NationStates Jolt Archive

The news has just been reporting on the outcome of a conference between the three major political parties in Britain, the purpose of which was to deal with anti-terror legislation intended to prevent a repeat of the recent London bombings.

While that objective is laudable in itself, I cannot help but wonder if I am the only one slightly concerned about the result of this conference. The news reports that the three parties have reached a consensus on the bills to be put forward. Which is all very well. But where does public opinion come into this? It's not the first time British government has conceived of a law and hurried it through Parliament - but usually there is at least an ELEMENT of choice for the people.

I ask this: what is the difference between a single-party state and a multi-party state in which all the parties have the same policies?

The news has just been reporting on the outcome of a conference between the three major political parties in Britain, the purpose of which was to deal with anti-terror legislation intended to prevent a repeat of the recent London bombings.

While that objective is laudable in itself, I cannot help but wonder if I am the only one slightly concerned about the result of this conference. The news reports that the three parties have reached a consensus on the bills to be put forward. Which is all very well. But where does public opinion come into this? It's not the first time British government has conceived of a law and hurried it through Parliament - but usually there is at least an ELEMENT of choice for the people.

I ask this: what is the difference between a single-party state and a multi-party state in which all the parties have the same policies?

When three parties agree it is usually because they have come to a consensus that they are doing the right thing. However, I understand your concern regarding the legitimacy of democracy. I don't know much about politics in the UK, but if this is a serious concern for you, I would investigate the relationships between British politicians and multinational corporations.

Another reason why this kind of legislation has passed so quickly might be because the UK has previous experience dealing with terrorist bombings. ie. the IRA

multinational involvement in government in UK isn't really such an issue, certainly not to the extent it is in US. Still, it is interesting to see where labour (and the others) get their money from.

Another reason why this kind of legislation has passed so quickly might be because the UK has previous experience dealing with terrorist bombings. ie. the IRA
Yea, but even then they did pretty much fuck all, it was the NI Parliament that introduced internment and such...and a fat lot of good that did.

I'm more worried about the effects of the laws than the way they're being introduced, it's yet another curb on free speech.

When three parties agree it is usually because they have come to a consensus that they are doing the right thing. However, I understand your concern regarding the legitimacy of democracy. I don't know much about politics in the UK, but if this is a serious concern for you, I would investigate the relationships between British politicians and multinational corporations.

Another reason why this kind of legislation has passed so quickly might be because the UK has previous experience dealing with terrorist bombings. ie. the IRA
That's partially what fuels my concern. Throughout the bulk of the IRA campaign our existing terror laws have always been considered adequate.

Now, I'm not arguing that laws should never be changed, or brought up to date. But I have yet to be convinced that the laws that were already in place have become insufficient since 9/11. Since the WTC attacks, America has not been alone in expanding Government powers and increasing surveillance and tracking, ostensibly to deal with what we are presumably supposed to believe is an increased threat.

In the last four years, Britain, too, has tended towards a legislative approach to terrorism. The Government's citizen ID card scheme is a notorious example. Knowing how often historically the 'enemy justification for the suspension of freedoms and democracy, I confess I become rather alarmed when I hear politicians stating openly (as the Home Secretary did after the London bombs) that "civil liberties may need to be curtailed" in order to address the problem. But for how long? To what extent?

And the idea that none of the two other major parties is apparently willing even to ask these questions is worrying indeed.

That's partially what fuels my concern. Throughout the bulk of the IRA campaign our existing terror laws have always been considered adequate.

Now, I'm not arguing that laws should never be changed, or brought up to date. But I have yet to be convinced that the laws that were already in place have become insufficient since 9/11. Since the WTC attacks, America has not been alone in expanding Government powers and increasing surveillance and tracking, ostensibly to deal with what we are presumably supposed to believe is an increased threat.

In the last four years, Britain, too, has tended towards a legislative approach to terrorism. The Government's citizen ID card scheme is a notorious example. Knowing how often historically the 'enemy justification for the suspension of freedoms and democracy, I confess I become rather alarmed when I hear politicians stating openly (as the Home Secretary did after the London bombs) that "civil liberties may need to be curtailed" in order to address the problem. But for how long? To what extent?

And the idea that none of the two other major parties is apparently willing even to ask these questions is worrying indeed.

How would you deal with terrorism? (This question is addressed to anyone who disagrees with the way the UK and US are currently handling the situation.)

Yea, but even then they did pretty much fuck all, it was the NI Parliament that introduced internment and such...and a fat lot of good that did.

I noticed your location and was wondering, without intending to start a flame war, what are your opinions regarding the IRA, do you consider them as terrorists in the same respects as many US and UK citizens feel that Al Quaeda are terrorists?

The news has just been reporting on the outcome of a conference between the three major political parties in Britain, the purpose of which was to deal with anti-terror legislation intended to prevent a repeat of the recent London bombings.

While that objective is laudable in itself, I cannot help but wonder if I am the only one slightly concerned about the result of this conference. The news reports that the three parties have reached a consensus on the bills to be put forward. Which is all very well. But where does public opinion come into this? It's not the first time British government has conceived of a law and hurried it through Parliament - but usually there is at least an ELEMENT of choice for the people.

I ask this: what is the difference between a single-party state and a multi-party state in which all the parties have the same policies?

You should all be concerned and the changes should be monitored very closely with the expectation that they bulk of them should be temporary or at least anually reviewed and renewed. That said, I really do not think you have anything to worry about. There is tremendous historial presidence for extraordinary measures for security during war. In fact I have read enough of measures taken to make me believe that living in the US or the UK was no piece of cake in WWII.

How would you deal with terrorism? (This question is addressed to anyone who disagrees with the way the UK and US are currently handling the situation.)
Okay, so say Orcadia Tertius was the subject of a terror campaign, yes? The first step would be for the people to let the terrorists know that they will NOT be terrorised. The actions of the American and British governments since 9/11 have been geared towards encouraging and exploiting the people's fear. If people are frightened, they will surrender liberties willingly.

Second, the national view of terrorism should be (as the UK's view always was prior to America's "War on Terror") that it is a crime, not a military activity. I have no problem whatsoever with the detention, or even the execution, of those found guilty of terrorist offences or the planning or support thereof - but any such punishment should be subject to due process of law.

My country's way of life is the target of the terrorists. Their aim is to make us change, to persuade us to give up everything we hold dear. So that is something we mustn't ever do. And if we surrender our freedoms and go hide under the table, or have a government agent in every house watching every family, then we've lost automatically.

Liverbreath']There is tremendous historial presidence for extraordinary measures for security during war. In fact I have read enough of measures taken to make me believe that living in the US or the UK was no piece of cake in WWII.
Granted, yes. But in WWII it was a war the US and the UK was actually involved in. The War on Terror is a made-up war, made up precisely to justify these kinds of measures.

Terrorism is a crime, and should be treated as such. How many people have been killed in the last fifty years as the result of terrorism? And how many have died as the result of other crimes? Assaults? Robberies? Burglaries? Autocrime? Straight-out murders? But we don't see ID cards and increased government surveillance and control introduced to combat these far greater threats.

I noticed your location and was wondering, without intending to start a flame war, what are your opinions regarding the IRA, do you consider them as terrorists in the same respects as many US and UK citizens feel that Al Quaeda are terrorists?
Terrorists pure and simple.

Okay, so say Orcadia Tertius was the subject of a terror campaign, yes? The first step would be for the people to let the terrorists know that they will NOT be terrorised. The actions of the American and British governments since 9/11 have been geared towards encouraging and exploiting the people's fear. If people are frightened, they will surrender liberties willingly.

Second, the national view of terrorism should be (as the UK's view always was prior to America's "War on Terror") that it is a crime, not a military activity. I have no problem whatsoever with the detention, or even the execution, of those found guilty of terrorist offences or the planning or support thereof - but any such punishment should be subject to due process of law.

My country's way of life is the target of the terrorists. Their aim is to make us change, to persuade us to give up everything we hold dear. So that is something we mustn't ever do. And if we surrender our freedoms and go hide under the table, or have a government agent in every house watching every family, then we've lost automatically.

I agree with what you have said. Yet since this thread was posted a second attack has occured in the UK and one in Egypt. Do you see any validity in military "pre-emption" in order to prevent further attacks?

Terrorists pure and simple.

How should members of the IRA and Al Quaeda be dealt with? How do you track them down and stop them?