hard-hitting stuff: Judges liken Blair's terror laws to Nazi Germany
hummingbird
reading...]
Judges liken terror laws to Nazi Germany
By Marie Woolf, Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell
Published: 16 October 2005
Independent on Sunday
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article320005.ece
A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has
warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have
taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting
towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has
said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening
parallels with Nazi Germany.
Senior legal figures are worried that "inalienable rights" could
swiftly disappear unless Tony Blair ceases attacking the judiciary
and freedoms enshrined in the Human Rights Act.
.....
"...The judiciary has been put there by Parliament in order to ensure
that the executive acts lawfully. If we take that away from the
judiciary we are really apeing what happened in Nazi Germany," he
said [Lord Ackner].
"If the Prime Minister and other members of the Government continue to
threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act and interfere with judicial
independence we shall have to secure our basic human rights and
freedoms with a written constitution," he said [Lord Lester].
.....
"People used to look to their MPs as the first port of call to deal
with any perceived injustice by the executive. Now there is an
increasing tendency for people to look to the judges to protect their
liberties," he said.
Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said Tony
Blair was transforming Britain into an authoritarian state. "In eight
years he has dismantled centuries of judicial protection. Britain's
reputation as the world's most tolerant nation is now under threat,"
he said.
If Mr Blair's proposed terror legislation was unamended, said Anthony
Scrivener QC, "Britain would be a significant step closer to a police
state". The Prime Minister spoke of "summary justice", said the
lawyer: "It would be better named street justice."
.....
"The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the
rules of the game," she said [Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty].
"The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and
fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric
of our society."
--
"Turkey should join the EU 'because it is a European country'"
...Jack Straw 2nd October 2005 in Luxembourg.
BBC: "only 22% of citizens across Europe want Turkey to join the EU"
aberstwyth
would be the removal of legal rights and there substition by various
Authorities and Ombudsmen who have had their constitutions carefully
drafted to ensure that they can do nothing about the complained
injustice other than to put a monetary value of on it. These bodies
effectively allow the State do much as it likes and then at the end of
day they will say take it to the ombudsman knowing full well they will
not be able to do anything about it as well.
buzzbomb
> [When judges make hard-hitting comments like this, it's worth
> reading...]
>
> Judges liken terror laws to Nazi Germany
> By Marie Woolf, Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell
>
> Published: 16 October 2005
> Independent on Sunday
> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article320005.ece
>
> A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has
> warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have
> taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting
> towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has
> said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening
> parallels with Nazi Germany.
<snip>
I'm always suspicious when comparisons are made to Nazi Germany as it
tends to be remembered for its acts of barbarity towards the end of its
existence. However from what I understand of the early days of the
National Socialist party it started started out as a minority party that
was hijacked by a charismatic orator who then proceeded to corrupt what
few ideals it had.
There's also Godwins law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
which kicks in with online discussions.
However the continuous stream of stories about protesters being detained
or otherwise prevented from legitimate protest by the police under
highly questionable circumstances, plus the Labour Party's own response
to quite mild dissent
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm) do make we think
this warning may not be far off the mark.
B.
hummingbird
<buzz...@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>hummingbird wrote:
>> [When judges make hard-hitting comments like this, it's worth
>> reading...]
>>
>> Judges liken terror laws to Nazi Germany
>> By Marie Woolf, Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell
>>
>> Published: 16 October 2005
>> Independent on Sunday
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article320005.ece
>>
>> A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has
>> warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have
>> taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting
>> towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has
>> said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening
>> parallels with Nazi Germany.
>
><snip>
>
>I'm always suspicious when comparisons are made to Nazi Germany as it
>tends to be remembered for its acts of barbarity towards the end of its
>existence. However from what I understand of the early days of the
>National Socialist party it started started out as a minority party that
>was hijacked by a charismatic orator who then proceeded to corrupt what
>few ideals it had.
A bit like New Labour then?
>There's also Godwins law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
>which kicks in with online discussions.
Indeed. I normally avoid drawing parallels of anything with the Nazi
Party. What makes this parallel more significant is that it's being
made by a pile of senior judges and Law Lords etc who are usually
known for moderate fluffy language.
>However the continuous stream of stories about protesters being detained
>or otherwise prevented from legitimate protest by the police under
>highly questionable circumstances, plus the Labour Party's own response
>to quite mild dissent
>(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm) do make we think
>this warning may not be far off the mark.
I've always believed that fascism is not so much a destination but a
path one travels down and ISTM Blair has taken that path.
DVH
hummingbird <XSJCLS...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:upd4l1tanafstrdoa...@4ax.com...
Don't be bloody stupid.
hummingbird
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
Good argument. Up to your usual standard.
Peter Mulloy
> I've always believed that fascism is not so much a destination but a
> path one travels down and ISTM Blair has taken that path.
An interesting point, and one probably very close to the truth,
It is considered "bad form" to invoke the nazis in a debate, but if we
ignore the lessons from history, particularly with reference to how the
nazis came to power, the chances of a similar type of thing happening again
will increase.
The "nazi" era covered a period of time, a reference to them in relation to
their activities towards the beginning of that era will be different than
comparisons with something towards the end of that era.
It would be very easy in this climate of fear, for the mistruct of certain
groups in our society, to lead to them being treated in an "arbitary"
manner.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When politicians start using "fear" as a justification, we need to be
extremely watchfull.
aberstwyth
that you find you have not got any. Take the Office of the Surveillance
Commissioner as far as I know they have never found in favour of a
single comlainant. Many of the laws in recent years designed, so they
say, to protect your freedoms hard fought over for centuries have in
fact been carefully crafted to remove those freedoms.
DVH
I try to match the response to the quality of the post I'm responding to.
AlanG
The 'H' in DVH stand for Hilter then?
Peter Mulloy
>> >> >I'm always suspicious when comparisons are made to Nazi Germany as it
>> >> >tends to be remembered for its acts of barbarity towards the end of
> its
>> >> >existence. However from what I understand of the early days of the
>> >> >National Socialist party it started started out as a minority party
> that
>> >> >was hijacked by a charismatic orator who then proceeded to corrupt
> what
>> >> >few ideals it had.
>> >>
>> >> A bit like New Labour then?
>> >
>> >Don't be bloody stupid.
>>
>> Good argument. Up to your usual standard.
>
> I try to match the response to the quality of the post I'm responding to.
I take it that you support a party where a 82 year old pensioner is arrested
under the terrorism act for daring to say the word "rubbish". Where this
same party wants to increase this power still further so that he could have
been detained for 3 months. It is wake up time, labour is very different to
what it used to be.
DVH
Peter Mulloy <no_...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Cc6dnRcRU6Upz8_e...@pipex.net...
> "DVH" wrote
> >> >> >I'm always suspicious when comparisons are made to Nazi Germany as
it
> >> >> >tends to be remembered for its acts of barbarity towards the end of
> > its
> >> >> >existence. However from what I understand of the early days of the
> >> >> >National Socialist party it started started out as a minority party
> > that
> >> >> >was hijacked by a charismatic orator who then proceeded to corrupt
> > what
> >> >> >few ideals it had.
> >> >>
> >> >> A bit like New Labour then?
> >> >
> >> >Don't be bloody stupid.
> >>
> >> Good argument. Up to your usual standard.
> >
> > I try to match the response to the quality of the post I'm responding
to.
>
> I take it that you support a party where a 82 year old pensioner is
arrested
> under the terrorism act for daring to say the word "rubbish".
Feel free to assume whatever you want.
>Where this
> same party wants to increase this power still further so that he could
have
> been detained for 3 months. It is wake up time, labour is very different
to
> what it used to be.
Yes it's very different to what it used to be. No, it's not the National
Socialist party in 1939 or even 1932.
I get the impression people would *like* it to be the NSP of 1939, in order
to dramatise their "resistance" which chiefly consists of writing messages
about it on usenet. They'd like it, even though comparing the two makes them
belittle the brutality of the NSP and diminishes the memory of the victims
of that party.
In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour conference is
not the same as throwing millions of people out of a country and attempting
to gas the rest.
DVH
AlanG <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:lek4l1h1jjn5fp9aq...@4ax.com...
Who or what is Hilter?
hummingbird
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>hummingbird <XSJCLS...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:k8g4l1po7c0slqg8c...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:13:06 GMT, buzzbomb
Now what's that old adage "if at first you don't succeed..."
DVH
> The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
To which I'd add "He who hates liberty is like the leopard which scratches
its left ear before the first rains of spring".
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>"DVH" wrote
Quite. There have been few totalitarian states introduced overnight.
It's done using the drip-drip-drip technique as we see under Blair.
DVH
...call yourself hummingbird and post to usenet.
DVH
Hmm. If you really mean they were introduced overnight, then the sploosh
technique sounds more likely.
Harry The Horse
>
> I get the impression people would *like* it to be the NSP of 1939, in
> order to dramatise their "resistance" which chiefly consists of
> writing messages about it on usenet. They'd like it, even though
> comparing the two makes them belittle the brutality of the NSP and
> diminishes the memory of the victims of that party.
>
> In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour
> conference is not the same as throwing millions of people out of a
> country and attempting to gas the rest.
>
Nazism, as some toerag will come along and attempt to justify the opposite
position on the basis that it's not as bad as what Hitler and his minons got
up to.
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>"hummingbird" wrote
>> I've always believed that fascism is not so much a destination but a
>> path one travels down and ISTM Blair has taken that path.
>
>An interesting point, and one probably very close to the truth,
>
>It is considered "bad form" to invoke the nazis in a debate, but if we
>ignore the lessons from history, particularly with reference to how the
>nazis came to power, the chances of a similar type of thing happening again
>will increase.
Quite agree. An added complication in spotting the new fascists today
is that they aren't wearing military uniforms and goosestepping;
instead they are often charismatic individuals, PR trained and wear
expensive Armani suits.
>The "nazi" era covered a period of time, a reference to them in relation to
>their activities towards the beginning of that era will be different than
>comparisons with something towards the end of that era.
>
>It would be very easy in this climate of fear, for the mistruct of certain
>groups in our society, to lead to them being treated in an "arbitary"
>manner.
>
>The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
>Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
>When politicians start using "fear" as a justification, we need to be
>extremely watchfull.
Indeed. It's amazing that so many people still fall for this tactic.
buzzbomb
I what way stupid (I left the comparison unsaid in my original reply,
leaving it to the reader to make the leap).
TB is the face of a small group of "modernisers" who have essentially
hijacked the Labour Party and turned it into something that its founders
would barely recognise. This stands a level of comparison with the
National Socialist Party and the way Hitler was able to hijack the
socialist ideals of the time and pervert them by redefining National
Socialism. He then went on to reinforce the nationalist component by
creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia with a policy of targeting
foreigners and Jews.
Like all comparisons there is a limit to how far you can take it, but that
should not stop us examining the current situation and seeing if there are
any parallels in history we can learn from.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
but personally I prefer
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
B.
DVH
Harry The Horse <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3t4f.241503$nF6.1...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
Your response exemplifies why you should resist the temptation to post at
all, at least until you show where I've justified the opposite position "on
the basis that it's not as bad as what Hitler and his minons got up to", or
even where I've justified the opposite position at all.
Harry The Horse
buzzbomb
> And the denial follows the spounting of bollocks.....
I've never seen a bollock spounted, what happens?
(sorry - I shouldn't make fun of other peoples typos considering how many
I make myself).
B.
DVH
buzzbomb <buzz...@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.10.16....@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid.
..
> > Don't be bloody stupid.
>
> I what way stupid (I left the comparison unsaid in my original reply,
> leaving it to the reader to make the leap).
>
> TB is the face of a small group of "modernisers" who have essentially
> hijacked the Labour Party and turned it into something that its founders
> would barely recognise. This stands a level of comparison with the
> National Socialist Party and the way Hitler was able to hijack the
> socialist ideals of the time and pervert them by redefining National
> Socialism. He then went on to reinforce the nationalist component by
> creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia with a policy of targeting
> foreigners and Jews.
Have to disagree (again) with the premise that it stands comparison with the
above because the test isn't "has Labour become unrecognisable from the
party as it was founded?" (yes, but so have a lot of other leaders before
him, such as Mitterand). There simply isn't a useful comparison to be made
with Hitler, because transforming a party is done all the time and Nazism
isn't the result.
So the transformation of the Labour party is a red herring in this context.
It would be more convincing if the "terror laws" referred to by the OP were
analysed in isolation and then compared to Nazi Germany. For example one
could compare them with this from Martin Gilbert:
"On March 12, the German army entered Vienna...
Overnight, the Jews of Vienna, one sixth of the city's population, were
deprived of all civil rights: the right to own property, large or small, the
right to be employed or to give employment, the right to exercise their
profession, any profession, the right to enter restaurants or cafés, public
baths or public parks. Instead they experienced physical assault; the
looting of shops, the breaking of heads, the tormenting of passers-by. A
British journalist, G.E.R. Gedye, wrote, after the suicide of a young Jewish
doctor and his mother in his own block of flats, 'From my window I could
watch for many days how they would arrest Jewish passers-by - generally
doctors, lawyers or merchants, for they preferred their victims to belong to
the better educated classes - and force them to scrub, polish and beat
carpets in the flat where the tragedy had taken place, while insisting that
the doctor's non-Jewish maid should sit at ease in a chair and look on".
>
> Like all comparisons there is a limit to how far you can take it, but that
> should not stop us examining the current situation and seeing if there are
> any parallels in history we can learn from.
Fair enough, but it would be good to be sure they really are parallels if
one wants to learn anything from them.
AlanG
The similarities to 1932 are there
>
>I get the impression people would *like* it to be the NSP of 1939, in order
>to dramatise their "resistance" which chiefly consists of writing messages
>about it on usenet. They'd like it, even though comparing the two makes them
>belittle the brutality of the NSP and diminishes the memory of the victims
>of that party.
>
>In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour conference is
>not the same as throwing millions of people out of a country and attempting
>to gas the rest.
>
Very true.
But they had to start somewhere
AlanG
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh> wrote:
Mr Hilter.
Well seen you aren't a Monty Python fan
AlanG
Are you spotty then?
DVH
Thanks, I'll take that as an admission you can't.
In any case, the existence of a denial in what I wrote is wishful thinking
on your part: I've neither denied nor confirmed what you think I have; as
I've indicated elsewhere I still have an open mind.
DVH
No I'm not. That's presumably yet another crime in the eyes of the bien
pensants.
Peter Mulloy
> Yes it's very different to what it used to be. No, it's not the National
> Socialist party in 1939 or even 1932.
>
> I get the impression people would *like* it to be the NSP of 1939, in
> order
> to dramatise their "resistance" which chiefly consists of writing messages
> about it on usenet. They'd like it, even though comparing the two makes
> them
> belittle the brutality of the NSP and diminishes the memory of the victims
> of that party.
> In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour conference is
> not the same as throwing millions of people out of a country and
> attempting
> to gas the rest.
I did not refer to the "throwing out", as that is clearly an internal matter
in a "private" event.
What I did refer to was the fact that he was arrested under the terrorism
act (which I think is not a trivial abuse of power) and that this
administration wants even more arbitary powers, so that he could have been
detained for 3 months. This could be the start of a pretty dark road.
I think the point being made is not in reference to a direct parallel with
the NSP of say 1932, but that there appears to be movement of new labour
towards a general direction of totalitarism. The NSP is just one example of
totalitarism, and is often used as a populist example of such
administrations. Stalin's russia would also be an equally valid extreme
example.
There are much more devious methods than using simple brutality, but the
erosion of civil liberties is an enabling factor for these.
But this does raise a very interesting question, if there really was a party
in control, with the objective of gaining total power, how would it go about
it? The laws (and their new proposed laws) introduced by new labour are
such to make me a little concerned. The judges, as referenced by the OP,
obviously share some of my concerns, which indicates that I am not being
totally paranoid.
I do not think that anyone (with a few minor exceptions) would like it to be
*like* the NSP. Yes the "resistance" of writing messages on usenet is
unlikely to make any difference, except perhaps to help us consolidate or
modify our own initial view points. But voting accordingly in the next
election, while we still can, might help.
buzzbomb
>
> buzzbomb <buzz...@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.10.16....@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid.
> ..
>
>
>> > Don't be bloody stupid.
>>
>> I what way stupid (I left the comparison unsaid in my original reply,
>> leaving it to the reader to make the leap).
>>
>> TB is the face of a small group of "modernisers" who have essentially
>> hijacked the Labour Party and turned it into something that its founders
>> would barely recognise. This stands a level of comparison with the
>> National Socialist Party and the way Hitler was able to hijack the
>> socialist ideals of the time and pervert them by redefining National
>> Socialism. He then went on to reinforce the nationalist component by
>> creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia with a policy of targeting
>> foreigners and Jews.
>
> Have to disagree (again) with the premise that it stands comparison with the
> above because the test isn't "has Labour become unrecognisable from the
> party as it was founded?" (yes, but so have a lot of other leaders before
> him, such as Mitterand). There simply isn't a useful comparison to be made
> with Hitler, because transforming a party is done all the time and Nazism
> isn't the result.
I think issue is motive. The process of change is often necessary and
highly beneficial. What is pretty clear about Hitler is that the changes
he and his cohorts made were a cynical manipulation to gain power. The
question is TB's motives. Is there a greater plan, or is TB responding to
events with a series of superficially populist knee-jerk policies which
are leading us in an unfortunate direction.
>
> So the transformation of the Labour party is a red herring in this
> context.
Possibly. If you see the emergence of New Labour and the current & planned
legislation as disconnected then talking about the changes to the LP are
indeed a distraction. Again the question of motive.
>It would be more convincing if the "terror laws" referred to by
> the OP were analysed in isolation and then compared to Nazi Germany. For
> example one could compare them with this from Martin Gilbert:
>
Agreed. The danger of direct comparisons with Nazi Germany is that they
are, by their very nature, melodramatic and thereby too easily
dismissed.
B
Harry The Horse
>
> No I'm not. That's presumably yet another crime in the eyes of the
> bien pensants.
>
Harry The Horse
>
> In any case, the existence of a denial in what I wrote is wishful
> thinking on your part: I've neither denied nor confirmed what you
> think I have; as I've indicated elsewhere I still have an open mind.
>
Richard Miller
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh> writes
>I get the impression people would *like* it to be the NSP of 1939, in
>order to dramatise their "resistance" which chiefly consists of writing
>messages about it on usenet. They'd like it, even though comparing the
>two makes them belittle the brutality of the NSP and diminishes the
>memory of the victims of that party.
>
>In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour conference
>is not the same as throwing millions of people out of a country and
>attempting to gas the rest.
You are right that there are levels of brutality to which Blair has not
yet stooped domestically; but with what is happening in Iraq, with the
shoot to kill policy, and with the restrictions he *has* imposed, we
have certainly gone far further down the road towards a police state
than I ever thought could happen without the voices of outrage forcing
the Prime Minister to resign.
--
Richard Miller
hummingbird
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
No, that's not what I meant and not what I wrote dumpty.
Go back to the beginning and read it again. If you still don't
understand, I'll be happy to provide further explanation.
hummingbird
Dork!
hummingbird
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>Peter Mulloy <no_...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:Cc6dnRcRU6Upz8_e...@pipex.net...
>> "DVH" wrote
>> >> >> >I'm always suspicious when comparisons are made to Nazi Germany as
>it
>> >> >> >tends to be remembered for its acts of barbarity towards the end of
>> > its
>> >> >> >existence. However from what I understand of the early days of the
>> >> >> >National Socialist party it started started out as a minority party
>> > that
>> >> >> >was hijacked by a charismatic orator who then proceeded to corrupt
>> > what
>> >> >> >few ideals it had.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A bit like New Labour then?
>> >> >
>> >> >Don't be bloody stupid.
>> >>
>> >> Good argument. Up to your usual standard.
>> >
>> > I try to match the response to the quality of the post I'm responding
>to.
>>
>> I take it that you support a party where a 82 year old pensioner is
>arrested
>> under the terrorism act for daring to say the word "rubbish".
>
>Feel free to assume whatever you want.
>
>>Where this
>> same party wants to increase this power still further so that he could
>have
>> been detained for 3 months. It is wake up time, labour is very different
>to
>> what it used to be.
>
>Yes it's very different to what it used to be. No, it's not the National
>Socialist party in 1939 or even 1932.
>
>I get the impression people would *like* it to be the NSP of 1939, in order
>to dramatise their "resistance" which chiefly consists of writing messages
>about it on usenet. They'd like it, even though comparing the two makes them
>belittle the brutality of the NSP and diminishes the memory of the victims
>of that party.
>
>In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour conference is
>not the same as throwing millions of people out of a country and attempting
>to gas the rest.
Now apply this comment of yours to the one I made about totalitarian
states *not* being introduced overnight...you might see what I meant.
Stephen Glynn
> "DVH" wrote
>
>>Yes it's very different to what it used to be. No, it's not the National
>>Socialist party in 1939 or even 1932.
>>
>>I get the impression people would *like* it to be the NSP of 1939, in
>>order
>>to dramatise their "resistance" which chiefly consists of writing messages
>>about it on usenet. They'd like it, even though comparing the two makes
>>them
>>belittle the brutality of the NSP and diminishes the memory of the victims
>>of that party.
>
>
>>In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour conference is
>>not the same as throwing millions of people out of a country and
>>attempting
>>to gas the rest.
>
>
> I did not refer to the "throwing out", as that is clearly an internal matter
> in a "private" event.
> What I did refer to was the fact that he was arrested under the terrorism
> act (which I think is not a trivial abuse of power) and that this
> administration wants even more arbitary powers, so that he could have been
> detained for 3 months. This could be the start of a pretty dark road.
>
>
Hmm. He wasn't detained overnight, let alone for the 14 days they
*could* have kept him under the existing anti-terrorist powers, of
course, so I'm not sure how far down this 'pretty dark road' that takes
us. Would you have considered the police's actions any less shocking
had they detained him for something more conventional and less
contentious, such as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace?
Steve
Mr X
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
> Would you have considered the police's actions any less shocking
>had they detained him for something more conventional and less
>contentious, such as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace?
That would have been preferable to perverting the will of Parliament by
abusing the Prevention of Terrorism Act
--
Mr X
AlanG
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh> wrote:
Anyone with a sense of humour can't be all bad. You should at least
try and hire one for the day
DVH
You always set yourself up so carefully, it'd be criminal not to take
advantage.
DVH
Bloody hell, that's a first! You're right! I misread your post.
hummingbird
I compliment you for having the courage to admit your mistake ...
for once.
hummingbird
I have to make it easy for you...otherwise it'd take forever.
hummingbird
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>buzzbomb <buzz...@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid> wrote in message
>news:pan.2005.10.16....@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid.
>>
>> I what way stupid (I left the comparison unsaid in my original reply,
>> leaving it to the reader to make the leap).
>>
>> TB is the face of a small group of "modernisers" who have essentially
>> hijacked the Labour Party and turned it into something that its founders
>> would barely recognise. This stands a level of comparison with the
>> National Socialist Party and the way Hitler was able to hijack the
>> socialist ideals of the time and pervert them by redefining National
>> Socialism. He then went on to reinforce the nationalist component by
>> creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia with a policy of targeting
>> foreigners and Jews.
>
>Have to disagree (again) with the premise that it stands comparison with the
>above because the test isn't "has Labour become unrecognisable from the
>party as it was founded?" (yes, but so have a lot of other leaders before
>him, such as Mitterand). There simply isn't a useful comparison to be made
>with Hitler, because transforming a party is done all the time and Nazism
>isn't the result.
It isn't the automatic result but it's nevertheless a possibility and
there are plenty of serious commentators nowadays who are freely
saying that some of Blair's new laws are akin to a police state.
>So the transformation of the Labour party is a red herring in this context.
>It would be more convincing if the "terror laws" referred to by the OP were
>analysed in isolation and then compared to Nazi Germany.
That's exactly what was done. In my original post the judges/Law
Lords were not actually likening Blair to Hitler but his new terror
laws with Nazism and there are some serious parallels to be drawn.
Mr X
<XSJCLS...@spammotel.com> writes
enormous snip
>I compliment you for having the courage to admit your mistake ...
>for once.
Perhaps now you can both learn to snip
--
Mr X
onlyme
"DVH" <d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh> wrote in message
news:ditij5$1tl$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...> > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:49:33 +0000 (UTC), "DVH"
> > <d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
> > mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
> >
> >
> > >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:13:06 GMT, buzzbomb
> > >> <buzz...@the.usual.ntl.world.com.address.invalid>
> > >>
Why do you always fail then?
Stephen Glynn
I'm sure the government would have preferred it, too, since it wouldn't
have added to the PR disaster that the guy's being thrown out had
already caused. I wonder how much of this was a deliberate misuse of
the Act and how much it was an over-zealous cop, with his briefing on
his powers under the PTA fresh in his memory (which is fair enough,
since the Conference obviously was a potential terrorist target)
forgetting that he'd got plenty of other powers available to him, too,
and taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Still, the police officer did us a favour in reminding us how these
powers can be abused.
Steve
Derek ^
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Mr X wrote:
>> In article <Fjw4f.3032$QP6...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Stephen Glynn
>> <stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>
>>>Would you have considered the police's actions any less shocking
>>>had they detained him for something more conventional and less
>>>contentious, such as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace?
>>
>>
>> That would have been preferable to perverting the will of Parliament by
>> abusing the Prevention of Terrorism Act
>
>I'm sure the government would have preferred it, too, since it wouldn't
>have added to the PR disaster that the guy's being thrown out had
>already caused.
Well, yes.
>I wonder how much of this was a deliberate misuse of
>the Act and how much it was an over-zealous cop, with his briefing on
>his powers under the PTA fresh in his memory (which is fair enough,
>since the Conference obviously was a potential terrorist target)
>forgetting that he'd got plenty of other powers available to him, too,
>and taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Whilst remembering that when police officers were given the powers to
gas people with CS, notionally so that they could subdue people with
CS that they'd previously have had to shoot. Within the first week a
teenage single mum had been gassed by a WPC so that social sevices
could get her baby off her.
It's what they do.They talk a load of shit.
>Still, the police officer did us a favour in reminding us how these
>powers can be abused.
Erm ???
DG
Scott
It's not only the throwing him out, but more the use of the terrorism
act when he tried to go back in. Does that justify 3 months
imprisonment without charge - because that ability is what TB would
like the police to have. You may say that the police wouldn't do that,
but how long before the police become privatised and subject to market
forces. Would a privatised police force, paid by results, which would
profit from the imprisonment see it the same way? I can see the
direction the government is going, we have privatised prisons,
privatised hospitals, why not privatised police?
cramerj
DVH
Mr X
<stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Mr X wrote:
>> That would have been preferable to perverting the will of Parliament by
>> abusing the Prevention of Terrorism Act
>
>I'm sure the government would have preferred it, too, since it wouldn't
>have added to the PR disaster that the guy's being thrown out had
>already caused. I wonder how much of this was a deliberate misuse of
>the Act and how much it was an over-zealous cop,
My view is that if there is a choice between incompetence or conspiracy,
to choose incompetence over conspiracy unless any evidence points to
conspiracy.
>Still, the police officer did us a favour in reminding us how these
>powers can be abused.
Not "how" but "are" and "will be"
--
Mr X
NeedforSwede2
in...@typenet.com says...
> Many of the laws in recent years designed, so they
> say, to protect your freedoms hard fought over for centuries have in
> fact been carefully crafted to remove those freedoms.
>
Oh you mean doublespeak?
--
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
NeedforSwede2
HarryAtT...@hotmail.com says...
Maybe the batteries are dead in the pager.
Aramis Gunton
<no_...@spam.com> writes
> It is wake up time, labour is very different to what it used to be.
So it appears is the 'London Underground'!
--
Aramis Gunton
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
[snip]
>Perhaps now you can both learn to snip
I have to leave the whole lot in for DVH otherwise he gets confused.
TD
> In article <S5z4f.2246$sm1....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Stephen Glynn
> <stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>>Mr X wrote:
>
>>> That would have been preferable to perverting the will of Parliament by
>>> abusing the Prevention of Terrorism Act
>>
>>I'm sure the government would have preferred it, too, since it wouldn't
>>have added to the PR disaster that the guy's being thrown out had
>>already caused. I wonder how much of this was a deliberate misuse of
>>the Act and how much it was an over-zealous cop,
>
> My view is that if there is a choice between incompetence or conspiracy,
> to choose incompetence over conspiracy unless any evidence points to
> conspiracy.
Ah, Hanlon's Razor.
Mr X
<tdef...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:uufXuTAp...@privacy.net...
>> In article <S5z4f.2246$sm1....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, Stephen Glynn
>> <stephe...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>>Mr X wrote:
>>
>>>> That would have been preferable to perverting the will of Parliament by
>>>> abusing the Prevention of Terrorism Act
>>>
>>>I'm sure the government would have preferred it, too, since it wouldn't
>>>have added to the PR disaster that the guy's being thrown out had
>>>already caused. I wonder how much of this was a deliberate misuse of
>>>the Act and how much it was an over-zealous cop,
>>
>> My view is that if there is a choice between incompetence or conspiracy,
>> to choose incompetence over conspiracy unless any evidence points to
>> conspiracy.
>
>Ah, Hanlon's Razor.
Occam's Razor?
--
Mr X
TD
> In article <divqj5$32c$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
> <tdef...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>
>>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:uufXuTAp...@privacy.net...
>>>
>>> My view is that if there is a choice between incompetence or conspiracy,
>>> to choose incompetence over conspiracy unless any evidence points to
>>> conspiracy.
>>
>>Ah, Hanlon's Razor.
>
> Occam's Razor?
Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity.
Mr X
<tdef...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:a9UqaBAEA3UDFwm$@privacy.net...
>> In article <divqj5$32c$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, TD
>> <tdef...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>
>>>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:uufXuTAp...@privacy.net...
><snip>
>>>>
>>>> My view is that if there is a choice between incompetence or conspiracy,
>>>> to choose incompetence over conspiracy unless any evidence points to
>>>> conspiracy.
>>>
>>>Ah, Hanlon's Razor.
>>
>> Occam's Razor?
>
>Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
>explained by stupidity.
Thanks. Very wise, too.
--
Mr X
AJH
> In any case, the existence of a denial in what I wrote is wishful thinking
> on your part: I've neither denied nor confirmed what you think I have; as
> I've indicated elsewhere I still have an open mind.
Really? Do open-minded people say this:
> Don't be bloody stupid.
in the middle of a valid and vibrant debate?
Unfortunately for us, Godwin's Law is true because enough people think
that when drawing parallels between aspects of the current institution
and the Nazi party we are equating the whole thing, thus suggesting
we're one step away from gassing opponents; we are thus not allowed to
use that avenue of debate at all.
Shame really as to learn from history is what makes us great.
hummingbird
>Mr X wrote:
>> That would have been preferable to perverting the will of Parliament by
>> abusing the Prevention of Terrorism Act
>I'm sure the government would have preferred it, too, since it wouldn't
>have added to the PR disaster that the guy's being thrown out had
>already caused. I wonder how much of this was a deliberate misuse of
>the Act and how much it was an over-zealous cop, with his briefing on
>his powers under the PTA fresh in his memory (which is fair enough,
>since the Conference obviously was a potential terrorist target)
>forgetting that he'd got plenty of other powers available to him, too,
>and taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
>
>Still, the police officer did us a favour in reminding us how these
>powers can be abused.
Your comments confirm what many people already know, that the police
are repeatedly given powers too widely drafted and way above what they
should be, and cannot be trusted to apply them in the way Parliament
(presumably) intended despite assurances from successive NuLab Home
Secretaries.
As we know, Jack Straw's 2000 TA was abused by police some while back
against demonstrators en route to an arms fair, despite his personal
assurance to Parliament it wouldn't be used in such situations.
Stephen Glynn
It can't helped Charles Clarke's case for extended custody limits to
three months in suspected terrorism cases, can it? In that sense, the
policeman did us a favour.
Steve
Stephen Glynn
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>I'm always suspicious when comparisons are made to Nazi Germany as it
>>>>>>>tends to be remembered for its acts of barbarity towards the end of
>>>
>>>its
>>>
>>>>>>>existence. However from what I understand of the early days of the
>>>>>>>National Socialist party it started started out as a minority party
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>>>>was hijacked by a charismatic orator who then proceeded to corrupt
>>>
>>>what
>>>
>>>>>>>few ideals it had.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A bit like New Labour then?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I try to match the response to the quality of the post I'm responding to.
>>
>
>>I take it that you support a party where a 82 year old pensioner is arrested
>
>
> It's done using the drip-drip-drip technique as we see under Blair.
>
I think you're confusing 'totalitarian' with 'authoritarian'.
'Totalitarianism', AIUI, is a political ideology wherein the ruling
party claims to govern on behalf of the totality of the population
rather than on behalf of particular class, economic or regional
interests; Mussolini, for example, claimed to be ruling on behalf of
*all* Italians rather than on behalf of capitalists, workers, industry,
agriculture or particular regions. The problem with this, of course,
is that it can't well accommodate any conflict within the system, so any
clash of interests between (e.g.) capital and labour must be fomented by
the country's enemies.
Consequently the state rapidly becomes authoritarian, the better to deal
with what it perceives as the enemy within. Soviet Communism had much
the same problem with those enemies of the Soviet people, who were
responsible for everything that went wrong.
Steve
Richard
>
> It's not only the throwing him out, but more the use of the terrorism
> act when he tried to go back in. Does that justify 3 months
> imprisonment without charge - because that ability is what TB would
> like the police to have. You may say that the police wouldn't do that,
> but how long before the police become privatised and subject to market
> forces. Would a privatised police force, paid by results, which would
> profit from the imprisonment see it the same way? I can see the
> direction the government is going, we have privatised prisons,
> privatised hospitals, why not privatised police?
And in case anyone thinks that is impossible, the Guardian today
details plans for privatising probation services, including
pre-sentence reports to the Courts.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1593866,00.html
So the probation service could recommend more prison when they have
space available, and less when they are a bit overcrowded.
Of course, no private company ever actually would act like that, would
they...
Richard Miller
hummingbird
<stephe...@ntlworld.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>hummingbird wrote:
>> Quite. There have been few totalitarian states introduced overnight.
>> It's done using the drip-drip-drip technique as we see under Blair.
>>
>
>I think you're confusing 'totalitarian' with 'authoritarian'.
Certainly not. Totalitarian states are invariably also authoritarian.
IMV the former is a broad term used to describe both extreme wings
of the political spectrum - ie fascist and communist. It implies a
high level of statism which is common. Authoritarianism is simply the
*method* both diseases use to enforce their will upon the population.
(I'd accept that there are ideological differences between Left/Right
versions of totalitarianism because there is no single model for a
psychopathic despot or dictator and the aims are often different.
What is common between them is their authoritarian style.)
>'Totalitarianism', AIUI, is a political ideology wherein the ruling
>party claims to govern on behalf of the totality of the population
>rather than on behalf of particular class, economic or regional
>interests;
I'm sure they claim all sorts of things but the reality is usually
very different. I cannot think of one historical despot who actually
governed on behalf of anybody except himself and a few cronies.
>Mussolini, for example, claimed to be ruling on behalf of
>*all* Italians rather than on behalf of capitalists, workers, industry,
>agriculture or particular regions.
And I'm sure Stalin and Mao claimed similar things.
Blair claims to be governing on behalf of the whole nation but in
reality isn't because he only has 22% of popular support/35% of
voter support. How can he possibly know what the rest want?
>The problem with this, of course,
>is that it can't well accommodate any conflict within the system, so any
>clash of interests between (e.g.) capital and labour must be fomented by
>the country's enemies.
>
>Consequently the state rapidly becomes authoritarian, the better to deal
>with what it perceives as the enemy within. Soviet Communism had much
>the same problem with those enemies of the Soviet people, who were
>responsible for everything that went wrong.
Despots always have someone to blame when things don't go well.
Pinochet blamed the commies and disappeared many of them.
Hitler blamed the Jews ... Bush blames 'global terrorists'.
The story is always the same.
Stephen Glynn
IOW, you *are* confusing 'totalitarian' with 'authoritarian'.
Totalitarian states are, in practice if not in theory, authoritarian;
however, not all authoritarian states are totalitarian in their
ideology. Apartheid South Africa, for example, would be difficult to
describe as 'totalitarian' in terms of its ideology despite being highly
authoritarian in its practices.
Steve
Cynic
<carl....@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>In article <1129467151.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>in...@typenet.com says...
>> Many of the laws in recent years designed, so they
>> say, to protect your freedoms hard fought over for centuries have in
>> fact been carefully crafted to remove those freedoms.
>>
>Oh you mean doublespeak?
No, doubleplusungood.
--
Cynic
hummingbird
I've just spent X lines explaining what each is IMHO and how they
fit together! Duh! I accept others have differing views of all these
terms (eg lardy and socialism) but it doesn't change mine.
>Totalitarian states are, in practice if not in theory, authoritarian;
That's pretty much what I said above.
>however, not all authoritarian states are totalitarian in their
>ideology.
I didn't make this point but I agree with you except that IMV
authoritarian states tend towards one of the political extremes (ie
totalitarian fascism or communism). It doesn't change my view that
totalitarian states exist on both sides of the political spectrum and
(usually) apply authoritarianism to impose their will.
My point is that they are not different ideologies.
One is an ideology and the other is usually the method of imposing it.
>Apartheid South Africa, for example, would be difficult to
>describe as 'totalitarian' in terms of its ideology despite being highly
>authoritarian in its practices.
RSA tended towards being a right-wing totalitarian state but there
are degrees of these things and it used authoritarianism to impose its
will.My views of these things are roughly in accord with the political
compass website.
DVH
AJH <ajhb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1129547329....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> DVH wrote:
> > In any case, the existence of a denial in what I wrote is wishful
thinking
> > on your part: I've neither denied nor confirmed what you think I have;
as
> > I've indicated elsewhere I still have an open mind.
>
> Really? Do open-minded people say this:
>
> > Don't be bloody stupid.
>
> in the middle of a valid and vibrant debate?
Yes.
>
> Unfortunately for us, Godwin's Law is true because enough people think
> that when drawing parallels between aspects of the current institution
> and the Nazi party we are equating the whole thing, thus suggesting
> we're one step away from gassing opponents; we are thus not allowed to
> use that avenue of debate at all.
Once again, in English this time?
DVH
Stephen Glynn <stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:glM4f.3263$QP6....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
Your definition sounds like democracy.
I'd say the "total" bit of totalitarian indicates control of every aspect of
an individual's life, rather than control over every individual. So,
politics usually concerns itself with public life, but totalitarianism is
politics brought into private life.
> Mussolini, for example, claimed to be ruling on behalf of
> *all* Italians rather than on behalf of capitalists, workers, industry,
> agriculture or particular regions.
Again, sounds like democracy.
> The problem with this, of course,
> is that it can't well accommodate any conflict within the system, so any
> clash of interests between (e.g.) capital and labour must be fomented by
> the country's enemies.
Eh?
DVH
Harry The Horse <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zQu4f.200165$0b3....@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> DVH wrote:
> >
> > No I'm not. That's presumably yet another crime in the eyes of the
> > bien pensants.
> >
> No but murdering a 100,000 Iraqi civilians is.
Wibble wibble wubble? Whoofle!
Stephen Glynn
It might sound like it, but the totalitarian would say that there's no
need for all these different conflicting parties you have in a democracy
because all you need is one party that's responsive to everyone's needs;
sort of 'a big tent', as someone once put it.
>
>>The problem with this, of course,
>>is that it can't well accommodate any conflict within the system, so any
>>clash of interests between (e.g.) capital and labour must be fomented by
>>the country's enemies.
>
>
> Eh?
>
That's their reading of the situation, of course.
Steve
NeedforSwede2
@yahoo.co.uk says...
Fiction about the future by a Blair used as a blueprint for the present
by a Blair.
hummingbird
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>AJH <ajhb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1129547329....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> DVH wrote:
Looks like English to me dumpty.
Having a spot of trouble with the old braincell are thee?
Richard Heathfield
the protagonists "live"? Which newsgroups can be safely trimmed?]
Stephen Glynn said:
> Peter Mulloy wrote:
>> "DVH" wrote
>>
>>>In my humble opinion, throwing a pensioner out of the Labour conference
>>>is not the same as throwing millions of people out of a country and
>>>attempting
>>>to gas the rest.
>>
>> I did not refer to the "throwing out", as that is clearly an internal
>> matter in a "private" event.
>> What I did refer to was the fact that he was arrested under the terrorism
>> act (which I think is not a trivial abuse of power) and that this
>> administration wants even more arbitary powers, so that he could have
>> been
>> detained for 3 months. This could be the start of a pretty dark road.
>
> Hmm. He wasn't detained overnight, let alone for the 14 days they
> *could* have kept him under the existing anti-terrorist powers, of
> course, so I'm not sure how far down this 'pretty dark road' that takes
> us. Would you have considered the police's actions any less shocking
> had they detained him for something more conventional and less
> contentious, such as conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace?
Firstly, the expulsion itself signalled just how far the Labour party has
shifted away from the principle of free speech; hecklers used to be most
welcome at Labour conferences, except by those politicians not able to deal
with their interruptions (and the skilled handling of heckling was even
considered a test of oratorical skill). That was only a few years ago. Now,
they're manhandled out of the hall and refused re-admittance (and remember,
this was a guy who joined the Labour party before Tony Blair was born, a
guy who'd fled the Holocaust, a guy who'd stood as a Parliamentary
candidate).
Secondly, yes, it was indeed more shocking that anti-terror legislation was
used, rather than "breach of the peace". As you have yourself pointed out,
they *could* have used the anti-terror legislation to keep him locked up
for quite a while, and so it is a more intimidating thing to lay on the
victim (and yes, Mr Wolfgang was a victim here, not a criminal).
Thirdly, something that many people have overlooked is that, when forcing
the anti-terror legislation upon us in their usual way, the Labour party
were shown quite a few ways in which the anti-terror legislation could be
abused, and suggested it should be re-drafted to exclude such abuses, but
they made it very clear in that avuncular way they have that *of course*
nobody would consider using anti-terror legislation against 82-year-old
Labour party activists at Conference (except that of course they did not
use that specific example, as we - and presumably they - didn't know that
specific example was going to happen). And yet it was.
Right now, the Labour party are railroading the Incitement to Racial and
Religious Hatred Bill through Parliament. This Bill, too, is full of
vaguenesses ripe for abuse - and again, Labour are saying "of course it
won't be used for such-and-such". Bet you half a dollar?
One by one, our civil liberties have been - or are being - tossed overboard
by "New Labour". In legislative terms, this is not a "drip-drip-drip" -
it's a fire-hose. But because there are no jackboots on the streets yet, it
has hardly been noticed by most people - yet.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/2005
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
AJH
DVH wrote:
> > > I've indicated elsewhere I still have an open mind.
> >
> > Really? Do open-minded people say this:
> >
> > > Don't be bloody stupid.
> >
> > in the middle of a valid and vibrant debate?
>
> Yes.
> >
> > Unfortunately for us, Godwin's Law is true because enough people think
> > that when drawing parallels between aspects of the current institution
> > and the Nazi party we are equating the whole thing, thus suggesting
> > we're one step away from gassing opponents; we are thus not allowed to
> > use that avenue of debate at all.
>
> Once again, in English this time?
Judge says "British govt. undermining the independence of the courts
has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany"
You hear "British ...... Nazi...." and flip. You say "Stop calling
Blair a Nazi".
I say "I'm not, judge is just comparing one particular policy and
noting the similarities there, and we should all be concerned if the
current govt. is adopting policies favoured by the Nazis".
You say "New Labour are not Nazis".
I say "I know, I never said that, just that their current tactics in
this area borrow heavily from those of Hitler and Goebbels"
You say "Stop calling Blair Hitler"......
...and we disappear down Godwin's black hole.
Get it?
hummingbird
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>DVH wrote:
Indeed. It's a very valid point to make.
Alan Hope
>I disagree. Godwins stuff is just a silly device to censure debate
>amongst those who speak plainly. It may suit would be barristers and
>their ilk when talking down to folks but on Usenet it has no place at
>all.
You're just stupid.
Godwin's Law is a law like Parkinson's, or Murphy's. It describes the
way things are.
It's not a law like the Road Traffic Act, for example, which tells you
how to behave.
It therefore has no effect whatsoever on Usenet threads, nor does it
seek to have. It's a descriptive (and so not prescriptive) law like
the one that says "If it's been a while since a stupid old cunt piped
up with some nonsense, Turtill will be along in a minute".
Get it now?
--
AH
buzzbomb
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:23:20 +0100, hummingbird
> <XSJCLS...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>
>>>Just for you:
>>>Judge says "British govt. undermining the independence of the courts
>>>has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany"
>>>You hear "British ...... Nazi...." and flip. You say "Stop calling
>>>Blair a Nazi".
>>>I say "I'm not, judge is just comparing one particular policy and
>>>noting the similarities there, and we should all be concerned if the
>>>current govt. is adopting policies favoured by the Nazis".
>>>You say "New Labour are not Nazis".
>>>I say "I know, I never said that, just that their current tactics in
>>>this area borrow heavily from those of Hitler and Goebbels"
>>>You say "Stop calling Blair Hitler"......
>>>...and we disappear down Godwin's black hole.
>>>Get it?
>>
>>Indeed. It's a very valid point to make.
>
> I disagree. Godwins stuff is just a silly device to censure debate
> amongst those who speak plainly. It may suit would be barristers and
> their ilk when talking down to folks but on Usenet it has no place at
> all.
Godwins Law doesn't censure anything. Its merely a semi-serious
observation that by the time a Usenet thread descends to Nazi/Hitler
comparisons any hope of serious debate has been lost.
And Quirks Exception prevents Godwin's Law being explicitly invoked.
B.
fred_eg_bowinatuck
>> I disagree. Godwins stuff is just a silly device to censure debate
>> amongst those who speak plainly. It may suit would be barristers and
>> their ilk when talking down to folks but on Usenet it has no place at
>> all.
>
> Godwins Law doesn't censure anything. Its merely a semi-serious
> observation that by the time a Usenet thread descends to Nazi/Hitler
> comparisons any hope of serious debate has been lost.
>
> And Quirks Exception prevents Godwin's Law being explicitly invoked.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
buzzbomb
> Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law and see how silly
> Godwins Law and Quirk's Exception are in this day and age.
> pete
I've read the entry.
I'm not sure what you mean by silly. The only difference I can see between
now & when the law was first conceived is that Nazi comparisons are no
longer frivolous.
B.
Stephen Glynn
>
> Right now, the Labour party are railroading the Incitement to Racial and
> Religious Hatred Bill through Parliament. This Bill, too, is full of
> vaguenesses ripe for abuse - and again, Labour are saying "of course it
> won't be used for such-and-such". Bet you half a dollar?
>
> One by one, our civil liberties have been - or are being - tossed overboard
> by "New Labour". In legislative terms, this is not a "drip-drip-drip" -
> it's a fire-hose. But because there are no jackboots on the streets yet, it
> has hardly been noticed by most people - yet.
>
>
I'll take your bet on Incitement to Religious Hatred; whatever the
rights and wrongs of the proposed legislation, it's a straightforward
amendment of the existing legislation on incitement to racial hatred.
Consequently, there's 30 years' worth of case law on which to draw when
interpreting it. If, however, you'd said 'glorification of terrorism',
which I don't think anyone understands, including Charles Clarke, I'd
certainly not have taken your bet!
Steve
DVH
>
> DVH wrote:
> > > > I've indicated elsewhere I still have an open mind.
> > >
> > > Really? Do open-minded people say this:
> > >
> > > > Don't be bloody stupid.
> > >
> > > in the middle of a valid and vibrant debate?
> >
> > Yes.
> Is the the five minute argument or the full half-hour?
> > >
> > > Unfortunately for us, Godwin's Law is true because enough people think
> > > that when drawing parallels between aspects of the current institution
> > > and the Nazi party we are equating the whole thing, thus suggesting
> > > we're one step away from gassing opponents; we are thus not allowed to
> > > use that avenue of debate at all.
> >
> > Once again, in English this time?
> Just for you:
>
> Judge says "British govt. undermining the independence of the courts
> has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany"
> You hear "British ...... Nazi...." and flip. You say "Stop calling
> Blair a Nazi".
When?
> I say "I'm not, judge is just comparing one particular policy and
> noting the similarities there, and we should all be concerned if the
> current govt. is adopting policies favoured by the Nazis".
> You say "New Labour are not Nazis".
When?
> I say "I know, I never said that, just that their current tactics in
> this area borrow heavily from those of Hitler and Goebbels"
> You say "Stop calling Blair Hitler"......
When?
> ...and we disappear down Godwin's black hole.
> Get it?
Yes, I get it. You're claiming I said "stop calling Blair a Nazi" and "stop
calling Blair Hitler".
Whatever makes you happy.
buzzbomb
As others have pointed out the big difference between race & religion is
that race is a fact and religion is a mutable belief. Its not even clear
what constitutes a religion. I heard government ministers ridicule the
idea that the legislation could be used to defend satanism yet be unable
to explain why. AFAIK they have yet to provide a decent definition of
religion that is able to distinguish between conventional religions and
fringe (or outright loony) sects.
My bet is that, at future Labour Party conferences they will not dare to
use anti-terror legislation. They will however be able to lock up
dissenters on the basis that they are ridiculing the Church of Tony Blair.
Heresy I hear you say.
B.
DVH
Jesus Christ, this thread's gone to the dogs. Where did all these insane
hair-splitters suddenly appear from?
Richard Heathfield
> I'll take your bet on Incitement to Religious Hatred;
Firstly, let's get one potential nonsense out of the way, and that's this:
I'm sure we both agree that hatred, in any form, is a Bad Thing, and that
neither of us is in favour of incitement to religious hatred. What is at
issue here is the legislation, not the morality.
> whatever the
> rights and wrongs of the proposed legislation, it's a straightforward
> amendment of the existing legislation on incitement to racial hatred.
But it is a dangerous amendment, not least because it attempts to treat two
very different issues in the same way. You can't change your race, but you
can change your religion. Religion is in the world of ideas, not the world
of biology. People can and do change their religion. It is not unreasonable
for people to proselytise their religion to others, and to speak out
against religions which they think to be in error. The danger here is that
people could - never mind "will"; "could" is enough to dissuade people from
speaking freely - people could be imprisoned simply for saying something
like "Mohammed was a false prophet".
> Consequently, there's 30 years' worth of case law on which to draw when
> interpreting it.
It's a bet I'd be glad to lose, but I'm not counting on it.
Alan Hope
>On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:23:12 +0200, Alan Hope <not.al...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>>tur...@hotmail.com goes:
>>You're just stupid.
>>Get it now?
>You're not very bright are you?
So you don't understand joined-up sentences.
I'll put it more simply for you:
How does Godwin's law censure (sic) debate? Please explain the exact
mechanism.
--
AH
Stephen Glynn
> Stephen Glynn said:
>
>
>>I'll take your bet on Incitement to Religious Hatred;
>
>
> Firstly, let's get one potential nonsense out of the way, and that's this:
> I'm sure we both agree that hatred, in any form, is a Bad Thing, and that
> neither of us is in favour of incitement to religious hatred. What is at
> issue here is the legislation, not the morality.
>
>
>>whatever the
>>rights and wrongs of the proposed legislation, it's a straightforward
>>amendment of the existing legislation on incitement to racial hatred.
>
>
> But it is a dangerous amendment, not least because it attempts to treat two
> very different issues in the same way. You can't change your race, but you
> can change your religion. Religion is in the world of ideas, not the world
> of biology. People can and do change their religion. It is not unreasonable
> for people to proselytise their religion to others, and to speak out
> against religions which they think to be in error. The danger here is that
> people could - never mind "will"; "could" is enough to dissuade people from
> speaking freely - people could be imprisoned simply for saying something
> like "Mohammed was a false prophet".
>
Have you actually read the proposed legislation?
How on earth do you think anyone could construe 'Mohammed was a false
prophet' as using 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour'
in circumstances 'having regard to all the circumstances the words,
behaviour or material are (or is) likely to be heard or seen by any
person in whom they are (or it is) likely to stir up racial or religious
hatred.”'
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/011/06011.i-i.html
('threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour' is from the
clause of the Public Order Act 1986 that the bill's amending)?
Bear in mind that the prosecution has to prove they're doing this
*beyond reasonable doubt*.
You're mistaken, too, about the existing law on incitement to racial
hatred; that actually bans discrimination or incitement to hatred
against people on five separate grounds: 'colour,' 'race,'
'nationality,' 'ethnic origins' and 'national origins'. Nationality,
clearly, is something that you can change, but I don't think anyone's
ever been prosecuted for (for example) encouraging Irish citizens
resident in the UK to apply for British Citizenship. "Ethnic origins"
is also a very broad concept, and you can certainly change your ethnic
group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act, especially if you're a
Sikh (Mandla and another v Dowell Lee and another,
(http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/Mandla_DowellLee.htm)
Has it ever occurred to you -- or to anyone, to your knowledge -- that
encouraging Sikhs (or Jews) to convert to Christianity or atheism is
inciting racial hatred against Sikhs or Jews? Of course it hasn't,
because it clearly isn't.
Steve
Stephen Glynn
The ministers don't need to define religion or differentiate between
religions and sects, since the law doesn't protect *religions*. It
protects *people* against incitement to hatred against them on the
grounds of their religious belief or lack of it.
Consequently, you can say what you want to about *Catholicism* (or
Satanism or Moonyism (?) or atheism). It's when you start inciting
hatred (not disagreement with, or disapproval of) against *Catholics*
(Satanists, Moonies, atheists) that the proposed law takes an interest.
Steve
hummingbird
<d...@dvhdvhdvhdvdh.dvh>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>X-post trimmed
>
>Jesus Christ, this thread's gone to the dogs. Where did all these insane
>hair-splitters suddenly appear from?
Do tell, you've just appeared!