Try the political quiz

19 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...11mos11MO

Yes

 @9ZCQFQFagreed…1mo1MO

The UK is a democratic state that has prided itself for decades as a promoter of human rights worldwide, and we would be undermining our own values by providing military aid to countries accused of abusing rights. We should not be aiding those states to whom these restrictions apply, as it merely serves to diminish our credibility on the world stage and flies against what the country stands for.

 @9NCG4Z5Labourdisagreed…7mos7MO

Every country is accused of human right violations at some point. A blanket ban on any accusation (particular with no backwards time limit) would mean we cannot sell to anyone.

 @9LSFQL6disagreed…8mos8MO

The uk should have the right to conduct its oen independent foreign policy, furthermore the defence system is an important source of not only innovation but national pride.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...11mos11MO

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

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...11mos11MO

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

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...11mos11MO

No, this could prevent our allies from defending themselves against our mutual enemies

 @9ZCQFQFdisagreed…1mo1MO

These restrictions would only hamper the ability of countries with human rights violations to defend themselves. As a leader of the democratic world, the UK's allies should not be allied with countries committing such violations, and so any country whom these restrictions would effect should not be our allies in the first place.

 @9J8XJSXanswered…11mos11MO

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

 @8SHDQKH  from New York  answered…9mos9MO

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

 @9VM4JQ3answered…2mos2MO

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

 @9PT47P5answered…6mos6MO

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

 @9NS7VWYanswered…7mos7MO

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.

 @9NRL35Ganswered…7mos7MO

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

 @9NG7SH8answered…7mos7MO

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

 @9JHYPPSanswered…11mos11MO

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

 @9L879JSanswered…9mos9MO

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.

 @9JXPFHCLiberal Democratanswered…10mos10MO

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.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...