http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11129474/Extremists-to-have-Facebook-and-Twitter-vetted-by-anti-terror-police.html
Just read that and think about it...
"They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders."
Barring someone speaking in public, no matter how extreme you think they are, can never be a threat to democracy? It is essential for democracy to exist that there is free speech; that all of the views, no matter how extreme, can be expressed. If those views are so compelling and popular that they actually sway the vote of democracy then it is democracy are work, not democracy under threat!
If the only views that can be expressed are those filtered by the existing establishment, then there simply cannot be democracy.
As I said, I did not study history, but 100 years on from events that started some pretty big wars, and ultimately led to the creation of things like the convention on human rights, we are seeing British politicians trying to abolish those basic rights and destroy free speech and democracy.
I have to say (while I still can) that I now think Theresa May is a threat to democracy!
I am not one to go for conspiracy theories, but we know, and can see, that the hype over terrorists is terrorism itself. It is scaremongering to change our views. Terrorism causes a fraction of the deaths and injuries of cars, but is used as a lever to make sweeping changes to fundamental rights. Put things in perspective. Terrorists are criminals and need appropriate action, but we do not need to abandon basic rights to free expression in the name of terrorists. If we do, they really have won.
I know people don't normally say who they vote for, but I will say that I have always voted Conservative before. This is largely because I have not really considered any of the parties to be that much worse than the rest. As the saying goes, no matter who you vote for, the government always get in. Conservatives have been quite good for small businesses in the past, and that is what I stuck with. But now, with statements like this, I really cannot, in good conscience, vote Conservative. I don't know who I will vote for, and I'll consider it. Please don't try and push me one way or the other.
I have to say (while I still can) that I now think Theresa May is a threat to democracy!
I am not one to go for conspiracy theories, but we know, and can see, that the hype over terrorists is terrorism itself. It is scaremongering to change our views. Terrorism causes a fraction of the deaths and injuries of cars, but is used as a lever to make sweeping changes to fundamental rights. Put things in perspective. Terrorists are criminals and need appropriate action, but we do not need to abandon basic rights to free expression in the name of terrorists. If we do, they really have won.
I know people don't normally say who they vote for, but I will say that I have always voted Conservative before. This is largely because I have not really considered any of the parties to be that much worse than the rest. As the saying goes, no matter who you vote for, the government always get in. Conservatives have been quite good for small businesses in the past, and that is what I stuck with. But now, with statements like this, I really cannot, in good conscience, vote Conservative. I don't know who I will vote for, and I'll consider it. Please don't try and push me one way or the other.
Make up your own mind - do you really want to live in a police state where even the most basic of rights to express your views and opinions is restricted by the state?
You can vote in North Korea.. there are even multiple (approved) parties. Democracy doesn't mean a lot. Especially when invading countries is called 'spreading democracy' and destroying freedom of speech is called 'protecting democracy'.
ReplyDeleteThe term has been completely subverted by politicians to mean whatever they want it to mean at the time. We need to start talking instead about freedom of speech and how that should be protected.. politicians rarely if ever talk about it, because (a) it's too easy to understand, so they can't twist it, and (b) they don't appear to believe in it anyway.
One of the few areas the US seem to have slightly more clue - though it is eroded even there.
DeleteIn America it doesn't really matter who has the most votes, it's who has the biggest budget and can confuse Florida...
DeleteI think the British government fits the dictionary definition of "terrorist" very well these days - using fear ("if you don't let us take away your civil liberties the terrorists will kill you / kiddie-fiddlers will get your kids!") to effect political change.
ReplyDeleteOh, and if people think I am being a tad over the top here, and that this would only apply to "real" extremists, remember David Cameron quoted as saying: “Non-Violent Extremists” Including “9/11 Truthers” and “Conspiracy Theorists” are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there are plenty of existing anti-terror laws, which were originally passed with the promise of "we'll only use these against real terrorists" which are now being routinely used for non-terrorism stuff such as copyright infringement investigations...
Delete