Blair in Anti-Hatred Crackdown

[Aero Nut]

Blair in Anti-Hatred Crackdown

[Aero Nut]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced new measures to deport and exclude from UK for those advocating hatred and violence.

The London bombings were horrible, but here we go again with the destruction of civil liberties.  Last time I checked, someone's hatred for something, whether it's a person, event, or entity, is protected under the 'Freedom of Speech'.  You are allowed to voice your opinion if you hate, dislike, disagree, et cetera.  It is then the right of those who listen to agree or disagree.  Advocating hatred against the British Kingdom amongst the populace is how the American colonies were able to start and win the American Revolution.

"This is not, in any way whatever, aimed at the decent law-abiding Muslim community of Britain," Blair said.  How will they be able to differentiate between the two?  Mistakes have been made in the past and will be made in the future.  Under the same hand, the innocent will continue to pay along with the guilty.  Here's one example of this that has recently been published, and there are many more.

I believe my wife's boss, a native Arabic Jordanian, Shawan D. Shawan, said it best, 'a war waged against people who have been at war for a 1000 years cannot be won.'  His viewpoints are very interesting as he is native to the Middle East.  There is of course Reflex-Croft's tag which is all too relevant here, '"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Richard Jackson/Benjamin Franklin'.

I'd like to hear your viewpoints on this recent course of action taken by Tony Blair.

I believe it's more relevant in Politics. -Wrawrat

[Wunderbolt]

Well, if you print your opinions, it could be construed as slander, so freedom of speech is not absolute. As well, if you advocate violence against certain members in society, you can be charged with hate speech, or something like that (I think those are the rules in Canada).
But yes, I do think this is over-reacting to the bombings.

[Texmaster]

I don't know British law but is there a difference between saying "I hate this country" and "I hate this country and you need to kill people"

One is a statment but the other is a directive.

[iamjack]

Play and counterplay, action and law to prevent action.  Who really benefits from crime, terrorism, drugs war?  The government!   The war on terrorism follows on from the 'war on drugs' and the cold war...  Meaningless wars of ideals that will never be won in any conventional meaning so will wear on while eroding the freedoms of the poor slobs who let their governments waste money on this bullsh*t and taking in the rear from laws designed to make us feel safer while taking away our freedoms.  What a wonderful world!

[ScutMonkey]

Blair is in a very tough position on this issue.  The bombers, so far, were homegrown British nationals and it was what they learned in England from promoters of hate who lead them down this path.  

"The pen is mighter than the sword."

Too true and while speech is protected, it's also dangerous as hell.  If you are preaching violence I think it's completely reasonable for the government to be concerned about what you have to say and consider steps against you.  We're not talking about Ghandi's right to peacefully resist.  We're talking about Osama's desire to blow up the West.  Two different things.

[VorLonUK]

quote:
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey
Blair is in a very tough position on this issue.  The bombers, so far, were homegrown British nationals and it was what they learned in England from promoters of hate who lead them down this path.  

"The pen is mighter than the sword."

Too true and while speech is protected, it's also dangerous as hell.  If you are preaching violence I think it's completely reasonable for the government to be concerned about what you have to say and consider steps against you.  We're not talking about Ghandi's right to peacefully resist.  We're talking about Osama's desire to blow up the West.  Two different things.

I find myself (on this topic ) in total agreement with you Scut!

I think civil liberties go out of the window, when you are preaching hatred, violence etc towards the greater population. I think these repulsive guys have had their day and we've allowed it to go on far too long.

[Timster]

I find most laws fit in two categories: corrective and preventive.  When you catch a criminal after the fact (detection) they are picked up and punished (correction.)  This is all fine and dandy, except when it comes to acts of terror, murder, rapes, and other violent and destructive crimes.  That' when you'll hear an outcry from people asking why there isn't something in place other than a piece of legislation saying, "don't do that.  It is wrong."

When going into prevention mode, it is necessary to put in intrusive and restrictive measures to detect when a crime is going to be committed.  Unfortunately, this includes profiling, monitoring phone and internet activity, bank and credit records, and putrchases of various items.  Unlike the corrective method where you assemble only the clues pertinent to the crime, the preventive method involves gathering everything from everyone possible, and developing a filter or profile that raises a flag before something happens.  Along with invasion of privacy, you run the chance of false positives and innocent people getting hurt in the effort to apprehend a person that wasn't going to commit a crime.  Too many false positives turn the process into a witch hunt, and the competence in the police's methods draws even more scrutiny.

[Overkill]

Personally, I feel  the UK media (as ever) must take a big slice of the blame for this new raft of legislation. The Daily hate (sorry Mail) has been stirring up anti Muslim and anti immigrant feelings for a long time and the govt is running scared of their brazen rhetoric calling for ever harsher methods of dealing with "muslim clerics". The govt had all party support for it's first raft of proposals but since the Mail started banging on, and Blair started damaging his underwear, that has slipped away as legislation has become knee jerk, and poorly thought out.

It's funny how nowhere near as much attention (yes, I know they haven't blown anybody up - yet) is focused on the Christian fanatics who are currently (and increasingly successfully) trying to bring our entertainment and news media under their control. Yet they too are trying to control our lives - just as the terrorists are.  

The bloody press in our country are almost as big a menace as the terrorists themselves..............

[Bishop]

quote:
Originally posted by: Overkill
Personally, I feel  the UK media (as ever) must take a big slice of the blame for this new raft of legislation. The Daily hate (sorry Mail) has been stirring up anti Muslim and anti immigrant feelings for a long time and the govt is running scared of their brazen rhetoric calling for ever harsher methods of dealing with "muslim clerics". The govt had all party support for it's first raft of proposals but since the Mail started banging on, and Blair started damaging his underwear, that has slipped away as legislation has become knee jerk, and poorly thought out.

It's funny how nowhere near as much attention (yes, I know they haven't blown anybody up - yet) is focused on the Christian fanatics who are currently (and increasingly successfully) trying to bring our entertainment and news media under their control. Yet they too are trying to control our lives - just as the terrorists are.  

The bloody press in our country are almost as big a menace as the terrorists themselves..............

I agree the media has a lot to answer for! Sadly the most ill-informed tabloids have the greatest circulation, the Sun I believe is 3 million a day? Sadly a lot goes unnoticed when the media is banging on over one particular topic.

[Bishop]

quote:
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey
Blair is in a very tough position on this issue.  The bombers, so far, were homegrown British nationals and it was what they learned in England from promoters of hate who lead them down this path.  

"The pen is mighter than the sword."

Too true and while speech is protected, it's also dangerous as hell.  If you are preaching violence I think it's completely reasonable for the government to be concerned about what you have to say and consider steps against you.  We're not talking about Ghandi's right to peacefully resist.  We're talking about Osama's desire to blow up the West.  Two different things.

The government is looking closely and using treason charges against those preach hatred within the UK.

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: Overkill

The bloody press in our country are almost as big a menace as the terrorists themselves..............

At least half the problem is the legions of fools that read British newspapers and believe whats actually written in them.  Even when papers blatently print poisonous BS people still go out and buy them (I havent seen the Mirror go bust since the fake Iraqi pictures went out).

[Overkill]

quote:
Just wanted to say 'Welcome Back' Overkill. Haven't seen you around here in a while and missed your posts

Likewise reflex, glad to be back - when I can. I had some great thoughts on our 'fascist censorship debate' after some (very!) disturbing news from Germany on the effects of removing restrictions on neo-facist groups. Alas, work is getting on top of things and cutting down my posts on all of the forums I visit, and I didn't have time to get anything together! Things are set to get heavier as well so............. even less posting. Ho hum.

Still, that's enough whining!

quote:
At least half the problem is the legions of fools that read British newspapers and believe whats actually written in them. Even when papers blatently print poisonous BS people still go out and buy them (I havent seen the Mirror go bust since the fake Iraqi pictures went out).

Exactly. All of the major sellers have been caught lying thru their teeth, although in the principal porky tellers case, the Sun, it is mostly personal slander cases. The usual 2nd place for 'untruthful articles' ( the offical term) goes to the Mail (I was surprised, I thought it would be the Mirror!). The difference being that the Mails are 95% politicaly motivated lies.

I think it doesn't help that the papers can splash outright lies and incindery slander on the front page while they are only oblidged to print retractions as a small box tucked away where the average reader will probably not notice it. I wonder if being forced to print a front page retraction might deter the public from buying into their crap?

However, I doubt it..............

[Rocky]

I dont know how I feel about all this.  Its definately a tricky line to walk down, both the political and ethical ones.  Of course some rights have to be infringed upon for safety, its always been that way.  Its just a matter of how much and whos.

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: Overkill
Exactly. All of the major sellers have been caught lying thru their teeth, although in the principal porky tellers case, the Sun, it is mostly personal slander cases. The usual 2nd place for 'untruthful articles' ( the offical term) goes to the Mail (I was surprised, I thought it would be the Mirror!). The difference being that the Mails are 95% politicaly motivated lies.

I think it doesn't help that the papers can splash outright lies and incindery slander on the front page while they are only oblidged to print retractions as a small box tucked away where the average reader will probably not notice it. I wonder if being forced to print a front page retraction might deter the public from buying into their crap?

However, I doubt it..............

I reckon the reason why the Sun is mostly personal slandering now is because of Hillsborough - they realised that slagging off large groups of Sun readers actually effected their readership figures - the easiest (and often least expensive) minority to persecute is the individual.  I think all tabloids are little more than toilet reading (literally).

Spot on with the retraction statement though, I think they should be forced to make a front page apology.  Although I agree that it would make very little difference to the amount of crap they write, or readership figures.

[Timster]

Is it my limited exposure to the British media, or is every major newspaper a sensationalist tabloid?  I believe in the freedom of the press, but I hate it when a media source proclaims themselves to be fair or balanced when they're clearly not.  The Spanish-American War was a result of a media mogul using the press to influence public opinion and government policy.

[Texmaster]

I don't see what the big fuss is.   You can say you hate your country and be an idiot but if you instruct others to commit a violent act on civilians or government based on that statement, then your butt belongs in jail.

[Rocky]

"You can say you hate your country and be an idiot but if you instruct others to commit a violent act on civilians or government based on that statement, then your butt belongs in jail."

It should be that simple, but anyone who knows American history cant really say that with a straight face...

[Texmaster]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
"You can say you hate your country and be an idiot but if you instruct others to commit a violent act on civilians or government based on that statement, then your butt belongs in jail."

It should be that simple, but anyone who knows American history cant really say that with a straight face...

Um, I just did and I do know American history.   But please, enlighten us all when in history Americans as Americans were in the streets telling other Americans that their country was wrong and we should kill American citizins.

Hint:  The revolutionary war was voted on by the colony states and a formal declaration of war was issued.  Not to mention the United States didn't exist before that.  And the Civil War was also a formal declaration of war as well.

And you might want to think twice about comparing US history with Islamic facist terrorists

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: Texmaster
And you might want to think twice about comparing US history with Islamic facist terrorists

Does anyone know the difference between Islamic fascism and Islamofascism?

[Texmaster]

Islamofascism/Islamic Fascisim
The term Islamofacism is political epithet used to suggest that certain variants of Islamism have fascist or totalitarian aspects.


link

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Overkill
Personally, I feel  the UK media (as ever) must take a big slice of the blame for this new raft of legislation. The Daily hate (sorry Mail) has been stirring up anti Muslim and anti immigrant feelings for a long time and the govt is running scared of their brazen rhetoric calling for ever harsher methods of dealing with "muslim clerics". The govt had all party support for it's first raft of proposals but since the Mail started banging on, and Blair started damaging his underwear, that has slipped away as legislation has become knee jerk, and poorly thought out.

It's interesting because there are discussions going on now which are considering the implementation of British style TV Cameras in our rapid transit systems to help prevent and ID terrorists and London is being used as an example.

quote:
It's funny how nowhere near as much attention (yes, I know they haven't blown anybody up - yet) is focused on the Christian fanatics who are currently (and increasingly successfully) trying to bring our entertainment and news media under their control. Yet they too are trying to control our lives - just as the terrorists are.  

Because if they're doing so democratically then they are well within their rights to do so.  Democracy as a theory doesn't guarantee all rights, just a voice.  Your comparison is apples and oranges.

quote:
The bloody press in our country are almost as big a menace as the terrorists themselves..............

There are days when I feel the same about our press, but the fact of the matter is, a free press is the reason why the US isn't the next Iraq, Iran, or North Korea and I'm very glad for that.  I can hate the traditional media all I want, but I can then log onto the internet or flip on the radio and listen to a dissenting opinion rather easily.  I don't live in China where every single internet page is filtered by my government before I'm allowed to read it.

[Bishop]

quote:
Originally posted by: Timster
Is it my limited exposure to the British media, or is every major newspaper a sensationalist tabloid?  I believe in the freedom of the press, but I hate it when a media source proclaims themselves to be fair or balanced when they're clearly not.  The Spanish-American War was a result of a media mogul using the press to influence public opinion and government policy.

No they are not. There are some of the world’s best newspapers in the UK. I understand that The Guardian is one of the only main stream consortium owned world papers and therefore not under as much pressure to print what the owner prefers!

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: Texmaster
Islamofascism/Islamic Fascisim
The term Islamofacism is political epithet used to suggest that certain variants of Islamism have fascist or totalitarian aspects.


link

I think I get it...like Saudi Arabia is Islamofascist?  Would that make Israel Judiofascist?

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: Bishop
No they are not. There are some of the world’s best newspapers in the UK. I understand that The Guardian is one of the only main stream consortium owned world papers and therefore not under as much pressure to print what the owner prefers!

Its sister paper The Observer is ok too.