|
I think where things go wrong are when the human rights of the minority of people who either sail close to the edge of illegal or terrorist activity override the human rights of the majority of people who have a right to live without the fear of terrorisim or crime
Where politicians consistently fail is in striking a balance between the two
What also clouds the issue is the cynical use by politicians of exaggerating the threat of crime or terrorism to make themselves more electable
The promise of ever more draconian laws and punishments for lawbreakers, how often have we heard those pre election?
This kind of jingoism means that in most countries the public really doesnt have a true picture of the threat to them of any form of crime, terrorism included
By the same token, human rights organisations, lawyers and committees can hardly be called impartial either
Without perceived breaches of human rights, their raison d'etre goes out the window too
Who can envsage a human rights committee sitting for months and coming to the conclusion that no human rights were under threat or breached?
The public would soon start wondering what they hell they were being paid for
One possible solution to the mess would be to let the judiciary recommend what laws and changes to laws were necessary
This obviously only works in a system where judges are not appointed politically
But at least the human rights of the majority might get a look in alongside the human rights of the minority for a change
I for one believe I have a human right not to be blown up, robbed or assaulted
|