So who is winning the war against civil liberties?

Hobbes

I am just wondering who is out doing themselves with regards to civil liberties recently?

Ignoring the US outstanding stuff for the moment we have the recent 12 hour detention of Cindy et all in vans handcuffed for demonstrating outside the white house.

Then I was amazed that the heckler at the UK Labour conference was held under the terrorism act (see even 82 year old party members can be terrorists ).

But I think the award should go to Oz Labour who are trying to implement a law that allows them to lock down a neighbourhood/suburb that may have a terrorist in it and then everyone who lives in the area is covered by anti-terrorism laws (ie. No rights).

Just wondering if I missed anything else spectacular?

biko

It's amazing how they slowly twist it until it's "Anti-Government = Terrorist".

Reminds me of a certain Special Powers Act - US has praticed internment now for years.

Wibbs

If it wasn't so scary it would be farcical. Of course precious little of this is going to stop any real terrorist types.

Hobbes wrote:

Then I was amazed that the heckler at the UK Labour conference was held under the terrorism act (see even 82 year old party members can be terrorists ).

Well those leccy wheelchairs can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Hit a building in the wrong place and.....

DadaKopf

Amazing to think that "tree-hugging, wet liberal lefty types" have been warning about this for years, but they've been pilloried for saying it.

Now an 80 year old Labour member is a terrorist.

What about out own legislation?

bonkey

Now an 80 year old Labour member is a terrorist.

Suspected terrorist you mean.

See...anyone can be a suspect. As long as they don't try and falsely convict him, no-ones done anything wrong, have they?

Mis-quoting someone slightly....

"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the Freedom. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the Freedom! "

I'd imagine the use of the anti terrorism laws was just a ploy to get him away from the hall legally.
Of course they knew he wasnt a terrorist but by the time this would be clarified then arresting him as one would have done it's job ie got rid of him.

The incident was disgracefull. Straw should have stopped reading the auto cue and asked the man handlers to leave him alone.

Maybe with those glasses Straw couldnt see very well up the back and thought it was a young heckler.

He didnt get them from spec savers.

dahamsta

Hobbes wrote:

Then I was amazed that the heckler at the UK Labour conference was held under the terrorism act

I honestly don't know the exact details but I'm pretty sure it's more accurate to say that he was refused re-entry to the conference using powers granted under the Terrorism Act. Slightly less offensive imho, but still a gross abuse of powers that were granted to the police specifically to deal with terror offenses.

Police forces simply shouldn't be trusted to administer the law logically, laws should be created in such a way to prevent this kind of abuse. de Menezes, of course, being the most disgusting example of police over-reaction.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

I'd imagine the use of the anti terrorism laws was just a ploy to get him away from the hall legally.

As KS has just mentioned, the AT laws were invoked to prevent re-entry, after he had been already bundled outside (by someone now described as "over-zealous" apparently) for heckling.

Of course they knew he wasnt a terrorist but by the time this would be clarified then arresting him as one would have done it's job

By "done its job" I assume you mean the job "that was wanted of it" as opposed to "that it was intended for"?


Of course, its not like this was a real miscarriage of justice like ppl scaremongered would happen when such laws were introduced. In fact, seeing as it wasn't any of us who were treated in this manner, we should in fact coinclude that there is nothing wrong with this law because it hasn't affected our personal freedoms directly. The fact that the law is being abused is, of course, a secondary issue....one which is clearly only relevant to whingers and the bleeding-heart lbierals amongst us.

Storm in a teacup, being blown out of proportion by those anti-Ameri....err....anti-Britishers.
*

jc

*Section in italics added to save the usual pro-government posters from having to do so. May be somewhat sarcastic.

Nuttzz

Plenty of times people here have been arrested under Section 30 of the Offences against the State act on charges were not IRA/terrorist related. We arent white than white either....

mike65

The incident yesterday striuck me as being less about 'terrorist threats' or anything such and more about the way spin and control freakery has just gone completly mad within Labour. I would buy into alot of so-called New Labour as I'm well ancient enough to have seen old Labour at its worst but the way the party is run these days is just creepy.

Mike.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

By "done its job" I assume you mean the job "that was wanted of it" as opposed to "that it was intended for"?

Yup thats what I meant.

DadaKopf

bonkey wrote:

Suspected terrorist you mean.

See...anyone can be a suspect. As long as they don't try and falsely convict him, no-ones done anything wrong, have they?

Mis-quoting someone slightly....

"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the Freedom. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the Freedom! "

Thanks for the legal lesson, bonkey.

I'm sure you know what I meant.

Possibly misquoting The Weathermen: "There's a policeman inside all our heads."

Britain's terrorist legislation is so broad as to turn everyone into a potential terrorist, which has concrete effects on people's behaviours and freedoms in a very subtle form of coercion.

Laws gone mad.

Memnoch

Earthman wrote:

I'd imagine the use of the anti terrorism laws was just a ploy to get him away from the hall legally.

yes we ALL know that already, the point people are trying to make is that these so called anti-terrorists laws are just there to stiffle legitimate decent against a goverment that is more and more ignoring the views of those who put them into power and stripping away their civil libirties.

Of course they knew he wasnt a terrorist but by the time this would be clarified then arresting him as one would have done it's job ie got rid of him.

you seem to be trying to say that this some how paints the anti-terror laws in a better light, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you on this. But from where i'm standing all it shows is abuse of power and that these laws need to be scrapped.

bonkey

Memnoch wrote:

you seem to be trying to say that this some how paints the anti-terror laws in a better light, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you on this. But from where i'm standing all it shows is abuse of power and that these laws need to be scrapped.

I read his comments as saying exactly what you've said it looks like from where you're standing....so I think you may have misread him.

They used the law for convenience. Someone should get the chop for it, but if anyone does, its not likely to be the correct someone. And there's SFA chance this will lead to the laws being changed....I mean, they've already apologised.

jc