 The "human rights" of foreign ex-prisoners on the run from police are being put before public safety. Detectives across the country are refusing to issue "wanted" posters for the missing criminals because they do not want to breach human rights laws.
| I think this might be known as "reductio ad absurdum." |
Forces said that the offenders had a right to privacy and might sue for defamation if their names and photographs were released.
Critics condemned the decision as "ludicrous".
| Wotta coincidence. That word popped right into my mind, too. |
It comes as the Government faces mounting pressure to reform or scrap the Human Rights Act, which was blamed last week for a murder by a serial sex attacker and for a court ruling that nine asylum seekers who hijacked an aeroplane cannot be sent home to Afghanistan.
| The 'Human Rights Act' sounds lofty, doesn't it? Only it doesn't include a right to be free from criminals and idiocy, it seems. |
| It's the socialist approach to "fairness". No matter how bad we make things, it's fine if we all suffer equally. Idiots. |
| "Human rights" is something distinct from "human liberty." It's one of those concepts that looks good on paper, but was invented by Beelzebub. |
Yesterday, the Lord Chancellor acknowledged public fears that dangerous criminals were able to remain at large because of the legislation and said the Government was considering new laws.
| The new law will order the public to stop their worrying; that belongs to the State. |
| The next step will be to address those public fears by a campaign of "education." |
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, has already vowed to order a review of the law if he is elected and will consider rewriting the legislation or even abolishing it.
| I'd go with abolition, myself. If you trade the Beelzebub version, you're likely to end up with something conceived by Baphomet or Mephistopheles. |
Police forces pointed to human rights legislation as the reason why names and photographs cannot be issued.
| "Nope. Nope. Can't do it. Don't want to violate their privacy, y'know." |
The Metropolitan Police said: "Anyone who is wanted on any offence has the right to privacy." Greater Manchester Police said: "We could not be sure about putting out information now without possibly defaming somebody." The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) says in its guidance to forces: "Article 8 of the Human Rights Act gives everyone the right to respect for their private and family life... and publication of photographs could be a breach of that."
"Calling all cars, calling all cars, be on the lookout for .. someone."
"Who?"
"We can't say, it would violate his rights. But be on the lookout!" |
According to Acpo, photographs should be released only in "exceptional circumstances", where public safety needs override the case for privacy. Last night the Conservatives condemned the decision. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "If true, this is a ludicrous interpretation of human rights. A criminal's right to privacy is as nothing by comparison to the public's right to safety."
| Well, says you. Think how the poor criminal feels. |
The world spends an inordinate amount of time nowadays concentrating on and codifying "human rights," but continues to studiously avoid addressing the idea of liberty. We do it in this country, too.
Once you've codified something, the list can be changed, expanded and contracted, depending on the preferences of the people making the list. In many countries it's been expanded to include all sorts of things that can mostly be honored in the breech, like a right to housing, a right to a job, and a right to a pony. That's all fodder for building bureaucracies; once you've got a "human right" to housing, then you build a Ministry of Housing. Once you've got a "human right" to a job, then you build a Ministry of Labor. It's been contracted to take away a citizen's right to self defense or to get his/her/its own medical care.
Liberty works the opposite of "human rights." It means government leaves you alone to do things your way. You can't build a ministry on that. There aren't any jobs for second cousins to be had in a Ministry of Leaving People Alone.
You'd think that a "right to privacy" would fall under the Ministry of Leaving People Alone, but it doesn't. It falls under the Ministry of Political Correctitude. You'd think that once a person violates the public's right to be left alone — alone, in this case, alone from criminal depredations — that his own right to privacy would dissipate. But political correctness doesn't work that way. It doesn't leave room for actual thought since it defines correct thought. That which isn't correct must be deviant. That's why, rather than changing a stupid policy, the "public fears" must be defined as deviant and a propaganda program — "public education" — must be undertaken to correct the "real" problem. |
|