Terrorist/criminal human rights

quote:

And may I suggest you come up to Rochdale and Bradford and look at the realities you are obviously cushioned from down in beautiful Sussex?

So what!!!!

How about the twenty years I lived in Glasgow or the 18 months I lived in Harehills in Leeds?
Not sure you'd like Beautiful Sussex, there's an Asian grocers across the road from me. Probably inexorably growing as we speak.

And we're all gay

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rasher:

"The reasons for 9/11 are important to understand certainly, but terrorism has no justification whatsoever, and it's a dangerous road to accept it's reasoning because it can easily lead to excusing it."

Understanding it is not accepting it. My point is, if you do not understand, or deliberately fail to take account of, the complex factors of any issue then you have no hope of resolving it.

"Anyone here putting the cause of terrorism at the feet of the western governments is indirectly supporting a crime against humanity".

I find that difficult to agree with. Bush and Blair were made aware that their actions would significantly increase the threat of terrorism, despite what they will admit to in public. Are you seriously suggesting that sections of the Arab world have no grievances against the west (how they express that grievance is another matter entirely, and we can both, rightly, condemn terrorism as a response).

"This threat has nothing to do with race or immigration at all, so why try to relate it?"

Because of the abysmal introduction of racism into the thread by another post.

Bloody hell! I don't remember the Arabs having a partition over parts of Europe or the UK!

Or any Arab nation invading a Western country because they have arsenals of, and are developing, weapons of mass destruction!

The foreign policies of Western nations over the past century are most definitely and inextricably part of the problem. They have definitely provided motives for terrorism. That's not putting terrorism at the feet of Western governments - but to suggest that foreign policy, and presence abroad, of Western Nations hasn't contributed but is just a problem is, simply, ludicrous.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
- but to suggest that foreign policy, and presence abroad, of Western Nations hasn't contributed but is just a problem is, simply, ludicrous.

I said:

quote:

There may be problems with foreign policy, but terrorism is not excusable

Of couse it would be ludicrous, there is no doubt it has contributed to the problem, but act of terrorism do not deserve to be regarded as anything other than inexcusable. Pay lip service to it, and you validate it as a political weapon. As in the NI negotiations, when, and only when, terrorism and arms were put aside could talks in a civilised manner begin. There can be no negotiations with terrorists under any circumstances because it then qualifies its actions as reaching its goal. By acknowledging it you are walking into a trap.
I don't understand why my posts are continuously misread. It must be me. I obviously don't make my points clearly enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

"The reasons for 9/11 are important to understand certainly, but terrorism has no justification whatsoever, and it's a dangerous road to accept it's reasoning because it can easily lead to excusing it."

Understanding it is not accepting it.

"..and it's a dangerous road to accept it's reasoning because it can easily lead to excusing it."

Dear Nigel,

I do know why Lord diplock's recomendations to use juryless trials in certain political and terrorist cases were brought in - intimidation in the circumstances. I only mentioned Diplock because there seemed some doubt about whether there was a working definition of terrorism and political murder, where a poster asked me for my own [irrelevant] definition of terrorism.

Inevitably terrorism is and will continue to be handled differently from most criminal cases. That is hardly ideal, but then in an ideal world we would not have shop-lifters to prosecute either.

It seems to me that the UK government is no more likely to play softly-softly with terrorists now than historically, especially given the recent history of NI. This does not preclude examining future foreign policy. The two aspects are separate, but both must be considered when formulating future policy, and state security. I am sure that both are being actively considered, and will continue to be.

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

There may be problems with foreign policy, but terrorism is not excusable

In fact, some foreign policy of Western Nations is not excusable. If some Western Nations admitted to that, and started making amends for it, then some terrorism might be prevented.

quote:

In fact, some foreign policy of Western Nations is not excusable. If some Western Nations admitted to that, and started making amends for it, then some terrorism might be prevented.

Idealistic dreaming...........
Fanatics of whatever persuasion just hate organised, civilised society. They will use terror tactics regardless. Sure, there is little to be gained by deliberately goading them, or unecessarily giving them "just" causes to help them brain-wash their own ranks and confuse the weak-minded do-gooders in civilised societies. But at the end of the day, these terrorists will still hate you and attack you.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

at the end of the day, these terrorists will still hate you and attack you.

That's quite an assertion. What causes you to think this?

Look..There will always be a clash of cultures and we have to learn to respect each other, except when it comes to things like Mugabe or other crimes against humanity where the world has to intervene. When these CAH occur, they are carried out by people with a following, and these people with their twisted logic are terrorists in the making.
It takes a sick mind to become a terrorist. Deane, you talk as if rational political opponents can become terrorists, when in fact rational people turn to politics.
I keep saying this, but I have to keep saying it...there is no excuse for terrorism.

Rasher

I've come across some extreme right wingers in my time (educated and extremely articulate skinheads really...) and they are quite rational about their opposition to immigration and so on. They understand that they are prejudiced and are happy to self-apply the term. They also had a cache of weapons hidden in the countryside.

I didn't agree with them, or like them, but I certainly wouldn't apply the term "twisted" to their logic. I'm not happy to do violence to other human beings - but there are people all around me that are.

Deane

quote:

That's quite an assertion. What causes you to think this?

Lots of things, including a statement to that effect about 10 days ago from one of Al Quaida's top men.

Cheers

Don

quote:

I'm not happy to do violence to other human beings - but there are people all around me that are.

Yep, we had a few consciencious objectors over here during the WWII. They were tollerated. Fortunately for them, there were an awful lot of other human beings willing to do violence against the Germans.

Life ain't sweet or simple when there are nut-case fanatics about.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
but a child is no more or less a victim than an adult victim of violent crime. What is it in particular about crimes against children that merits such especially harsh treatment by the justice system?

The fact that they are abused by adults in a position of trust and can do NOTHING about it. Children, by defeinition, are considerably more vulnerable than adults and unable to comprehend why the vile deeds happened to them - was it their fault? Can I tell anyone? Who can I trust?

You really should know better.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Bloody hell! I don't remember the Arabs having a partition over parts of Europe or the UK!

Or any Arab nation invading a Western country because they have arsenals of, and are developing, weapons of mass destruction!

The foreign policies of Western nations over the past century are most definitely and inextricably part of the problem. They have definitely provided motives for terrorism. That's not putting terrorism at the feet of Western governments - but to suggest that foreign policy, and presence abroad, of Western Nations hasn't contributed but is just a problem is, simply, ludicrous.

Are the Maoris still the majority landowners in NZ?

After all, they where once the only landowners.

The smell of sanctimony wafts across the ether...

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

The fact that they are abused by adults in a position of trust and can do NOTHING about it. Children, by defeinition, are considerably more vulnerable than adults and unable to comprehend why the vile deeds happened to them - was it their fault? Can I tell anyone? Who can I trust?

Agreed. But my question was why should this translate into harsher treatment for the offenders? For instance, adult victims of rape suffer very similarly in terms of the resultant affects (such as PTSD etc).

Are these calls for harsh or brutal sentences for child sexual offenders motivated by simple revenge?

quote:

You really should know better.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean I should be agreeing with you?

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

Are the Maoris still the majority landowners in NZ?

After all, they where once the only landowners.

No, the Maori are not the majority landowners in NZ. The Treaty of Waitangi - which was in fact a covenant more than it was a treaty - ceded sovereignty to the Crown in return for recognition of certain things. Maori (that is to say; Iwi, Hapu and Whanau) have a great many greivances against the Crown. Fortunately there is a forum where these grievances can be heard - The Waitangi Tribunal.

quote:

The smell of sanctimony wafts across the ether...

Yes indeed. I can smell you from here.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

That's quite an assertion. What causes you to think this?

Lots of things, including a statement to that effect about 10 days ago from one of Al Quaida's top men.

Cheers

Don

This DVD is set for release July 17th and seems to offer good insight to the problems the west currently faces.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:


No, the Maori are not the majority landowners in NZ. The Treaty of Waitangi - which was in fact a covenant more than it was a treaty - ceded sovereignty to the Crown in return for recognition of certain things.

In reality the Treaty justified making New Zealand a British colony; it also gave Māori the rights of British citizens and the right to ownership of their lands and other properties. In other words, it "gave" Maoris the ownership of their own lands.

It was drafted in 1840 in four days by a Naval Captain with no legal training

quote:

Maori (that is to say; Iwi, Hapu and Whanau) have a great many greivances against the Crown. Fortunately there is a forum where these grievances can be heard - The Waitangi Tribunal.

"A great many greivances" at least you are capable of understatment...

The Tribunal is largely toothless; its decisions are not binding on the Crown even if settlements are based on their conclusions.

quote:

Yes indeed. I can smell you from here.

As ever, you don't like to be shown up.

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

"A great many greivances" at least you are capable of understatment...

The Tribunal is largely toothless; its decisions are not binding on the Crown even if settlements are based on their conclusions.

Toothless? Please point to some "conclusions" of the Tribunal that have not been followed by the government of the day.

And anyway, parliament is the supreme law-making body in New Zealand. It would be constitutionally impossible to set up a tribunal that made binding "conclusions".

quote:

As ever, you don't like to be shown up.

And, as ever, your posts show more aggression than argument.

I just thinbk Mike makes a point which if you disagree with it, that is fine. From outside the arguement I would say, "Mike, 15, Deane, 0," so far

Looking at it from little old Britain, it seems to me that all the aboriginal populations of territoties populated by the British in the colonial phase of british History - North American Red Indians and Eskimos, Australian Aboriginals, Maoris, for the main examples - are still woefully badly done by by the white incomers, New Zealand being no exception. The last thing a NZ resident should be doing is considering the wrongs of the British situation before sorting out your own. Living in glass houses throwin stone perhaps...

ATB from Fredrik

New Zealand ( North and South Island ) is still in the main in non-Maori hands.

The Treaty of Waitangi "gave" Maoris "ownership" of land that was theirs prior to white settlement; the Tribunal was set up in 1975 to redress Maori complaints that the Treaty was not being adhered to by the Pakeha.

The Maoris feel that the Treaty gave them control of all things Maori; the Whites, rather conveniently, do not.

So, we have a Tribunal set up to look into breaches of a Treaty that the Whites chose to interpret in a manner that suits them.

If a Tribunal cannot have binding powers, it is toothless and so devalued. It should be constituted as a Parliamentary Select Committee, as a Judicial Enquiry or some other body that would have legally binding powers.

As per your usual style, you feign to ignore the substance of an argument and dissemble.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
The last thing a NZ resident should be doing is considering the wrongs of the British situation before sorting out your own. Living in glass houses throwin stone perhaps...

ATB from Fredrik

My point exactly, Fredrik.

I am in the process of reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"; an history of the annihilation of Native Americans.

It really is hideous.

Regards

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:
[QUOTE]


[QUOTE] I am in the process of reading "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"; an history of the annihilation of Native Americans.

It really is hideous.

Good book - its one of those books I think everyone should read.