NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly have a read of this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6695685.stm

in particular what John Reid was saying:

"He promised new anti-terror measures and told MPs that the government could consider suspending some parts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) so it can impose tougher control orders."
(Taken from the above link 27/05/07)

What are people's thoughts on this?
Is the government of the UK using the Terrorism bogeyman to their own ends or is this suspension of human rights to enable us to be free justified?

Discuss:

Eh, I don't really care about stop and quiz policies. The police already technically have this power anyway.

Is the government of the UK using the Terrorism bogeyman to their own ends
Yes, yes they are.

We're slowly erroding the rights which people have died for over the years just so we can be safer. It's getting bloody ridiculous. The government is using terrorism, or the idea of it, to push through bills which are getting more and more totalitarian as time goes on.

"British human rights"

I thought we already had a joke thread today :confused:

Eh, I don't really care about stop and quiz policies. The police already technically have this power anyway.

Technically they have the power, but there must be reason for them to do so. This is making that reason even less tenuous. (SP?)
I am more concerned about the suspension of part of the ECHR. How can a government decide what human rights it's ok to grant and what not to grant? Im sorry that is disgraceful! At the moment its one human right that might seem trivial, but the precedent will be set and who knows what might happen.

AMK

What are people's thoughts on this?
I think any Government that can stand up with a straight face and say "the legislation is wrong because it prevents us from locking people up without a trial" should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Eh, I don't really care about stop and quiz policies. The police already technically have this power anyway.
No they don't.

Personally I want an American-style constitution and bill of rights (preferably with an establishment clause). It's pathetic that we don't even have freedom of press in this country.

We all ought to march on Westminster and shake our fists in a threatening manner.

Technically they have the power, but there must be reason for them to do so.

An almost any reason was acceptable anyway.


This is making that reason even less tenuous. (SP?)

I don't see how it could be any less.


I am more concerned about the suspension of part of the ECHR. How can a government decide what human rights it's ok to grant and what not to grant?

It's always been that way. I'm not sure you can really describe the right not to be quized by police a fundamental human right anyway.


Im sorry that is disgraceful! At the moment its one human right that might seem trivial, but the precedent will be set and who knows what might happen.

Not much. I don't see a slippery slope, theres too much opposition in government to take something like this any further.

Personally I want an American-style constitution and bill of rights (preferably with an establishment clause). It's pathetic that we don't even have freedom of press in this country.

Wait, we don't? So I just imagined all those articles about drug snorting celebrities and criticising government policy?

I doubt there is any kind of hidden agenda here, to my mind they really do believe that trading a little liberty for a little security is the right thing to do.

I just disagree is all.

Wait, we don't? So I just imagined all those articles drug snorting celebrities and criticising government policy?

Apparently the restriction not to reveal state secrets is banning freedom of press (at least I think thats what hes talking about).

We all ought to march on Westminster and shake our fists in a threatening manner.

but its raining...

and odds are next week nobody will remember this which is quite sad really

We all ought to march on Westminster and shake our fists in a threatening manner.

And get done for portesting in Westminister....what a fucking ridicoulous notion! You can't even protest outside Parliament anymore! Who fancies revolution?

Personally I want an American-style constitution and bill of rights (preferably with an establishment clause). It's pathetic that we don't even have freedom of press in this country.

If by not having freedom of press you mean libel and slander laws, then quite right we don't

And get done for portesting in Westminister....what a fucking ridicoulous notion! You can't even protest outside Parliament anymore! Who fancies revolution?
Yep, it's hilarious. They got that guy who's been there since the beginning of the war in Iraq to move his pictures (or was it he couldn't put any more up? I forget) as they were offending the MPs - or actually reminding them of the consquences of their actions, take your pick.

I'd be all for a revolution, so long as I can get myself a cushy job somewhere. To Westminster!

Wait, we don't? So I just imagined all those articles about drug snorting celebrities and criticising government policy?

Can I take it that you haven't been following the trial of David Keogh and the Al Jazeera bombing memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo)? The attorney general's threatened to prosecute anyone who publishes the memo. There's also the fact that blasphemy is still a crime, and that the government has consistently failed to support those who are threatened with violence after publishing controversial items.

If by not having freedom of press you mean libel and slander laws, then quite right we don't

We also have blasphemy laws and an overly restrictive official secrets act which is used to avoid embaressment for the government.

What is this blasphemy laws nonscene? It's probably just one of those really old laws that doesn't actually have any affect on anyone anymore. Have you got a source for this?

We all ought to march on Westminster and shake our fists in a threatening manner.

Steady on, let's not get carried away. I vote we all sit around drinking tea while muttering "Jolly bad show, what!" under our breath.

What is this blasphemy laws nonscene? It's probably just one of those really old laws that doesn't actually have any affect on anyone anymore. Have you got a source for this?

The blasphemy law was sucessfully used in 1977 and Christian groups tried to use it against the BBC a couple of years ago. There've actually been people suggesting it should be expanded to cover all religions rather than done away with.

The blasphemy law was sucessfully used in 1977 and Christian groups tried to use it against the BBC a couple of years ago. There've actually been people suggesting it should be expanded to cover all religions rather than done away with.

Again do you have a source?

Can I take it that you haven't been following the trial of David Keogh and the Al Jazeera bombing memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo)?
If it was a memo about the Government plotting to deceive the electorate, or massacre some civilians, for example, I'd be interested. A memo in which Bush is alleged to simply talk about bombing somewhere (who, Bush? Never) is not exactly the biggest deal in the world.

The attorney general's threatened to prosecute anyone who publishes the memo.
Yes, that would be the point of the law. You might not agree with it, but blaming the Attorney General is like shooting the messenger.

There's also the fact that blasphemy is still a crime,
Oh, come on now, this is really clutching at straws.. When did you last see someone prosecuted for it?

and that the government has consistently failed to support those who are threatened with violence after publishing controversial items.
Probably because threats of violence are something the Police should deal with. Or do you want Blair to send John Reid to be the guard dog for journalists?

Again do you have a source?

The 1977 case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon)

The 1977 case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon)

And you think it is surprising that an editor publishing a homosexual account of Jesus at a time of enormous social change was targeted, and some law found to stop them?

The last time anyone was sent to prison for blasphemy was in the early 1920s. It is to all extents and purposes a dead law, and to cite it as a restriction of our freedom of speech is absurd.

If it was a memo about the Government plotting to deceive the electorate, or massacre some civilians, for example, I'd be interested. A memo in which Bush is alleged to simply talk about bombing somewhere (who, Bush? Never) is not exactly the biggest deal in the world.

Journalists are usually considered to be civilians, no?

What we've potentially got here is Bush and Blair discussing whether to commit a war crime, this is most certainly a big deal.

Yes, that would be the point of the law. You might not agree with it, but blaming the Attorney General is like shooting the messenger.

Where did I blame the Attorney General? I'm glad you agree that censorship is the point of the law and so we don't have freedom of press.

Oh, come on now, this is really clutching at straws.. When did you last see someone prosecuted for it?

1977, and it was attempted again a couple of years ago. Everybody in 1977 thought that the law would never be applied but it was. We now also have a law against inciting religious hatred.

Probably because threats of violence are something the Police should deal with. Or do you want Blair to send John Reid to be the guard dog for journalists?

I'd expect the Government to express their support for the journalists' right to publish, and at the very least I'd expect them to refrain from condoning the thugs who are threatening them.

It is to all extents and purposes a dead law, and to cite it as a restriction of our freedom of speech is absurd.

so if I left drugs in my house but wasn't using it, that would be all good

interesting...

And you think it is surprising that an editor publishing a homosexual account of Jesus at a time of enormous social change was targeted, and some law found to stop them?

The last time anyone was sent to prison for blasphemy was in the early 1920s. It is to all extents and purposes a dead law, and to cite it as a restriction of our freedom of speech is absurd.

Blasphemy law

Scenes in which characters playing Jesus, Mary and Joseph were guests on the Jerry Springer show have caused offence to some. There was a concerted campaign to get the BBC broadcast halted.

BBC chairman Michael Grade reportedly said he sought personal assurances from director general Mark Thompson that the show did not breach blasphemy laws.

"I sought and was given reassurances from Mark Thompson that he had satisfied himself that the programme was compliant in every respect," he told the Broadcasting Press Guild, according to The Times.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4170559.stm)

If it's a dead law then why did the BBC go to such lengths to remain compliant with it?

Journalists are usually considered to be civilians, no?

What we've potentially got here is Bush and Blair discussing whether to commit a war crime, this is most certainly a big deal.
Bush and Blair are alleged to have been discussing whether Al Jazeera was helping its enemies. Bush is alleged to have raised the option of bombing them.

What we've potentially got here is two leaders talking about a war situation and deciding to do nothing at all.

How ironic that the person who is shouting for free speech would wish to punish two people for allegedly simply saying something.

Where did I blame the Attorney General? I'm glad you agree that censorship is the point of the law and so we don't have freedom of press.
There is a world of difference between censorship in the wide, everyday meaning of the word, and Official Secrets. It would take a very foolish man to say that freedom of speech should be unrestricted to the point of letting State secrets be published.

I'd expect the Government to express their support for the journalists' right to publish, and at the very least I'd expect them to refrain from condoning the thugs who are threatening them.
Oh, nonsense. The Government sticks its nose where it's not wanted often enough already without encouraging it to do so some more.

so if I left drugs in my house but wasn't using it, that would be all good

interesting...

That analogy doesn't work on any level.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4170559.stm)

If it's a dead law then why did the BBC go to such lengths to remain compliant with it?

And if it's a live law then why was no prosecution ever brought, despite a record number of complaints?

It sounds like the article is a little contradictory. In one place it says, "Police are still likely to need a "reasonable suspicion" a crime may be committed."

In another place it says, "the new proposals would give officers an automatic right to stop and question anyone in the UK about suspected terrorism."

So, if the police can currently stop and question people if they have a reasonable suspicion a crime may be committed what is so different about the new law, the fine?

In the U.S. police can stop and questionn people if they have a reasonable suspicion or a crime and can arrest you if you fail to identify yourself to them. From what I see it isn't any big deal. They even say it the article it is similar to a law already in place in Northern Ireland.

Bush and Blair are alleged to have been discussing whether Al Jazeera was helping its enemies. Bush is alleged to have raised the option of bombing them.

What we've potentially got here is two leaders talking about a war situation and deciding to do nothing at all.

So showing pictures of a war zone now makes you a millitary target, dare I say 'an enemy combattant'? The irony here is that Bush and Blair were considering bombing Al Jazeera for printing images and stories which were against the invasion of Iraq, so we're seeing censorship being used to cover up a possible attack on freedom of press. The fact that they'd consider bombing civilians for no very good reason is very disturbing.

How ironic that the person who is shouting for free speech would wish to punish two people for allegedly simply saying something.

Punish in a court of law? No (although if they were accused of a different crime then this might be relevant information). Personally I would punish them at the ballot box.

There is a world of difference between censorship in the wide, everyday meaning of the word, and Official Secrets. It would take a very foolish man to say that freedom of speech should be unrestricted to the point of letting State secrets be published.

True, but state secrets=/=embaressing memos.

Oh, nonsense. The Government sticks its nose where it's not wanted often enough already without encouraging it to do so some more.

As I said, the least it could do would be to avoid expressing support for the thugs. During the Mohammed Cartoons fiasco the government repeatedly condemned the printing of the cartoons as 'wrong'.

And if it's a live law then why was no prosecution ever brought, despite a record number of complaints?

The case has yet to be resolved: a private prosecution was originally turned down, but Christian Voice have been granted an appeal against this decision. Many people in the 1950s thought that the blasphemy law was effectively dead...

It sounds like the article is a little contradictory. In one place it says, "Police are still likely to need a "reasonable suspicion" a crime may be committed."

In another place it says, "the new proposals would give officers an automatic right to stop and question anyone in the UK about suspected terrorism."

So, if the police can currently stop and question people if they have a reasonable suspicion a crime may be committed what is so different about the new law, the fine?

In the U.S. police can stop and questionn people if they have a reasonable suspicion or a crime and can arrest you if you fail to identify yourself to them. From what I see it isn't any big deal. They even say it the article it is similar to a law already in place in Northern Ireland.This article gives a little more detail.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6663465,00.html

It suggests that the police-
a) do not currently have powers of arrest if they think a crime may taken place - currently they have powers of arrest if they think someone was involved in a crime that has taken place
b) do not currently have the power to demand people reveal their identity and movements if they are not suspected of having committed a crime.

I think the issue is all tenses - future tense as opposed to past tense. Throught crime type stuff.

Personally I want an American-style constitution and bill of rights (preferably with an establishment clause). It's pathetic that we don't even have freedom of press in this country.
QFT. Well at least partially, I would be more likely to use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Bill of Rights) and the Australian (Federalism)/Irish (Parliamentary Government and electoral system) constitutions as a basis for a British constitution. I doubt, however, it would be possible in this political climate we have today, most people seem to think that things like the Human Rights Act, the closest thing we have to a Bill of Rights, is what the government uses to ensure that terrorists get an easy ride, and a written constitution is to unBritish. Add to that the innate conservatism of us Brits: we wouldn't want it because it might be worse than what we have now. And the myths are egged on by the politicians who take advantage of the "it's just what you can get away with" constitutional conventions.