 |
| |
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
this is an old thread at the bbc on a specific issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4096194.stm
the update to part of the story involves Mr.Haw who has been protesting for 4 years over Iraq etc. Basicaly what we see is apparantly the first use of british parliamant bills trying to target an individuals right to peacefull protest.
Anyway its since the article was written, been to the high court and they ruled in his favour - as long as he keeps up his protest they can't kick him of his protest patch. So a blow in the right direction for a healthy democracy. But people who after the date this goes through into law, wont be able to join him/do their own peacefull protests.
Still it is disturbing to see our MP's target an individual with their powers WE give them. We need to keep an eye on this kind of thing. Its not going to be easy in the current climate of fear, and it does make things difficult for the security forces i expect, so i can see both sides of the argument.
Still with the PM urging us to go about our business as usual(which we are), i think he needs to look at that message and apply it to himself and his cabinet, especialy when making laws that infringe on our hard won basic freedoms.
In the context of the poll, freespeech is also the right of freedom of expression in a peacefull manner - a cornerstone of any true democracy imho.
Last edited by child of Thor on 03-08-2005 at 15:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Isn't the guy in the article the one who was originallly protesting against sanctions on Iraq?
I think I'll wait for a few more posts to focus my thoughts before giving an opinion though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Though I do think that there may be limits for freedom of speech when it comes to inciting violence and hate or promoting a totalitarian society under special circumstances
edit...... |
There is also such a bill going through, where technicaly it would be illegal for me to say for example "I can agree with a suicide bombers actions, where the people he represents has no other means of direct action against a percieved grievance - having no army for themselves, BUT dont condone those actions".
Under such laws that could be seen as incitement and would be illegal for me to have in a discussion, where i might be trying to argue a point against suicide bombing. Thats the problem with such laws.
Anyway i think a better way to go would be to let a series of complete open discussions take place - live on TV prime-time with The PM(and other officials) and some of the extremist guys.
Once you address a concern you can better work out a way to deal with it - making peoples concerns(and discussions of) illegal just pushes it further under the carpet and out of view, thus making it potentaly more dangerous.
I'm under no illusions that you can change the mind of a fundimentalist/extremist by this approach(and by this i include state fundimentalism and Islamic extremism), but the important thing is to get the issues out in the open and being discussed - that way we as a society can better tailor our understanding+responses to such threats.
Democracy has to be free - otherwise the extremist/fundimentalists(state+non state) will have won much of thier war on a free society.
Last edited by child of Thor on 03-08-2005 at 16:47
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2005 15:04
).
|