Should there be restrictions on government arms sales to countries accused of committing human rights violations?

Yes, and ban all sales to countries with human rights violations

Yes, but I would prefer a ban on all military aid to any foreign countries

Yes, but nations should rely on their own appraisals of human rights abuses, as many human rights organizations are biased and uphold double-standards.

The decisions should be made on a whole range of factors not just allegations of human rights abuse.

Yes, if the violations are proven to be true

depends on the human rights abuse, human rights seems to cover so many things these days. Also it says accused, accusation doesn't mean guilt.

Yes, but I would prefer a complete ban to certain nations that act against the interests of Britain at times.

Yes to Ukraine and Islamist Natuons. Only Countey worthy of support is Israel and Nations where many Christians and others are Persecuted.

No, it is too easy to accuse countries of human rights violations and usually too difficult to prove accusations. Allow the government discretion in arms sales but with safeguards to prevent British weaponry, hardware and software, from reaching countries we may reasonably expect to be our enemies.

Yes, where there is clear evidence of military weapons and munitions being used to perpetrate human rights violations.

The UK should continue to export arms, just like France and the US. If these 3 nations were to stop the market would just further open to Russia and China giving them more influence in certain regions. Yes, this isnt ethical. However, it is the reality.

Yes, but the accusations have to be credible and not from parties invested in seeing those countries be weakened militarily.

Yes, there should be restrictions on government arms sales to countries CONVICTED of human rights violations.

Yes, and weapons should not be sold for money, only exported to trustworthy and democratic allies for free

Depends what the country is. Just accusations alone do not necessitate that they actually have violated human rights and it would have to be reviewed further to make a proper decision.

There would need to be clear undeniable proof that human rights violations had been committed intentionally

We should not sell arms reasonably likely to be used against civilians to countries proven to commit human rights violations.

we don't even let our own citizens carry weapons for self defense since you started letting the wolfs in to the sheep pen

so my stance on this is clear weapons should be a fundmental human right for self presevation and a check an balance for criminals behavior

any nation committing human rights violations is subject to interpretation and HUMAN RIGHTS are not god given and the term is about HUMAN RIGHTS law which is protected classes and characturistics serve as a class system making 2nd or 3rd class citziens out of normal humans living their lives in their own nations

You can't have the same laws for wolfs as sheep? obviously you need to make a choice we are all wolfs or we are all cattle.

No, because I believe it's a form of soft power as a way of pressuring them into changing their views. I also think if you don't, other state actors will take the opportunity to persuade them to their views.

No. Business is business. Continue and increase arms sales to our friends, and we set our own bill of huma rights which we follow, and don't try to force this on other countries.

The UK should implement an immediate and legally binding presumption of denial for all arms exports to countries where there is a credible risk of human rights violations, and reform its arms trade policy to be transparent, democratically accountable, and subordinate to its commitments to international law and human rights, rather than to profit or political alliances.