MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Rosario and Liverpool mayors sign human rights enhancement agreement
Mayors of Rosario, Argentina and Liverpool, Monica Fein and Joseph Anderson signed a human rights cooperation agreement on Wednesday in Liverpool, the first of its kind between Argentine and British cities since the 1982 conflict. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe British don't have the institutional solidity to bring their own leaders and politicians to justice, and we are signing treaties with them on a matter Argentina is far more advanced about in both respecting and prosecuting? Stop signing treaties with countries that are in the stone age about this...
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Signing Human Rights agreements with the British is like signing a science exchange treaty with Autralopithecuses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_post-invasion_Iraq#Human_rights_abuses_by_coalition_forces
So when is la Kretina due to face justice for ALL her underhand and dishonest offences against the citizens of your benighted nation?
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you really thing that wikipedia is an acceptable vehicle of reference for the accusations you make? Boludo!
Why do you assume that it is Argentina who would be learning from the exchange? But anyway, how much does the City of Rosario have to do with bringing former leaders to justice? Isn't that the job of the national government? It sounds like the plan is to concentrate on small scale things like training, social inclusion, and development to prevent those cities being left behind.
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Ehem..Nostrils - who was it established the European Human Rights stuff? Now corrupted. And you support ambulance chasing cheats and fraudsters. Says it all!
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Argentina is barely out of the third world..
Certainly not anyone from Britain.
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Having Human Rights deals with the Britsh is like having science deals with Australopithecuses.
Yaaajaa!
@The Voice
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You mean, 'now inconvenient'. Apparently we want other countries to follow the rules, but don't care to do so ourselves.
No, I mean a new common sense Bill of Rights untainted by scroungers, the looney left and unelected European nutjobs which puts the rights of the criminal above the rights of the victim.
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One of St Theresa's many tasks ahead ;-)
Yeah right, I really trust the current government, one that recently passed the Snoopers Charter, to care about my rights. The whole point of signing up to an international treaty is to give ordinary citizens some protection from their own government and the laws they might pass. And if Britain, one of the founding members, decides to leave, it will be the perfect excuse for other countries, who definitely do not respect the rights of their citizens, to withdraw from it themselves.
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The so called snoopers charter has lots of checks and balances. Its designed to keep all of us safe from the biggest threat to our personal safety - terrorists. Personally my 'rights' and privacy come second to the safety of myself, my family and friends. This fact seems to constantly escape the slogan chanting inhabitants of Britain's left wing echo chamber.
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Terrorists are the biggest threat to your personal safety? What country do you live in?! Because here in Britain, the biggest threat to your personal safety is a heart attack. The biggest threat to mine is myself; suicide is the leading cause of death for people in my age group. You are vastly more likely to die in a car crash than be killed by a terrorist, you are nearly as likely to be struck by lightning.
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +1If your personal safety comes before your rights, does that mean you would never go to war to protect them? Because I would, and I am also willing to endure some relatively tiny risks in my daily life in order to keep them.
It is sensible to take precautions against terrorism. What is not sensible is to take any and all measures without considering the costs or the consequences. That is exactly the same sort of idiocy as the people who ban children from playing games in the school playground because a few fall and injure themselves.
If the snoopers charter had good checks and balances, the government would not have snuck the law through parliament while everyone was distracted by Brexit. In fact it makes you, your data, and your bank account a good deal less secure online, and imposes onerous responsibilities on ISPs, which will probably drive the smaller ones out of business.
Isn't saying rights come second to safety exactly the sort of nanny-state thinking that the Conservatives complained about when they were in opposition? Yet now they are in power, they apparently think exactly the same way.
Oh, LOL I am hearing Corbyn will bring in a bill to outlaw heart attacks and suicides? What rights? Were the looney left asleep when Theresa snuck the bill through? Pretty useless serial failure as an opposition Labour. I just don't believe all the politically motivated squeals. They are in the same category as project fear which didn't work either… Nanny Theresa is looking after us. Its going to get much worse for the left later tonight ;-)))
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -2He could bring in a bill to install suicide netting on all bridges and other structures. He could ban paracetamol and make sure other medicines are only sold in small quantities. How about a steep tax on sugar? We could bring in a minimum price for alcohol, that would save a lot of lives. And, I'm sure you will support banning all motor vehicles, as they are by far the biggest threat to the safety of British children?
Feb 23rd, 2017 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2And yes, I do not think the opposition are doing their job properly. That is just another reason why we should not allow the current government to draft new human rights legislation. Bills of rights are vastly more successful when they have input from both sides and all kinds of different people.
How ironic that you complain of Project Fear, yet the fear of terrorism will make you agree to any ill-conceived policy. And you never answered my question. Would you fight a war to protect your rights? Aren't they what the Islamists want to take away by imposing sharia law and forcing everyone to conform to their culture?
It DID get worse for the Corbynistas ! On our way to greater freedoms sweeping aside victim culture and the remnants of Labours Nanny State.
Feb 24th, 2017 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse -1Serious question, The Voice. Which freedoms are you willing to give up to make you, your family, and friends safer from the small risk of terrorism? Freedom of speech? Freedom of association? Freedom of religion? Press freedom? How many days should the government be able to imprison you without charge?
Feb 24th, 2017 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Freedoms? Haven't given up any via legislation. The only freedom that has been taken away is the freedom to express ones views freely - taken away by the politically correct looney faction here in the UK. Trevor Phillips did a very good ITV programme on it last night. The US is ahead of us there, anyone can say whatever they like.
Feb 24th, 2017 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The restrictions on imprisonment without charge here are ok as far as I am concerned.
My wife was on Paddington Station when the IRA bomb went off. My Uncle was injured by flying glass when the Old Bailey bomb went off. My friend's son was blown up and killed in Northern Ireland.So your 'small risk' has touched my family and friends. It wouldn't be so small if the looney liberal elite had their way. Luckily we have a government and security services which do take our safety seriously and prioritise security legislation.
I think anyone who lived in England at the height of the mainland bombings by white Christians was affected in some way. If not themselves then family or close friends. Yet still the risk was tiny, as pointed out by DT. Did we ban all Irish white Christians from the mainland? Did we all hide at home? Was there a cry to lock up all Irish because some might be terrorists? Or did we carry on with our lives, thus defeating the concept of terrorism, because the risk is, in fact, tiny.
Feb 24th, 2017 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The Voice's reasoning is akin to the fear mongering by Trump's administration. They want to take away the rights of individuals under the guise of protecting citizens from Muslim terrorists. They are whipping up the same kind of religious hatred they used to use against Catholics. The truth is Americans are far more likely to be killed by a toddler wielding a gun than a terrorist.
Oh, and I forgot, my daughter's friend was killed at the Bataclan in Paris, the guy selling the tee shirts. She is at risk too because of her job.
Feb 24th, 2017 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -1No-one here is taking any significant rights away, that's just a piece of distortion. As for what Trump is doing its unrelated to the situation here, and utterly ridiculous. And so is comparing it with what I have said.
@ The Voice
Feb 24th, 2017 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Not really. We could all play the 'I know someone who was at *insert tragedy*, I have had a few near misses myself in recent years because of my job but it is not a competition. What is it about people wanting to own a piece of a tragedy when they were completely unharmed? I have noticed this trend. Elton John is the worst offender. Is there ever a celebrity who dies who was not 'like a brother/sister' to him?
The point is terrorism is random and not an every day occurrence. Sacrificing liberty for security is not worth the sacrifice.
@The Voice
Feb 24th, 2017 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Maybe you are just unlucky, or maybe you have lived longer and known more people, but I don't know of anyone who was killed or injured by terrorists. Not even a friend of a friend. But one of my childhood friends committed suicide, and I know several people whose relatives killed themselves. I even went to school with a girl who was murdered, but not by a terrorist.
Everyone has different experiences, but the statistics tell us the true risk. And I agree with Elaine, during the IRA bombing campaign people carried on with their lives. The point of terrorism is not to kill people, it's to create fear, and us overreacting is exactly what they want.
And you didn't quite answer my question. We may not have given any rights up yet, but you already said you are in favour of giving some up - so much so that you want us to leave a body we were instrumental in creating.
So which rights from the European legislation do you want to remove?
And despite the fact our the government has already put limits on freedom of speech - used to ban jihadist literature and 'hate preachers', for example - you still trust them to draw up a fair and comprehensive set of rights? I would like to have similar rules to the US on freedom of speech, but we wouldn't have to leave the ECHR to do that. Our government could have done it at any time, yet they did not.
And finally, if you had heard a couple of years ago that CFK was withdrawing Argentina from a Latin American Human Rights treaty, what would you have said?
When its people you love have been traumatised Elaine its different. It has long term effects. Don't throw the red herring about changing your habits at me. I haven't changed my habits, nor do I think you should. But when you are walking across a station concourse with someone who was traumatised and is nervous its somewhat different and you have to modify your behavior to suit them.
Feb 24th, 2017 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Every couple of weeks potential terrorists are neutralised via communications in the UK. The 'authorities' are welcome to intercept mine because I have nothing to hide. Bring it on.
The ECHR has made a number of rotten decisions over the years. I don't see why THE UK shouldn't have it's own court. And a court that always puts the rights of the victim above the criminals.
Monica Fein was probably just lonely and wanted some attention .
Feb 24th, 2017 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@The Voice
Feb 24th, 2017 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The terrorists were being neutralised via communications before this bill was passed. And suppose you do trust the authorities to intercept your data and not put it to other uses. Do you trust government employees not to leave it on a train or in a taxi? Do you trust the ISPs to store it securely so it can't be hacked by spammers or blackmailers?
And which decisions of the ECHR do you think are 'rotten'? You are very sure that you want the UK to leave it, but you don't seem to know which of its laws you object to. And the UK does have it's own courts, but an international treaty gives you more protection. Do you really trust the current government, that doesn't allow completely free speech, to protect your rights? But even if you do, they will not be in power forever. Do you trust Corbyn to create a good set of human rights laws?
@ The Voice
Feb 25th, 2017 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse -1You assume too much. You think you are the only victim in the village. The difference is that some of us don't exploit our tragedies on message boards.
@ DT
I would argue that hacking is very, very easy. If anyone wants to they can get your personal information so I am resigned about the security services checking it because the terrorists/criminals can. Given how much of terrorism is organised on social media it has to be part of any anti-terrorist initiatives. It is what happens with that information that requires legislation. Should a government be able to use that information to persecute an individual if they don't like what is written but doesn't break any laws? (Trump would love that power) And who decides what is a danger to national security and what is irrelevant. I would like to see some boundaries put in place about that.
You do cover the camera on your laptop don't you? Easiest thing to hack. Someone could be watching you right now.
Elaine, I am clearly not the only victim here or anywhere. Personally I am not a victim at all. FYI my Uncle Ernie (now a deceased compulsive gambler) was injured by flying glass when the Old Bailey bomb blew in the betting shop window.
Feb 25th, 2017 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Closing down or severely restricting our current surveillance and message interception doesn't bear thinking about. It would turn our cities into blood splattered replicas of Baghdad. There is no option but to trust the secret squirrels.
@ The Voice
Feb 25th, 2017 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why are you STILL listing all your friends, relatives and cousins twice-removed, and their experiences? It doesn't make your opinion any more valid but cries attention.
I don't splatter my personal life and experiences over this message board but it doesn't make my opinion any less valid. You should try it.
Is this the 'victim mentality' in action then? The idea that British cities will turn into 'Blood spattered replicas of Baghdad' is just another version of Project Fear. Anyone who thinks about it for a moment will realise how ridiculous it is. But fear is a great way to manipulate people.
Feb 25th, 2017 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -3And if you think the government were lying to you about Brexit, why do you trust the exact same people with this bill, one that they snuck through parliament while everyone was distracted in order to avoid public scrutiny?
“blood splattered replicas of Baghdad”
Feb 25th, 2017 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hardly...
”UK has 1% of world's population but 20% of its CCTV cameras. Experts have called for a halt in the spread of CCTV cameras. Britain is now being watched by a staggering 4.2million - one for every 14 people and a fifth of the cameras in the entire world.
At the invitation of a friend who has a business in the surveillance industry I was invited into a local authorities surveillance room about ten years ago. The huge banks of screens manned by uniformed staff I found quite scary. I expect they have three times as many now. As far as I am aware there is no restriction on cameras. I think the government, local authorities, businesses and individuals are free to put up as many cameras as they want. I also went with him manning his stand at an exhibition of security and surveillance equipment at the NEC. Everything from razor wire to video kit that could identify suspicious behaviour within crowds and much more. It was quite an eye opener, the UK is the world leader. Whatever you are up to THEY can intercept it, film it and record it. Better get used to it.
Feb 25th, 2017 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Terror chief Max Hill warns risk of attacks in Britain is highest since dark days of IRA
Feb 25th, 2017 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/terror-chief-max-hill-warns-risk-attacks-britain-highest-since/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_AnbmSlHszW5D.
Are you forgetting which account you are using...?...;-)
Feb 25th, 2017 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, just wanted to add the Telegraph's article that says with the fall of Mosul, Raqqa and Allepo scores of 'British' jihadists will be heading back here armed with the skills to make bombs and aching to kill and maim us. Don't worry, its been established that they heartily dislike living in your part of the world.
Feb 26th, 2017 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse -1the UK is the world leader. in cameras and spying on its people,
Feb 26th, 2017 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1yet despite all this surveillance, we still have trouble identifying and solving a lot of crime,
one has to ask, is it worth it, or are criminals just more clever at it..
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!