The end of british democracy?

[G.K Zhukov]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...146692,00.html

Discuss!

[MrL_JaKiri]

For one thing, that's nothing to do with "democracy" per se. For another, linking a news article and saying "Discuss!" does not a good thread make.

[Hebdomad]

Too late sucker - I've written three paragraphs, an hour later, but it's still more worthwhile.

[All Systems Go]

'I shot Democracy'

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

'I shot Democracy'

But I didn't shoot Freedom of Speech?

[dda]

If and when democracy meets its ultimate demise it will come from the left and not from the right. Discuss

[bradleykins]

Whilst there may very well be a real threat to democracy by using these powers, they are quite right to do so, this is a perfect example of how and when martial power has been implemented in a way that is both preventative and policing.

This is to say, it has been used to find terrorist, which none can say do not exist, after the atrocities that have been caused by such terror groups. The government is well within its right to make sure, that the safety of the travelers, in airport, the police officers, and the protesters themselves. They do this by making sure that no hidden weapons, be them conventional weapons, such as an axe, or chainsaw - very conventional, is hidden in the crowd and additionally unconventional such as a bomb.

The searches are an extreme part of our lives now, but they are a necessary evil in these circumstances, better a few people gathering and being searched than a few people gathering and bloodshed.

On the other hand the power is being used in a most inappropriate way, but for the greater good, and as we all know the greater good is just that.

Needless to say that it is the terrorists themselves that have caused the death, if at all, of democracy, not the government.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

On the other hand the power is being used in a most inappropriate way, but for the greater good, and as we all know the greater good is just that.

Oh, I must have missed that meeting.

Needless to say that it is the terrorists themselves that have caused the death, if at all, of democracy, not the government.

And it seems I missed Osama (Recycling) Bin Laden introducing that bill into The House of Commons.

[bradleykins]

You feel that it is appropriate for a large group of people to get together in protest, and not be protected?

Im afraid to say your not at many meetings...

We are using the powers defensively, and taking the initiative here, needless to say i doubt you would not hesitate to thank the government, had the found a terrorist with a big bomb attached to him that would have killed everyone there, and when we stop taking these matters seriously, such as relaxing the tight grip on security that will lead to ever more chances for death and destruction.

I like to have my rights as much as anyone else, but even i see the need for such measures.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

You feel that it is appropriate for a large group of people to get together in protest, and not be protected?

I feel it is inappropriate for people who have neither committed a crime or been charged with one to be locked up for upto 28 days on the governments whim.

This is as much about protecting the protestors as the Iraq War was about bring democracy to Iraq, i.e. not at all, though I think you might question that.

We are using the powers defensively,

Who are 'We'? And why do you think that includes you?

and taking the initiative here, needless to say i doubt you would not hesitate to thank the government, had the found a terrorist with a big bomb attached to him that would have killed everyone there, and when we stop taking these matters seriously, such as relaxing the tight grip on security that will lead to ever more chances for death and destruction.

Why don't we just give up all of our rights and live in a Police State? We won't have any freedom but at least we'll all be safe.

I like to have my rights as much as anyone else, but even i see the need for such measures.

I fear that most people don't value their rights at all, and in that regard I believe that you do give them the same value.

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I feel it is inappropriate for people who have neither committed a crime or been charged with one to be locked up for upto 28 days on the governments whim.

Whilst i disagree that they have not committed crimes, it is alleged they have committed no crimes, how can you be sure till they have been checked out?

I agree, on whims, but there are legal issues here that are just as relevant to stopping this, and it at least i believe that there is merit, though i can agree there are indeed many cases where corruption has been the downside of this, and thats what we must be vigilant against if the system is to work.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

This is as much about protecting the protestors as the Iraq War was about bring democracy to Iraq, i.e. not at all, though I think you might question that.

I don't question that, i am in agreement on this subject I personally feel that the only reason the British government was involved at all, was down to showing where its loyalties lay, and a bit of brow beating by America.

I have no doubt that there was a selfish agenda on the cards for both governments in this matter, but this is politics.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Why don't we

i think the matter speaks for itself :

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Who are 'We'? And why do you think that includes you?

You are aligning yourself on a particular side, and as such are becoming part of a group which can be referred to as 'We' i too am doing this.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Why don't we just give up all of our rights and live in a Police State? We won't have any freedom but at least we'll all be safe.

This is an extreme version of events, and is no where near happening atm, we do have choices and freedoms, and I myself, based on geography, am involved in even more struggles with government, ie Scottish independence, and the fact that i don't want it.

There are many many valid viewpoints to this argument, i am giving you mine, and attacking my views is not a method which will make them any less valid, i did not say that We want to remove all rights and move to some, as of yet, non existent dictatorship led future -

I believe that taking control and key government figures are what is needed in this country, Britain, and nothing less will be of any good.

Simply stated:

"Evil prevails when good men do nothing."

Funnily enough you may see the government elected by the people, evil, and that you yourself are indeed good. But then, EVERYTHING is based on perception.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

Whilst i disagree that they have not committed crimes, it is alleged they have committed no crimes, how can you be sure till they have been checked out?

Do you realsie the implications of this statement? You have just advocated a Police State where EVERYONE is considered to be guilty of a crime and it is up to them to prove their innocence or go to the gulag.

Innocent until proven guilty if one of the pillars of the legal system and you have just dismissed it out of hand.

I agree, on whims, but there are legal issues here that are just as relevant to stopping this, and it at least i believe that there is merit, though i can agree there are indeed many cases where corruption has been the downside of this, and thats what we must be vigilant against if the system is to work.

It is important to grasp the implications of what you are advocating so I shall say it again. You have just advocated a Police State where EVERYONE is considered to be guilty of a crime and it is up to them to prove their innocence or go to the gulag.

How can a system where people can be rounded up and jailed without charge ever 'work'? Even now, Gorden Brown wants to extend the limit to 90 days. In the future someone will wish to extend it further, no doubt. It is the essence of a totalitarian government; to lock up people the leaders consider 'undesirables' and call them 'terrorists.' There are loads of examples where this is the case. To display this point; see how many wars you can find where the invading party were not acting in 'self-defence' of in the 'defence' of those whose country they were bombign to ****.

I have no doubt that there was a selfish agenda on the cards for both governments in this matter, but this is politics.

Why should government be any less selfish (i.e. intent on strengthening the power of the state at the expense of the individual) in domestic policy?

i think the matter speaks for itself :

Yes it does. By 'We' I meant every single person in the United Kingdom. Who did you mean?

This is an extreme version of events, and is no where near happening atm, we do have choices and freedoms, and I myself, based on geography, am involved in even more struggles with government, ie Scottish independence, and the fact that i don't want it.

Do you really think these things happen overnight? They don't. Even if we aren't in a Police State yet, it is not somehow a defence for the UNDENIABLE FACT that the rights of society are being destroyed.

attacking my views is not a method which will make them any less valid

I agree with you on that.

i did not say that We want to remove all rights and move to some, as of yet, non existent dictatorship led future -

I'll ask this again just in case you miss it the first time around. Who is this 'We' and why do you think you are a part of it?

I believe that taking control and key government figures are what is needed in this country, Britain, and nothing less will be of any good.

Taking control of what exactly? Everyones life?

Simply stated:

"Evil prevails when good men do nothing."

Well here we agree, except on the definition of 'Evil.'

Funnily enough you may see the government elected by the people, evil, and that you yourself are indeed good. But then, EVERYTHING is based on perception.

I see the erosion of human freedoms as evil, I'm not particularly concerned with who is donig it. And what does being 'elected by the people' have to do with anything?

[Mzyxptlk]

Not meaning to overdramatize, but during World War 2 we killed around 51,000,000 people for freedom and democracy. Now they're taking it away from us because terrorists killed.. how many people exactly?

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Not meaning to overdramatize, but during World War 2 we killed around 51,000,000 people for freedom and democracy. Now they're taking it away from us because terrorists killed.. how many people exactly?

This is not necessarily a removal of rights, or an infringement on them, but merely can be seen as an extension of them, why must I not be able to be safe, why must I live in fear?

These are my rights, and by the mere fact that some people who could, or could not be dangerous, being allowed to roam freely in regards to stop and search, then that is an infringement on me is it not?

By doing nothing i have been affected, and so have millions (possibly) of other people by affecting these minority of searches and stopping and holdings, they are protecting the rights of the free people themselves.

I again stress these are perceptions.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

This is not necessarily a removal of rights, or an infringement on them, but merely can be seen as an extension of them, why must I not be able to be safe, why must I live in fear?

If you a) live in fear of terrorists or b) think that "living without fear" is some kind of right, then there may be something wrong with your thinking-brainways.

Originally Posted by bradleykins

I again stress these are perceptions.

Balls off. Some people are afraid of crossing bridges if too many people are on them, that doesn't mean we should legislate based on their irrational beliefs (lol religion lol, as a sidepoint).

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If you a) live in fear of terrorists or b) think that "living without fear" is some kind of right, then there may be something wrong with your thinking-brainways.

My fears aare as just and correct as anybody elses, and because of that fact the government has made these laws, and that goes a long way in showing that if in fact i have something wrong with my (brainways???) that indeed so too do many other people.

Whilst you may have no fear of terrorism, other people do have their rights too, and just as you so valiantly cry about your own, so too can we wrong brainways people cry.

It is a basic right that no man, or woman, may live without bodily harm coming to them, as such it is a valid point to make that it is just and right to expect that we can live without worrying about it every minute, and tbh and true, it makes me feel much happier, and safe, every step we take towards a more secure country. This includes the crack down on terrorism, for you right brainways...

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Balls off. Some people are afraid of crossing bridges if too many people are on them, that doesn't mean we should legislate based on their irrational beliefs (lol religion lol, as a sidepoint).

Whilst i may agree with you, those people are a minority, my belief is echoed in many more people than that, and as such is demonstrated by the creation of these laws.

Ethics play a large point in this, but it is ethical to stop a bomb before it explodes, and personally as long as only a minority of people are hurt, rights infringed, by doing so as compared to the eventual casualty list then so be it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

My fears aare as just and correct as anybody elses, and because of that fact the government has made these laws, and that goes a long way in showing that if in fact i have something wrong with my (brainways???) that indeed so too do many other people.

You do realise that absolute freedoms are largely to protect from the tyranny of the majority, right?

Originally Posted by bradleykins

It is a basic right that no man, or woman, may live without bodily harm coming to them, as such it is a valid point to make that it is just and right to expect that we can live without worrying about it every minute

Doesn't follow. Lots of people fear them dirty black niggas, but it doesn't mean that we should legislate around that.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

This is not necessarily a removal of rights, or an infringement on them, but merely can be seen as an extension of them, why must I not be able to be safe, why must I live in fear?

These are my rights, and by the mere fact that some people who could, or could not be dangerous, being allowed to roam freely in regards to stop and search, then that is an infringement on me is it not?

By doing nothing i have been affected, and so have millions (possibly) of other people by affecting these minority of searches and stopping and holdings, they are protecting the rights of the free people themselves.

I again stress these are perceptions.

Why is your right to hold an illogical fear more important than someone elses right not to be stopped and searched in the middle of the street and then imprisoned for 28 days for literally no reason?

Just as a bit of social research, could I asked you to give a bit of detail on your ethnicity and roughly whereabouts in Scotland you live?

[bradleykins]

There really are no advocates for me?

Sheesh, scary thought.

i mean we as a global we those who are of my viewpoint, much as you mean everyone including me???

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Doesn't follow. Lots of people fear them dirty black niggas, but it doesn't mean that we should legislate around that.

Seeing as racism is a crime, still, i wouldn't bet that any legislation comes to being based on it, i fear terrorism, and that is not a crime.

Mz:

Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

security of person, that is an emphasis of my point, as is the fact that torture, (dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture) 7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind, is itself prohibited by another aspect of the declaration, and i myself feel extreme mental anguish when terrorized,([dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorise) 3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings, and as such the government by introducing these acts are defending my human rights.

I myself will be subject to these exact same laws that 'infringe' on my rights, and i see the logical and undeniable reasons behind them.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Do you realsie the implications of this statement? You have just advocated a Police State where EVERYONE is considered to be guilty of a crime and it is up to them to prove their innocence or go to the gulag.

Innocent until proven guilty if one of the pillars of the legal system and you have just dismissed it out of hand.

I do not advocate a police state, not as you see it.

I am merely operating on what i feel would be a much more safe environment,
we have to impose these laws based on the actions of a minority. In this much we are defending ourselves, and we do not torture, and undeniably WE ARE NOT YET in a police state, and insofar as we can never truly tell the future we don't know where the current affairs such as these terror laws will lead us.

Though i do take your arguments of historic examples of abused power, we may not end there, you cant say for sure.

Additionally, as the rights of millions are at stake based on these arguments, may i point out that these powers are in place to protect people such as yourselves? and the people you love?

Why would you consider a move towards increased security a bad one?

Until we can positively identify bad people based on sight, we must take measures to protect ourselves from them, that is why the law exists, and the laws are created and passed by a minority selected by us.

Us, to clarify, is the entire nation.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

How can a system where people can be rounded up and jailed without charge

The are not rounded up as you suggest, there is detailed call for such actions, and they have, so far, only been used correctly.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

the UNDENIABLE FACT that the rights of society are being destroyed

I personally can't see this, i see the UNDENIABLE FACT that my rights are being preserved.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Taking control of what exactly? Everyones life?

No, of course not, taking control of the situation.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I see the erosion of human freedoms as evil, I'm not particularly concerned with who is donig it. And what does being 'elected by the people' have to do with anything?

You have the right to run for politics, and a right to attempt and share your viewpoint with the world, instead you argue on the internet regarding the 'evil'ness of the government, what action did you take to stop these evil acts? or is bandying words all you are prepared to do?

In your world you can take this the wrong way and go on a rampage killing people to get your message across, but don't worry the government cant make sure you don't do that, you made sure of it by demolishing protection of the innocent and replacing it with the protection of evil.


Its this much that leads me to trust the people that have been selected by the nation to lead us.

I would rather trust them, than a group of people there to demonstrate against something that benefits all of society.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

Seeing as racism is a crime, still, i wouldn't bet that any legislation comes to being based on it, i fear terrorism, and that is not a crime.

Racism isn't a crime any more than "being scared of terrorists" is. If you go and attack a black guy it's a crime, but then it's also a crime if you go and attack someone you think is a terrorist.

In any case, as we're talking about making or repealing laws it seems somewhat surreal to be basing the debate on what is legal and illegal. Holding someone for 90 days without charge was illegal 7 years ago, does that invalidate your position?

You also have ignored the first part of my reply to you, which I find particularly amusing as most of the rest of your post commits exactly the same error as I was pointing out.

Originally Posted by bradleykins

???

good argument.

Race Relations Act 1976

check it out.

It's illegal to kill someone with a tennis racket, that doesn't make tennis rackets illegal. The discrimination is the relevent part, otherwise the Daily Mail would be in enormous amounts of trouble.

Originally Posted by bradleykins

I am enjoying this debate.

It's not much of a debate, it's you using logical fallacies to string out an argument that was old when the American constitution was new.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

I do not advocate a police state, not as you see it.

I am merely operating on what i feel would be a much more safe environment,
we have to impose these laws based on the actions of a minority.

Why do we have to impose these laws? The UK was under threats of terrorism for decades before these laws. Such laws tend to persecute minorities and such persecution can incrse the risk of terrorist attacks.

To keep things in perspective, these laws are being used against people protesting the expansion of an airport.

In this much we are defending ourselves

That's what they all say.

and we do not torture

Debatable.

and undeniably WE ARE NOT YET in a police state,

Debatable. Even if you are correct, there has been an undeniable sldie towards such a situation.

and insofar as we can never truly tell the future we don't know where the current affairs such as these terror laws will lead us.

All we can do is look to the past. And shudder.

Though i do take your arguments of historic examples of abused power, we may not end there, you cant say for sure.

You've already accepted the modern government lies, kills and tortures for its own purposes, is it so unlikely that they'll do it here?

Additionally, as the rights of millions are at stake based on these arguments, may i point out that these powers are in place to protect people such as yourselves? and the people you love?

Seeing as you have advocated limiting the rights of every signle individual in the country you are, by definition correct. But if you're trying to suggest that millions of people are on the verge of dying as the result of a terrorist attack I would asy you're wwwaaaaaaaayy off.

Appealing to emotion is not a good argument. No, wait. It's not an argument at all.

Why would you consider a move towards increased security a bad one?

I don't really see this as a move towards security when the state is allowed to place itself in a position to use force and illegal detentions to protect its own interests.

When Putin passes these laws they're because he's a criminal. When it happens in our country it's 'legitimate.'

Until we can positively identify bad people based on sight, we must take measures to protect ourselves from them, that is why the law exists, and the laws are created and passed by a minority selected by us.

So that makes all laws good? People must be protected from terrorism, but they must also be protected from the potentially far more serious threat of crimes committed by the state.

That you feel the government actually represents you as an individual is rather sweet, but naive.

Us, to clarify, is the entire nation.

You keep on beliving that.

The are not rounded up as you suggest, there is detailed call for such actions, and they have, so far, only been used correctly.

Wrong.

I personally can't see this, i see the UNDENIABLE FACT that my rights are being preserved.

Take a look at some of the legislation passed. It's all pretty restrictive. Just because you don't feel it every moment doesn't mean it's not happening.

No, of course not, taking control of the situation.

By limiting the rights of the individual?

You have the right to run for politics, and a right to attempt and share your viewpoint with the world, instead you argue on the internet regarding the 'evil'ness of the government, what action did you take to stop these evil acts? or is bandying words all you are prepared to do?

Say I did run for parliament and won a seat at the Hosue of Commons. What then? What actual power would I have to change anything? If I was advocating radical reform of the entire political system in the country, I would get no coverage in the mass media. The only exceptions being when they want a looney to entertain the masses and be publically derided and called an idiot on national TV.

In your world you can take this the wrong way and go on a rampage killing people to get your message across, but don't worry the government cant make sure you don't do that, you made sure of it by demolishing protection of the innocent and replacing it with the protection of evil.

Unlsess they randomly stop in the street for no reason as I inconspicuouly make my way to the killing fields.... Oh wait, I see what you did there!

How is protecting people who have done nothing wrong protecting evil?

Its this much that leads me to trust the people that have been selected by the nation to lead us.

lol. Trust in politicians. lol

I would rather trust them, than a group of people there to demonstrate against something that benefits all of society.

I'm not saying it was your fault
Although you could have done more

Oh you're so naive yet so

How could this be done
Your such a smiling sweetheart
Oh and your sweet and pretty face
In such an ugly way
Something so beautiful
That everytime I look inside

I know that she knows that I'm not fond of asking
True or false it may be
She's still out to get me

I know that she knows that I'm not fond of asking
True or false it may be
She's still out to get me

I may say it was your fault
Cause I know you could have done more

Oh you're so naive yet so

How could this be done
By such a smiling sweetheart
Oh and your sweet and pretty face
In such an ugly way something so beautiful
Everytime I look inside

I know that she knows that I'm not fond of asking
True or false it may be
She's still out to get me

I know that she knows that I'm not fond of asking
True or false it may be
She's still out to get me

How could this be done
By such a smiling sweetheart

Oh you're so naive yet so

Such an ugly thing
Someone so beautiful
And everytime you're on his side

I know she knows that I'm not fond of asking
True or false it maybe be she's still out to get me

And I know she knows that I'm not fond of asking
True or false it maybe be she's still out to get me

Just don't let me down
Just don't let me down
Hold on to your kite
Just don't let me down
Just don't let me down
Hold on to your kite
Just don't let me down
Just don't let me down
Hold on to this kite
Just don't let me down

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

There really are no advocates for me?

There were, but the government intercepted them on their way to teh internat and locked them up for 48 days.

:/

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Why is your right to hold an illogical fear more important than someone elses right not to be stopped and searched in the middle of the street and then imprisoned for 28 days for literally no reason?

Just as a bit of social research, could I asked you to give a bit of detail on your ethnicity and roughly whereabouts in Scotland you live?

Why is my fear illogical?

Why is it unscientifically correct to feel fear of something that has happened, and been threatened against me and my family?

I don't consider it illogical to fear that which is proven is on my doorstep.

May i point out, that you admit to sacrificing my rights in favor of someone else?

what makes you any better than those that are supporting this power.

I need not tell you any details about myself, however i live in central Scotland, i am white and i am studied to a university standard, i was born in Scotland, I have been abroad, i have many ethnic friends of varying back grounds, and i completely agree with the terror laws.

[edit] Tho may i point out, this does not in anyway affect the views or arguments i have put forward, and will only lead to your discrimination of me based on those details, regardless of my ethnicity my views are true.[/edit]

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

Why is my fear illogical?

Why is it unscientifically correct to feel fear of something that has happened, and been threatened against me and my family?

Because the actual likelihood killing anyone you know being so remote. Since 2002 and the 'Rules of the Game changed' 52 people have died in terrorist attacks. As Dante pointed out earlier you are far more likely to die in a car crash or one of a million other things. But a 'War on Drivers' doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

I don't consider it illogical to fear that which is proven is on my doorstep.

Being aware of a danger and being so disproportionally terrified of said event are two different things. There is a great hysteria about paedophilia but the odds of your child being taken are negligable. But tyhe fear itself is causing children more harm by parents not allowing them to go very far and play and socially interect and the such.

May i point out, that you admit to sacrificing my rights in favor of someone else?

I admit that your fear is almost completely based on emotion rather than an accurate study of the available empircal evidence and as a result is essentially worthless. Would you allow a mother whose shild was murdered to produce future laws for dealing with paedohpiles?

what makes you any better than those that are supporting this power.

A basic understanding of the political system?*

I need not tell you any details about myself, however i live in central Scotland, i am white and i am studied to a university standard, i was born in Scotland, I have been abroad, i have many ethnic friends of varying back grounds, and i completely agree with the terror laws.

[edit] Tho may i point out, this does not in anyway affect the views or arguments i have put forward, and will only lead to your discrimination of me based on those details, regardless of my ethnicity my views are true.[/edit]

Not at all. I shall in no way discriminate against you because of your social background. I shall discriminate and deride your position because it is wrong.

*argumentum ad verecundiam ftw!

[Mzyxptlk]

Allow me to paste something for the population of GD to ponder over!

Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

(I say GD, I mean bradleykins)

[furball]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

Seeing as racism is a crime

No it's not.

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by furball

No it's not.

???

good argument.

Race Relations Act 1976

check it out.

Originally Posted by cre.gov.uk/

You have the right not to be discriminated against on racial grounds.

[bradleykins]

i am glad to see that i chose the right side to advocate, as there is certainly no one else prepared to argue this case, and plenty of you to argue against it.

I am enjoying this debate.

[furball]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

i am glad to see that i chose the right side to advocate, as there is certainly no one else prepared to argue this case, and plenty of you to argue against it.

I am enjoying this debate.

Actually, I'd call it the wrong side to advocate since you're....wrong.


By the way, when you say that we don't torture or round up people....Guantanamo.

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by furball

Actually, I'd call it the wrong side to advocate since you're....wrong.


By the way, when you say that we don't torture or round up people....Guantanamo.

Guantanamo is U.S. Government, not what i am advocating, which is the british democracy, so...

Your wrong.

but hey i dont read topics of threads either...

[furball]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

Guantanamo is U.S. Government, not what i am advocating, which is the british democracy, so...

Your wrong.

but hey i dont read topics of threads either...

We have counternanced the USA's use of Guantanamo for the last six years, there comes a point when you're an accessory to another's actions. That point has been reached.

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by furball

We have counternanced the USA's use of Guantanamo for the last six years, there comes a point when you're an accessory to another's actions. That point has been reached.

Guilty by association?

Indeed...

[furball]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

???

good argument.

Race Relations Act 1976

check it out.

Discrimination is different from racism. What is covered? It include sdiscrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services, education and public functions.


I see no 1984-style thought police.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

Mz:
security of person, that is an emphasis of my point, as is the fact that torture, (dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture) 7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind, is itself prohibited by another aspect of the declaration, and i myself feel extreme mental anguish when terrorized,([dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorise) 3. to produce widespread fear by acts of violence, as bombings, and as such the government by introducing these acts are defending my human rights.

I myself will be subject to these exact same laws that 'infringe' on my rights, and i see the logical and undeniable reasons behind them.

You're misinterpreting the word 'torture' as it's used in the document. You then proceed to base your entire argument around it, which makes it incorrect as a whole. You're also lying by omission, as definition 7 has "My back is torturing me." as example, while definition 3 does not even appear on that page.

Originally Posted by Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations

The document is mostly about protecting people from their governments, not protecting people from other people. In that light, torture is nothing but (mental and physical) violence against prisoners perpetrated by institutions of a government or parts thereof.

Originally Posted by Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that 'life', 'liberty' and 'security of person' are displayed side by side, signifying a sense of equality. This in turn implies that taking away one in favour of one or both of the others would be at best a very strange thing to do, and at worst a wilful act of dismantling one or more basic human rights. And isn't it interesting that that's exactly what "the terrorists" are doing?

And finally, allow me to summarise our position with yet another quote.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin

Those who would forsake essential liberty for a little added security deserve neither liberty nor security.

[bradleykins]

Firstly i would like to say i really like your post

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

You're misinterpreting the word 'torture' as it's used in the document. You then proceed to base your entire argument around it, which makes it incorrect as a whole. You're also lying by omission, as definition 7 has "My back is torturing me." as example, while definition 3 does not even appear on that page.

Your assuming my interpretation of torture is incorrect, i presume yours is. I did not intend to leave you without evidence when i posted my dictionary notes, hence why i provided the url, but my point remains torture can be moth mental and physical, that illustrates my point, when i have not been physically effected by the terror, but mentally.

As for definition three, it has a separate url, if you would please pay attention, and is a definition of terrorise. the two are linked but not the same.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

The document is mostly about protecting people from their governments, not protecting people from other people. In that light, torture is nothing but (mental and physical) violence against prisoners perpetrated by institutions of a government or parts thereof.

Again this is your interpretation of the document, and not necessarily what must be the correct view.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Furthermore, I would like to point out that 'life', 'liberty' and 'security of person' are displayed side by side, signifying a sense of equality. This in turn implies that taking away one in favour of one or both of the others would be at best a very strange thing to do, and at worst a wilful act of dismantling one or more basic human rights. And isn't it interesting that that's exactly what "the terrorists" are doing?

I don't quite understand what you are saying, are you implying that any of those three parts of a basic right are no more important than the other?

is that all your implying?

I merely point out one of those aspects is affected. I don't get where your argument is in that.

[edit] I loved the summary, but can i point out the statement was intended on a little added security, not the amount which is provided by these new laws? i can still see the point tho[/edit]

[Yahwe]

whose troll account is bradleykins? and if I scan up how many of you has he made a fool of so far in this thread?

EDIT - i'm guessing horn given this is pretty amature trolling. my god people - look at yourselves!

[bradleykins]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

whose troll account is bradleykins? and if I scan up how many of you has he made a fool of so far in this thread?

EDIT - i'm guessing horn given this is pretty amature trolling. my god people - look at yourselves!

lol i love it tbh

you automatically assume im just here trolling?

some people do actually know me truthfully not very well, just ebcause i rarely participate ont he forums, ie the acc just being signed up, that doesn't make me fake...

Thanks for the warm welcome tho.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

lol i love it tbh

you automatically assume im just here trolling?

some people do actually know me truthfully not very well, just ebcause i rarely participate ont he forums, ie the acc just being signed up, that doesn't make me fake...

Thanks for the warm welcome tho.

I'm sticking with horn.

the rest of us troll better.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by bradleykins

Your assuming my interpretation of torture is incorrect, i presume yours is. I did not intend to leave you without evidence when i posted my dictionary notes, hence why i provided the url, but my point remains torture can be moth mental and physical, that illustrates my point, when i have not been physically effected by the terror, but mentally.

As for definition three, it has a separate url, if you would please pay attention, and is a definition of terrorise. the two are linked but not the same.

Again this is your interpretation of the document, and not necessarily what must be the correct view.

Easily verifyable though. Read the rest of the document. There's articles in there about education, freedom of speech, slavery, freedom of movement, democracy, education and culture. Hardly things that individuals or non-government organisations are responsible for. From this would follow that the people that signed it did so in name of the government of their respective countries, because they're the only ones that can. And guess what, they did.

Originally Posted by bradleykins

I don't quite understand what you are saying, are you implying that any of those three parts of a basic right are no more important than the other?

is that all your implying?

I merely point out one of those aspects is affected. I don't get where your argument is in that.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm implying, in no uncertain terms. In fact, I will even go as far as to say that limiting the freedom of an entire country (for whatever reason!) is just as bad as (if not worse than) being part of an organisation that contributes to the loss of life.

Originally Posted by bradleykins

[edit] I loved the summary, but can i point out the statement was intended on a little added security, not the amount which is provided by these new laws? i can still see the point tho[/edit]

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're making the statement that these laws provide a significant increase in security. Can you prove this? Did fewer people die since they were introduced? I doubt it, but even if so, what about causality? Can you prove beyond a reasonably doubt that the laws helped?



P.S.
Yes guys, he's real.

[dda]

Brand new memeber looks up a 2 1/2 year old thread and bumbs it. An interesting introduction to GD.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terro...146692,00.html

Discuss!

Cuss dis!