I came across the article via the FCOs website.
http://www.newstatesman.com/law-and-reform/2009/03/police-state-rights-freedom
It is about how we are not entering a police state and modern liberty is not under threat. It is interesting and I agree with most of it. Primarily that there is no 'golden age' of liberty to which we can roll the state back to. Often putting institutional powers on the statute serves as a protection of society, giving a reference of norms and allocation and proprietary over powers. However I do think modern technology has the capacity to completely infiltrate our lives and provide surveillance for all manner of groups who wish to control, cajole, or pressure the public to act, behave, buy and ultimately think in a certain way. We need statute law and protection over the next generation where the battle for privacy will be fought. Namely email, Internet connections, text messaging and phone calls. We can not only define between citizen and criminal, we must define between citizen and suspect.
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Monday, 6 April 2009
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Anglian Comment
I was planning to right a short piece about the protesters who hounded the Anglian regiment yesterday during their homecoming. However a quick look on youtube made me shudder. Was I now agreeing with far right organisations such as the BNP? Am I just adding fuel to the blatant misrepresentations propagated by neo-fascist, racist and thoroughly reprehensible hard liners?
Well I am still going to have a monologue and I hope the readers will judge that I am guilty of neither racism nor appeasement. I think we should bare in mind the context of the event first of all. There was no more than a dozen protesters. If you compare that to Glasgow's experience during the Orange Walks or the Friends of Ireland march we are talking about a very small number indeed. In fact no substantive violence broke out and no follow up vigilante activities have been reported. Which is a dam bit more civilised than inter-faith Glaswegian relationships.
I would label the men (yes all of hem were men) as anti-war protesters but I think that is being too impartial. These men are clearly Muslim and their protest is an Islamist agenda. This is not just about the war in Iraq but also the imposition of freedom and democracy over religious totalitarianism, the death of fellow Muslims and not the death of fellow human beings, and the publicising of an agenda which labels Islam as brave and courageous in the face of the decadent and morally corrupt (and lets not forget secular) west.
Where the BNP, other groups, and I depart is that I think the men have and should have the right to protest. Regardless of my opinion on the war, it is fundamental that the law protects the right to peaceful protest and to speak freely. However, if anything, this groups choosing of time, place and slogans show how utterly disgusting, base, and crude their opinion and teachings are. When the anti war movement began it was the biggest protest ever seen in the UK. Where were the anti-war protesters now? Definitely not on the side of the Islamist group. They recognise first and foremost the bravery of British soldiers and their sacrifice for the nation. There is no humanity, no decency, no moral code which sanctions turning up at a parade venomously chanting phrases such as 'Go to hell', 'Butchers' and 'Terrorists' when soldiers, having bled on the field- even died, return home. Where mothers greet their long departed sons and others mourn the loss of friends, siblings or even children, there should be time for reflection, sombreness and celebration; not drivel spouted by brainwashed youths and preachers one step away from terrorist activities. Let's not think lightly or wash away a phrase such as 'Go to hell!'. These people believe in the literal teaching of the Koran. For them hell is a real place. With torture and cruelty so unfathomed it takes the imagination of an supernatural diety to dream it up. They literally want to send soldiers who have spent what can only be approximated to hell on earth, to a real eternity of relentless torture. Who could ever or would ever want to inflict that punishment on any other human being? Their moral viciousness was exposed by their chants yesterday.
Secondly, I fundamentally believe in the freedom of speech but I do recognise that if someone is a direct threat to civil order or is indeed inciting civil order against his person then there may be the need for detainment (not arrestment) by authorities. However the right wing of the population jumped on the events of two arrests at the Anglian parade. The BNP advertised it as 'two white British men arrested for challenging Muslims'. Obviously it was not that simple. One man was detained for incitement to racial hatred because he chanted a base phrase 'no surrender to the Taliban' and 'scum'. I am sure the first phrase will be familiar to many old firm fans in Scotland. If the state must arrest someone for incitement to racial hatred then at least keep it consistent. To me the chants of the protesters were worse than that of the single man. I wonder; is this double standards or was it a tactic by the police to maintain order? Either ways it sends out a disturbing signal. An Islamic group can continue to protest in the most undignified and repulsive way, yet when another citizen (regardless of race, gender or social grouping) replies in kind then he or she may be silenced. That can not be condoned.
Lastly, related to the last point but maybe the most important thing I want to echo is a challenge to use of the phrase 'islamo-phobia'. The Muslim Council of Britain said in a statement it was appalled at reports of the abuse, stating the protesters provided "fodder for Islamophobes keen to drive a wedge between Britons". Now, yes thank you for condemning the protesters and let us hope, and I do agree, that these protesters do not represent the majority of Muslims. However this word which has found it's way into headlines, articles and conversation- islamophobia, or islamophobes- is a subtle but none the less wicked attempt at deflecting warranted criticism of an idea. How dare they make an attempt to label anyone who criticises and challenges their orthodoxy as a shameful and a Muslim hating person. Words such as homophobe are used to describe people who inherently hate someones private, individual choice which they are born with or choose. How dare they apply this to their religion. Are they seriously saying that anyone who doesn't agree with their theory which they openly propagate and recruit for, as I do, is an islamaphobe? Such wordplay cheapens the achievements of legitimate groups and seeks to silence critics and protect their own agenda. It is good to see that the British public will not stand for such treatment.
Comment? I dare you?
NB* Two viewpoints. Opposing views of the trouble that outbroke that day/
I like this one because it shows how a relatively small mob can seem intimidating and can enter and aggressive spiral on a calm day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM
This is from the far right point of view. They use scenes from numerous other protests to blow this one out of proportion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCO963eCD5U
.
Well I am still going to have a monologue and I hope the readers will judge that I am guilty of neither racism nor appeasement. I think we should bare in mind the context of the event first of all. There was no more than a dozen protesters. If you compare that to Glasgow's experience during the Orange Walks or the Friends of Ireland march we are talking about a very small number indeed. In fact no substantive violence broke out and no follow up vigilante activities have been reported. Which is a dam bit more civilised than inter-faith Glaswegian relationships.
I would label the men (yes all of hem were men) as anti-war protesters but I think that is being too impartial. These men are clearly Muslim and their protest is an Islamist agenda. This is not just about the war in Iraq but also the imposition of freedom and democracy over religious totalitarianism, the death of fellow Muslims and not the death of fellow human beings, and the publicising of an agenda which labels Islam as brave and courageous in the face of the decadent and morally corrupt (and lets not forget secular) west.
Where the BNP, other groups, and I depart is that I think the men have and should have the right to protest. Regardless of my opinion on the war, it is fundamental that the law protects the right to peaceful protest and to speak freely. However, if anything, this groups choosing of time, place and slogans show how utterly disgusting, base, and crude their opinion and teachings are. When the anti war movement began it was the biggest protest ever seen in the UK. Where were the anti-war protesters now? Definitely not on the side of the Islamist group. They recognise first and foremost the bravery of British soldiers and their sacrifice for the nation. There is no humanity, no decency, no moral code which sanctions turning up at a parade venomously chanting phrases such as 'Go to hell', 'Butchers' and 'Terrorists' when soldiers, having bled on the field- even died, return home. Where mothers greet their long departed sons and others mourn the loss of friends, siblings or even children, there should be time for reflection, sombreness and celebration; not drivel spouted by brainwashed youths and preachers one step away from terrorist activities. Let's not think lightly or wash away a phrase such as 'Go to hell!'. These people believe in the literal teaching of the Koran. For them hell is a real place. With torture and cruelty so unfathomed it takes the imagination of an supernatural diety to dream it up. They literally want to send soldiers who have spent what can only be approximated to hell on earth, to a real eternity of relentless torture. Who could ever or would ever want to inflict that punishment on any other human being? Their moral viciousness was exposed by their chants yesterday.
Secondly, I fundamentally believe in the freedom of speech but I do recognise that if someone is a direct threat to civil order or is indeed inciting civil order against his person then there may be the need for detainment (not arrestment) by authorities. However the right wing of the population jumped on the events of two arrests at the Anglian parade. The BNP advertised it as 'two white British men arrested for challenging Muslims'. Obviously it was not that simple. One man was detained for incitement to racial hatred because he chanted a base phrase 'no surrender to the Taliban' and 'scum'. I am sure the first phrase will be familiar to many old firm fans in Scotland. If the state must arrest someone for incitement to racial hatred then at least keep it consistent. To me the chants of the protesters were worse than that of the single man. I wonder; is this double standards or was it a tactic by the police to maintain order? Either ways it sends out a disturbing signal. An Islamic group can continue to protest in the most undignified and repulsive way, yet when another citizen (regardless of race, gender or social grouping) replies in kind then he or she may be silenced. That can not be condoned.
Lastly, related to the last point but maybe the most important thing I want to echo is a challenge to use of the phrase 'islamo-phobia'. The Muslim Council of Britain said in a statement it was appalled at reports of the abuse, stating the protesters provided "fodder for Islamophobes keen to drive a wedge between Britons". Now, yes thank you for condemning the protesters and let us hope, and I do agree, that these protesters do not represent the majority of Muslims. However this word which has found it's way into headlines, articles and conversation- islamophobia, or islamophobes- is a subtle but none the less wicked attempt at deflecting warranted criticism of an idea. How dare they make an attempt to label anyone who criticises and challenges their orthodoxy as a shameful and a Muslim hating person. Words such as homophobe are used to describe people who inherently hate someones private, individual choice which they are born with or choose. How dare they apply this to their religion. Are they seriously saying that anyone who doesn't agree with their theory which they openly propagate and recruit for, as I do, is an islamaphobe? Such wordplay cheapens the achievements of legitimate groups and seeks to silence critics and protect their own agenda. It is good to see that the British public will not stand for such treatment.
Comment? I dare you?
NB* Two viewpoints. Opposing views of the trouble that outbroke that day/
I like this one because it shows how a relatively small mob can seem intimidating and can enter and aggressive spiral on a calm day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_ygCc9qlWM
This is from the far right point of view. They use scenes from numerous other protests to blow this one out of proportion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCO963eCD5U
.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Response; My opinion, not expertise
In response to a friends comment left on my little piece about North Korea I would like to say one or two things.
He is completely right that N.K. is probably the most isolated part of the world with the possible exception of Burma. It is definitely the most oppressed but consequently the government has done such a good job it is relatively stable with less widespread violence than similar regimes.
'Is there such a thing as a single 'Korean' nation anymore?'.
I would say....yes. Korean 'people' if not nation most definitely. Korea has always been remote, which has allowed them almost 2000 years of unique history which, unlike Europe or American, was hardly infiltrated by outside powers until Japanese Imperialism. In the same way the Celts retained a language and culture unique to Brittany; Koreans have the same except much stronger, less diluted and only separated 80 years ago.
I guess a better comparison would be East and West Germany and all the same arguments divide Korean opinion. Is it economically viable, they have lived under a dictatorship and so on. Nostalgically I think all Koreans would go for unification but realistically a large minority would say it shouldn't be done. The possibility for democracy at root is alive in South Korea. I see women's institutes proudly taking on stuffy old politicians, young people protesting on the streets. I see nothing inherent in Korean culture which immediately stands in the way of democracy; such as monotheism, monarchy, or present conditions in the south.
Integration with the north would be difficult but surely possible. The sad fact is that the North Korean population are so oppressed that if you tell them to be democratic the will be.
Look out for 'The Crossing' on DVD. It won a few awards internationally. The fictional story of a father trying to escape the north.
He is completely right that N.K. is probably the most isolated part of the world with the possible exception of Burma. It is definitely the most oppressed but consequently the government has done such a good job it is relatively stable with less widespread violence than similar regimes.
'Is there such a thing as a single 'Korean' nation anymore?'.
I would say....yes. Korean 'people' if not nation most definitely. Korea has always been remote, which has allowed them almost 2000 years of unique history which, unlike Europe or American, was hardly infiltrated by outside powers until Japanese Imperialism. In the same way the Celts retained a language and culture unique to Brittany; Koreans have the same except much stronger, less diluted and only separated 80 years ago.
I guess a better comparison would be East and West Germany and all the same arguments divide Korean opinion. Is it economically viable, they have lived under a dictatorship and so on. Nostalgically I think all Koreans would go for unification but realistically a large minority would say it shouldn't be done. The possibility for democracy at root is alive in South Korea. I see women's institutes proudly taking on stuffy old politicians, young people protesting on the streets. I see nothing inherent in Korean culture which immediately stands in the way of democracy; such as monotheism, monarchy, or present conditions in the south.
Integration with the north would be difficult but surely possible. The sad fact is that the North Korean population are so oppressed that if you tell them to be democratic the will be.
Look out for 'The Crossing' on DVD. It won a few awards internationally. The fictional story of a father trying to escape the north.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Surveillance
I used to think the phrase 'They're watching us, they control everything!' was reserved for a select group of people. Namely 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers, UFO enthusiasts, Elvis spotters and the like. But in all serious how much can,or will, Britons take?
Off the top of my head I could name several government policies or actions since 2001 that have not only infringe on our freedoms but seek to severely undermine and curtail them. Just think now, just for a second, and I bet you can too. ID cards, DNA capture, bio-metric passports, detention for 28 days without charge (wait 90 days is what they want right?), refusal for freedom of information on MP's expenses (our employees mind), are just a few policies being continually pursued by the good new Labour Party. They see nothing wrong in denying European Union citizens entry into the UK, even if they are elected representatives, or allowing local councils (not the police) to monitor someones movement 24 hours a day. They are suspected of banning evidence in court cases because it may simply be embarrassing for them. They ask university lecturers and professors to report students who they suspect of academic misadventure. But when two subs collided in the English Chanel last week the extent of the damage was classified. Yet it is not like it was damaged in battle, and even if it was there isn't a precedent for not disclosing this information. We learned more about the crash from the French media than our own government. I'm sure the list could go on and on but the problem is compounded by the governments inability to keep the information they suck from us secret. The loss of 25 million individuals' data last year comes to mind.
Well, have you heard the latest operation Glasgow to take place on the Merseyside? Surveillance cameras with automatic face recognition. I'm sure the only thing holding back a national out rolling is the unreliability of previous face recognition software. The worst thing about it is that anyone detained by the police, regardless of whether they are charged or not, will be photographed and linked to the Surveillance network.
Why are we quiet about this?
The Convention on Modern Liberty is on in London this week. If I was home I'd be there.
Off the top of my head I could name several government policies or actions since 2001 that have not only infringe on our freedoms but seek to severely undermine and curtail them. Just think now, just for a second, and I bet you can too. ID cards, DNA capture, bio-metric passports, detention for 28 days without charge (wait 90 days is what they want right?), refusal for freedom of information on MP's expenses (our employees mind), are just a few policies being continually pursued by the good new Labour Party. They see nothing wrong in denying European Union citizens entry into the UK, even if they are elected representatives, or allowing local councils (not the police) to monitor someones movement 24 hours a day. They are suspected of banning evidence in court cases because it may simply be embarrassing for them. They ask university lecturers and professors to report students who they suspect of academic misadventure. But when two subs collided in the English Chanel last week the extent of the damage was classified. Yet it is not like it was damaged in battle, and even if it was there isn't a precedent for not disclosing this information. We learned more about the crash from the French media than our own government. I'm sure the list could go on and on but the problem is compounded by the governments inability to keep the information they suck from us secret. The loss of 25 million individuals' data last year comes to mind.
Well, have you heard the latest operation Glasgow to take place on the Merseyside? Surveillance cameras with automatic face recognition. I'm sure the only thing holding back a national out rolling is the unreliability of previous face recognition software. The worst thing about it is that anyone detained by the police, regardless of whether they are charged or not, will be photographed and linked to the Surveillance network.
Why are we quiet about this?
The Convention on Modern Liberty is on in London this week. If I was home I'd be there.
Monday, 16 February 2009
Excerpt from a letter
Anyways a few things that have been on the news that either got me thinking or reaching for my mental affiliation with labour and dousing it in petrol (the match will come soon enough I fear). Firstly, and I think most easily criticised would be the visit of that vile Dutchman Geert Wilders. I wasn't very interested in what a bigot had to say until it turned out he was banned from saying it. The story had been floating around for a few days and I had already formed my opinion. I was glad to see that a majority of comments on the guardian website regarding the incident were criticising the home office's stance on the matter. However after watching Question Time it was clear that 4 out of the 5 panelists thought the immigration ban an excellent thing. The only one who disagreed was a Gardener (no disrespect but he doesn't hold sway over public opinion unlike the editor of The Sun). Geert Wilders' movie which was about to be shown to an invitational audience has probably increase it's viewing figures by hundreds of thousands. I was actually about to youtube it myself but decided that nothing can be gained by watching the documentary/film equivalent of gutter press and BNP propaganda. I just did a quick search in youtube and a recent speech of his has almost 700, 000 views whereas one copy of his movie on youtube alone has 100,000. The government has promoted his career beyond his dreams, and knowing he would be turned away from Heathrow he capitalised on the publicity. Furthermore the government has once again shown it's disregard for free speech and individual liberty. I do not agree with Wilders for one second, and you know my feelings on Islam and religion, but he has the same right to free speech as any man is endowed with by nature. If we simply ban opinion we do nothing to counter it and instead of being blasted away by superior argument it seeps into the public imagination, creates xenophobic outcries by minorities which then play on the minds of more sensible folk when times become hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)