recommend @sgtreport as just one of a number of voices articulately shining analytical concerns on the events that are triggering this power grab.

It is plain as day that the stripping of human rights is not intended to be restricted to "terrorist suspects". How on earth is that even defined unambiguously? This is a policy intended to uniformly and indescriminately strip rights from the citizenry.

The prudent enforcement of borders would have been an appropriate and effective preventative tool. The fact that the path chosen is one that imposes more state power makes the justifications highly questionable.

I wrote the following this morning that I think is relevant to the discussion.

In a letter widly believed to be penned by Benjamin Franklin written for the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1755 comes the following gem:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Thank God someone besides President Trump is beginning to talk sense.

It's simple logic as far as I'm concerned!

If Muslims don't respect our laws and human rights, why on earth do we afford them such privileges? Strip all Muslims of human rights priveledges and citizenship priveledges. If the insist on Sharia law overruling our civilized laws, why accommodate them?

Read the Koran! It explicitly instructs Muslims to murder and subjugate non believers!

This barbaric religion doesn't belong in Western society!

Any leader who allows such things is betraying their constituents and their country!

Enough is enough!

·

you aren't any sort of "freedom fighter" if you don't promote freedom for everyone, including those you disagree with. you'd think at the very least a freedom fighter would promote due process for all human beings.. regardless of the "charges" against them. Charges and convictions are two very different things.

·
·

I disagree with Muslims having any freedom because they are intolerant racists who massacre tolerant freedom lving people.

You need to get a a clue @doitvoluntarily.

·
·
·

You can't generalise an entire group of people based on their religious beliefs. Not all muslims are extremist, though others can be influenced into that mindset.

Its equivalent to saying chinese>white or black<indians based on series of events carried out by a few.

·
·
·
·

People like you, who ignore facts, is why there is a rape epidemic in Europe. It's also why innocent infidels get massacred on London Bridge, and it's also why young women in London and other parts of Europe get acid thrown in their face.

Keep defending barbaric Islam and Koran killing instructs @cryptonfused. You deserve the world you live in!👌

·
·
·
·
·

You can't generalise an entire group of people based on their religious beliefs.

Does this statement above in any way defend Islam?

I am not ignoring the fact that some parts of Islam's teachings (not necessarily the Koran) is a catalyst in such violence whic are committed by extremists against the innocent. But understand that Islam is not the only cause of these activities. It is retaliation, hate and revenge in response ro the exploitation and invasion of a country in the best interest of another

·
·
·
·
·
·

The Koran instructs Muslims to massacre infidels @cryptonfused.

Not all Muslim men in Rotherham groomed and gang raped little girls, but 1400+ English girls got raped by Muslim men!

You want this to continue?

·

one can seek criminal justice/remedy, charge and convict people over serious violent actions and yet still respect due process and human rights in the process, it's what some law enforcement officials have been doing for many decades, you know this right?..... I hope you aren't so clouded by fear and hatred that you are encouraged to promote the violation of civil liberties and human rights for others. That's a slippery slope you probably don't want to go down, affording the state the power to violate the basic liberties of others also gives them the power to violate yours in the same respect.

·
·

You have Muslims openly shouting "UK go to hell!" But somehow, you worried about their human rights?

Have noticed how these same people knifed 54 people in London very recently @doitvoluntarily?

The actual terrorism is a sensitive and global issue this days, it must be trate it like that, and mut be consense about how to fight it to get to an good port...

Terrorism is a tough issue because to catch many terrorists, the government thinks the only way is to limit everyone's rights. Very interesting and I will be following. Feel free to follow me back

One month ago I was talking with a friend about possible conspiracies, and we were talking about uk...and that a possible conspiracy would be forcing people by accepting surveillance of their online accounts. What I mean with "forcing" here is letting a terrorist attack fulfill. Is really hard to believe that their secret service is not aware of such attacks. Most terrorist plan this ahead, and usually all kind of persons who even search on internet alarming things, are put under observation.

I think I support whatever Mr.trump said about terrorism. But he to think twice whatever he said.Follow Me @whiteblood.

I do would worry measures like these could be abused.

oh how comforting when people in such positions of power so carelessly threaten to trample on basic civil liberties and human rights.

I don't like the idea that this is even still a conversation. It's almost as if the terrorists are less about creating terror, and more about trying to bring down the west to the 16th century.

Great post

"Minority Report" in the making

I wish the Conservatives in Britain didn't suck so much. Labour is so disgusting that you just want to root for them, but then they somehow make themselves look worse. I don't know, I think the UK desperately needs a shakeup (and possibly return to drawing and quartering).

nice post
thanks For Sharing
Resteem & Upvote me please
Thank you very much