|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
What difference does that make to stopping people demonstrating in the only
place where they'll be heard by the people who make the desisions that they're
protesting about?
When was the last time someone actually did that outside a war zone? (And wasn't
being egged on by their government)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcsteiner on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Are you presenting that as a justification?
---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
> Factor in that we live in a world where some folks
> tie bombs to themselves, get close to a target and
> blow themselves and the surroundings up.
Come and live in the UK for a while. You'll discover how little that has to do
with our legislation.
No-one is prohibited from going to these places - only demonstrating in them. So
this law cannot possibly do *anything* to reduce any purported risk from
terrorism or similar. It doesn't stop terrorists. It only stops people
protesting.
At the root of the whole thing was a guy called Brian Haw, who camped out in
Parliament Square to protest against war and UK foreign policy. Interestingly,
his protest was deemed not to violate the new law, as it was ongoing at the time
of passing, so he was not forced to leave.
Mark Thomas pulled a stunt against the law - he held a one-man mass protest,
clocking up 20 individual protests in one day. He had a police escort to get him
around one particularly difficult spot, and achieved a Guinness World Record for
his efforts (and quite a bit of mirth at his stand-up events).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
... or chose to deliberately side-step it.
The issue here is not the specific law I used as an illustration, but the fact
that sitting administrations seem to "tack on" provisions to laws in
this way. I've cited one example, there's no shortage of others.
The point being that this should not happen.
What's the point of having an election manifesto, a Queen's Speech setting out
legislative change for a term in office and all the other safeguards supposedly
afforded by democratic due process when it's possible to sneak in a few extra
provisions into an existing law by the back door?
This happens in the US as much if not more than in the UK.
My point - hence the "How Bad Laws Happen" original post is that a
government in power should not have the flexibility to make a mockery of the
legislative process in this way. Until this loophole gets permanently closed, it
will be possible for any government to bring forward silly or dangerous
legislation, without the oversight and approval enshrined in the democratic
process.
In a way I am grateful for your response; I think it rather illustrates the
point that governments have got people so frightened about "terrorism"
that some people are willing to give up their fundamental rights in return for
what they perceive may bring improved safety. Sadly it's not true, but it
doesn't stop governments from trying...
===
Footnote. To save having to make another post, here's an example of what I mean.
Suppose the UK government wanted to change the laws of protest in response to a
threat. They had not followed the democratic process of setting out their
proposed legislative agenda and putting it before the people in the form of a
General Election, so instead the underlying law of the land permits them to
introduce "transitory governance" for which a law can come into effect
up until the next parliament. At the next general election, the party that
introduces the temporary law can seek to make it permanent via their manifesto,
or remove it, as appropriate. The party in opposition also has the opportunity
to set out their position on the same law...
This would eliminate the prospect of legislation getting rammed through a
parliament and then not unwound later. Of course, when such mechanisms are used
to curtail the rights of individual citizens and broaden the rights of the
state, the chances of such laws being unwound are... zero... but it doesn't hurt
to ask the lawmakers to justify this dodgy process.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, June 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
Not as bad as you might experience.
I have employees who grew up in Israel.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
Always has, always will. Since the days of the French Revolution.
Governments are STUPID.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 11:11 PM EDT |
"Factor in that we live in a world where some folks
tie bombs to themselves,
get close to a target and
blow themselves and the surroundings
up."
This legislation isn't designed to stop some
suicide-bomber
blowing himself up, what it
is designed to do is suppress legitimate protests.
It is
ironic that while our two 'democratic` govs talk up citizen
protests in
the near east, they are also going about
stealthily suppressing the same in the
homeland. Since when
was it a Serious Organised Crime to stand in front of our
own Parliament (or US military base) and criticise those
residing therein.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
