 |
| |
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Belgian interior minister
slams UK anti-terror laws
11 March 2005
BRUSSELS - Interior Minister Patrick Dewael has denounced the British government’s new anti-terrorism legislation as "unacceptable".
Dewael made his remarks at an international anti-terrorism conference in Madrid on Thursday, a day before the UK parliament finally approved the new legislation after much bitter wrangling.
On Friday, La Libre Belgique reported that Dewael, who represented Belgium at the conference, had said the new British proposals were dangerous since they would give the government new powers to order house arrest and impose curfews and electronic tagging without trial.
Under the new law, the UK government will have to apply to a judge to issue house arrest orders, but in an emergency a minister can immediately order lesser measures like curfews and electronic tagging and seek court approval within seven days.
Dewael insisted on Thursday that if, as subsequently happened, the legislation was approved he would find it unacceptable.
"The police or home office can deprive people of their liberty without the intervention of a judge," said Dewael.
"The separation of powers must be respected. Arrests must be endorsed by a magistrate. If that takes too long, I would get those procedures speeded up, but they mustn’t disappear," he added
"I refuse to go down the road of a kind of permanent state of alert," the minister continued.
The UK legislation is set to come up for review in a year. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm not seeing the major assault on civil liberties the Belgian is complaining about. I have to wonder if Belgium's large Muslim population isn't motivating that politician to posture for the cameras. |
He's a liberal who has spoken out against the multicultural ideal. His party is tending to anti-immigration and they were against voting rights to non-Belgians from outside the EU (which includes a lot of muslims) in local polls. I've also never known the party to pander to any kind of 'muslim interest' (in so far this exists over here) so my guess is that he's genuinely concerned about civil liberties. (as am I)
Last edited by Colon on 12-03-2005 at 18:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
Azazel, nothing I guess in those terms, however it shows a tendency, where new methods are approved, methods that in the eyes of democratic justice can not be approved. You know if that really happens, the actual electronic tapping or what ever, no one gets bruises in it and it's no sweat thing, but like I said earlier, it's not THIS one particular, but the idea breaking the code that is dangerous, and if it is seen as approved, it only says next thing can be done also. Baby steps. You have to really ask, in front of terrorism, what the hell is this going to do to help fighting it, SERIOUSLY? My guess is nada, so why pushing this code breaking law int he first place? It should be mega ****ing important to even suggest such changes.
Of course this doesn't have anything to do with bashing the Brits. This is mostly theoretical rambling. It's not this particular case that worries me, it is that this can be done ANYWHERE, even in places that thinks they are the bastion of justice and ****. In here, this could happen. There prolly wouldn't be a single street protest about it either. That is what REALLY worries me. No one gives a ****, it's like the people are more educated in some areas, but in other matters they never passed the first grade. People won't fight over this in the big scale, or even further upgrades of security regulations that makes their life more difficult and terorists can cream their pants few more times. Limiting ANY kind of freedoms, in trade off for fighting terror is bullshit. What you get is more bureocracy, more bullshit business with incompetent people, more mix ups, more everything, but not any real results, or even partial results. I guess we have become too comfortable because we just change the channel and forget about it. 'this doesn't concern me'. Yes it does.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Colon
He's a liberal who has spoken out against the multicultural ideal. His party is tending to anti-immigration and they were against voting rights to non-Belgians from outside the EU (which includes a lot of muslims) in local polls. I've also never known the party to pander to any kind of 'muslim interest' (in so far this exists over here) so my guess is that he's genuinely concerned about civil liberties. (as am I) |
I take it you mean that they're against allowing non-citizens to vote? I don't see that as either a liberal or conservative issue. A person should become a fully naturalized citizen before being allowed to vote, or you may eventually see tourists going from country to country voting wherever they please.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
Sandman, my first impression exactly.. 'we're doing things, we're doing all we can to'... etc. Unfortunately, they should stop kissing people's ass in this regard and just continue as usual. Because this is just fooling ourselves.
I like how Carlin said in his stand up set, that he hopes all airport security is just taken away because it doesn't help any. Just makes people feel scared, and mess with their schedules and that's it. The drug lords little packets find their way in and out of airports no problem, so who are we kidding, right? Then he says, that of course you can stab someone with nailclippers but you can also beat them to death with sunday morning paper if you just beat long and hard enough. And there is always some danger element in life, what ever it is that you do, so 'take a ****ing chance' he said  . It was funny as hell, but I think he hit right on the button. Who are we kidding with these things. Only ourselves. Doesn't mean no measures should be taken to meet the requirements of modern threats. not at all, this just means we should stop ****ing around with things that only makes the lives of ordinary people difficult and does... very extremely little to hinder any terrorism.
And we do put a price on human life anyway. Say a person has a bad heart and no money and insurance, and they say well we can't help you, take some vitamins and have someone to call us when you DIE, so we pick you up and report. You know, there is a price, and that price is not a lot even in western parts of the world when it comes to the society and the actors of society. The truth is we really don't give a crap, except in some cases. SO, my point is, how much money goes into TOTALLY USELESS bs measurements that makes everyones life more difficult? I bet it's A LOT of money. How many lives are saved because of it? If it's a matter of individuals, ****ing save the money then, not worth it. This is of course not how I really think.. to save the money... I wouldn't put a price on a person. I would put the price on 'is this a good thing to do, do we feel this is the best way, and is this necessary?' and if the answer is yes then let's take care of the bill. Otherwise? Not really. I feel measurements like these are total waste of MONEY, TIME and not to mention the real dangers I mentioned earlier.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:17
|
|
PH, exactly.. they do what they do, and that's what counts in fighting against them..
We have this dual way of thinking. On the other hand, we think terrorists are super smart, with unlimited resources and motivation we can never know. This means, that 'well you never know..'. Let's put it all on terrorism. Then on the other hand, we think that these measures actually stop terrorism, or even make it more difficult. You know 'well we catch them on border'.. yeah what ever. What happened to super smart? Ordinary criminals think they're a joke, why would super criminals think any differently. Why do we think the borders even are a key to fighting terrorism,I thought it was international, knows no borders.. The truth is, the trade off just isnt' worth it.
Imran, I should elaborate that. We don't hate our freedom per se, we just don't value it enough. This is why baby steps work. If it would be full blown nazi law, we would be against it STRONG. Baby steps and you get there. Why would anyone want to limit our freedom within. It is what has been already established in this thread, to seem competent and to be 'on it'. Say, if this is the thing we need to do, what does it say about our security?
The thing is we don't hate our freedom, we just don't value it enough. It is very ironic.. and sad. People are dying out there every day to preseve this freedom, liberty and all those things, fighting for those values. And what do we do in return, we diminish those rights and values. I'd hate to go fighting for freedom limiter. I would like to think I'm fighting for KEEPING those freedoms. We can be very secure too. WE just never leave our houses, watch news ALL the time to know if we should go into the bunker we built for the house in case of super alerts, and only eat canned food we bought 10 years ago. The thing is, even though terrorism is a real threat and serious thing, what is the chance you are going to die from it? How about 0? I know Madrid just had a ... sad day remembering the ones who perished a year ago, and all other victims as well. This is very serious and real and touches a lot of people directly. However, the chances of dying from terrorism are still closer to 0% than 1% for you and me. YET we are ready to give freedoms away, and "understand" why it "has" to be this way. When you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense.
Are we fighting these bastards to hold our freedom high and proud, or what the hell it is these days.. I'm definitely not against the real measrues, the special forces, intelligence, cops and all those people who make sure we can enjoy our day without any hassle. But mistakes happens. Everyone is a human. Some attacks can't be even blocked before it happens. For those, what good does it do to have a rule where we can put electronic bracelett on someone? I mean really.. seriously, it does nothing to fight this problem.
So I would end this with saying, that we have INCOMPETENCE. That is what we hate. We hate the fact that we can't control everything. We hate that bastards with few thousand dollars/euros can effectively kill and maim if they so wish and it can be anyone, you, me, anyone. We hate it that a very small percentage happens because some personel has neglected information, or was not able to get it in time. But limiting people's freedoms really doesn't pitch in to help. We hate that some bastards are able to kill us for reasons we can't understand, or reasons that are unjustified. But how big of a role does terrorism have killing us versus our own citizens killing us, and why didn't we need those measruements against ourselves, a far more bigger threat? Some do realize that we really can't stop anyone from doing these things, but we can try and we must try. Some think we can stop this. They think if we want to, if we really try, no one can hurt us. But we must trade some liberties in order to protect ourselves. I do believe, that we are not any safer, we are just poorer after these trades. And once these kinds of rules are set, believe me they are there for the keeps.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2005 18:08
. Anyway I find it interesting, one guy stands up in their side's podium and speaks, and they other ones are then angry or what ever, it at least looks pretty fascinating to me 
|