UK Tories setting up concerted attacks on freedom of speech

[Zychonia]

The Home Secretary will also introduce “banning orders” for extremist groups, which would make it a criminal offence to be a member of or raise funds for a group that spreads or promotes hatred. The maximum sentence could be up to 10 years in prison

Does this include the BNP?

As far as i'm aware, the BNP doesn't active kill members of the demographic they troll.
It's all well and good comparing white nationalists and such to the extremist muslims, but at this point in time?
Nope.
It's totally the extremist muslims who are the bigger problem.

The EDL and BNP march around, cause property damage and troll. Because they have a group image and a public persona.
Extremist muslims might decide to behead someone. Bigger problem. Because they are acting as individuals.

Ban orders are a retarded idea for exactly this reason. It'll make the WN's more likely to act outside of the law.

On the fact that muslim extremeists behead people, so does Saudi Arabia for being a sorcerer. So the people fighting the IS aren't perfect, I would say as bad in some cases.

[Stormaen]

Threat to the functioning of democracy?

But in a democracy, a true one anyway, you need dissenting voices. Even those that dissent violently.

The worst thing is, the majority of British people will - as they always have done in the past (like other countries) - readily accept the curtailing of their freedom because they think it makes them safer. WRONG!

Ironically, the English were once hailed for their being a living bastion of liberty. Now we lead the world in our willingness to accept state-sanctioned slavery in the name of security. Sleep walking into a police state whilst yummy mummies say, "Oh, we're lucky we live in such a safe country!"

I'd rather die absolutely free on my feet than live in temporary safety on my knees.

[New Chalcedon]

And to think that just six months ago I thought America was the epitome of political fucked-upness in the western world.

Don't worry - Australia's still in the running for "quickest slide to fascism" gold medals.

George Orwell must be rolling in his grave - next thing we know, we'll be told that we've always been at war with Middleastia.

[Risottia]

This law cabinet, kill it. Kill it with fire.

Fixed.

The idea that the Cabinet (the Home Secretary in this instance) can restrict rights without a judiciary ruling on the issue doesn't look like being in line with the standards of European democracies.

[Imperializt Russia]

This law cabinet, kill it. Kill it with fire.

Fixed.

The idea that the Cabinet (the Home Secretary in this instance) can restrict rights without a judiciary ruling on the issue doesn't look like being in line with the standards of European democracies.

Gee, the woman who wants to pull out of the ECHR because it inconveniences our crusade on terrorism?
You seem almost surprised.

[Risottia]

Fixed.

The idea that the Cabinet (the Home Secretary in this instance) can restrict rights without a judiciary ruling on the issue doesn't look like being in line with the standards of European democracies.

Gee, the woman who wants to pull out of the ECHR because it inconveniences our crusade on terrorism?
You seem almost surprised.

Well, not quite, actually, but I was trying to act as if I thought that the current British Cabinet is composed exclusively of intelligent and competent people who value rights and democracy above everything else.

Yes, it was a hopeless attempt, I know.

[New Catalonia]

Though I do not like right-wing governments, it is not just them. The UK Labour Party removed many rights in the name of 'counter-terrorism' too. As did the Spanish government and many other European governments both left and right.

I think here left and right do not come into it. It's more a case of big state vs little state. Those in power almost always want to serve their own needs and so public control serves them. I think any law that curtails or alters fundamental rights -even extended to social media- should be put to public referenda. That way, when people actually face the question, "Do I want MY rights limited because someone else abuses theirs?" They will feel more responsibility (and might even have the sense to rethink and say, "Actually, no... This isn't OK to paint us all with the same brush!"

[Imperializt Russia]

Gee, the woman who wants to pull out of the ECHR because it inconveniences our crusade on terrorism?
You seem almost surprised.

Well, not quite, actually, but I was trying to act as if I thought that the current British Cabinet is composed exclusively of intelligent and competent people who value rights and democracy above everything else.

Yes, it was a hopeless attempt, I know.

"Hardworking" "British" "taxpayers" have no need of civil rights.
Governments like my own at times make me yearn for the Merkelreich.

[L Ron Cupboard]

If Theresa May's past form is anything to go by, this idiot plan will be illegal under UK, European, and International Law and millions of pounds will be pissed away as she tries to force it through.

[DesAnges]

Theresa May is an affront to any kind of "freedom" or "fun". She is an abhorrent woman who deserves no place in my country's government.
This is the woman who complained that because it "took so long" to deport Abu Hamza to Jordan, on the grounds he may face torture there, and then eventually sending him to the US for trial, Britain should withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights.

"...and I am not making this up, a man was stopped from being deported because he owned a cat..."

Oh wait yeh that was made up wasn't it.

[DesAnges]

Though I do not like right-wing governments, it is not just them. The UK Labour Party removed many rights in the name of 'counter-terrorism' too. As did the Spanish government and many other European governments both left and right.

I think here left and right do not come into it. It's more a case of big state vs little state. Those in power almost always want to serve their own needs and so public control serves them. I think any law that curtails or alters fundamental rights -even extended to social media- should be put to public referenda. That way, when people actually face the question, "Do I want MY rights limited because someone else abuses theirs?" They will feel more responsibility (and might even have the sense to rethink and say, "Actually, no... This isn't OK to paint us all with the same brush!"

The UK Labour Party hasn't been left wing since 1994.

[New Catalonia]

Though I do not like right-wing governments, it is not just them. The UK Labour Party removed many rights in the name of 'counter-terrorism' too. As did the Spanish government and many other European governments both left and right.

I think here left and right do not come into it. It's more a case of big state vs little state. Those in power almost always want to serve their own needs and so public control serves them. I think any law that curtails or alters fundamental rights -even extended to social media- should be put to public referenda. That way, when people actually face the question, "Do I want MY rights limited because someone else abuses theirs?" They will feel more responsibility (and might even have the sense to rethink and say, "Actually, no... This isn't OK to paint us all with the same brush!"

The UK Labour Party hasn't been left wing since 1994.

I know. Blair moved it away from its original course because British voters did not respond favourably to socialism. Which is fair enough but Blair surrendered his party's place and stance for electoral victory. Victory but no honour.

[Aemen]

The UK Labour Party hasn't been left wing since 1994.

I know. Blair moved it away from its original course because British voters did not respond favourably to socialism. Which is fair enough but Blair surrendered his party's place and stance for electoral victory. Victory but no honour.

Honour in politics? That's hilarious. The Tories and Labour would sell their collective grandmothers if it meant a term in office.

I'd like to hear a bit more on this law and how else it will affect human rights, because right now the majority of the British public will think it pertains only to religious radicals. This is typical Conservative behaviour though, in fact I could almost interpret it as panicking considering the stink UKIP's been kicking up for Cameron lately.

[Risottia]

Well, not quite, actually, but I was trying to act as if I thought that the current British Cabinet is composed exclusively of intelligent and competent people who value rights and democracy above everything else.

Yes, it was a hopeless attempt, I know.

"Hardworking" "British" "taxpayers" have no need of civil rights.
Governments like my own at times make me yearn for the Merkelreich.

Just think about how I should feel here with the Partito Di Renzi!

[Greed and Death]

The UK needs a written constitution stat.

Sub in the American one.

[Risottia]

The UK needs a written constitution stat.

They do have written constitutional papers.

Or... they could just reclaim the colonies and take the US Constitution to London as spoils of war.

[DesAnges]

The UK Labour Party hasn't been left wing since 1994.

I know. Blair moved it away from its original course because British voters did not respond favourably to socialism. Which is fair enough but Blair surrendered his party's place and stance for electoral victory. Victory but no honour.

So why say it is not only right wing governments that do these things and cite Labour? Because I don't remember Attlee, Wilson, or Callahan clamping down on civil rights.

[Greed and Death]

The UK needs a written constitution stat.

They do have written constitutional papers.

Or... they could just reclaim the colonies and take the US Constitution to London as spoils of war.

The UK is now a state of America, congratulations the NHS is replaced by the ACA.

[New Tyran]

OP, this is great fucking news.

[Napkiraly]

OP, this is great fucking news.

How so?

[The Yorkshire Commonwealth]

The UK needs a written constitution stat.

Sub in the American one.

Minus the stupid bits of course.

But don't worry, they can't pass it… Heck, they couldn't even pass it were there a Tory majority, they know this, all they're doing is playing the classic: 'Vote Labour and your children will be killed' gambit.
They only have 7 months left after all.

[Greed and Death]

The UK needs a written constitution stat.

Sub in the American one.

Minus the stupid bits of course.

But don't worry, they can't pass it… Heck, they couldn't even pass it were there a Tory majority, they know this, all they're doing is playing the classic: 'Vote Labour and your children will be killed' gambit.
They only have 7 months left after all.

Now they have 5 years 7 months, or 6 months after Isis bombing is over, since they inserted a military extension clause last budget.

[Waideland]

The problem isn't wanting to ban what currently passes for extremist groups. There's nothing wrong with branding anyone who behaves like the Nazis as terrorists and racists. The problem is when you get a vague law like that on the books, and then a decade or five from now, someone with the power to apply this law to people decides it would be a good idea to label anyone who disagrees with them as "extremists".

Being as how the UK Labour government already banned a number of people in other countries from traveling there based solely on their political views last time they were in power, I'd really be worried if I was a citizen supporter of some center-right philosophy if this law was on the books next time they came to power. You're likely to end up in jail for bad mouthing unions or government programs.

To be honest, I don't see how a law like this ever makes sense. By its very definition, the term "extreme" means the far end of the spectrum. Therefore, when you ban certain speech for being extreme, you're essentially saying that speech goes past the bounds of public decency and values. But if someone's speech falls so far out of the norm as to be considered "extreme", then why would any significant amount of people listen to them? Why would you care enough to ban it?

For instance, here in the US, the Nazis occasionally do a parade or march through a town somewhere just to let us know they still exist. They gather up all the people they can from across the country with months of advance notice, and maybe a couple hundred people show up. Meanwhile the counter-protest that gets setup in three days to harass them during their parade usually has 10,000 people that just showed up from the surrounding area on a whim. The whole dog and pony show actually serves to show sane people what a bunch of dirtbags they are, and even less people end up supporting them.

[Novo Portugal]

And to think that just six months ago I thought America was the epitome of political fucked-upness in the western world.

nah we've always been pretty bad

That is soooo Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)

[Right-Wing Anarchy of Egoism]

Now we know who's going to lose the next election, don't we?