Death of Democracy

[jez]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/3225586.stm

Blair is acting like a spoilt kid who thinks he can just invite his best buddy home to mum and dad(who will treat him like their own by putting on a lavish feast), and stop anyone from getting near by effectively closing down democracy for 3 days.

[Neo-Rio]

Well according to this internet legend, the US will have a civil war by 2005!!! holy s--t!!! :P

http://www.johntitor.com

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

Well according to this internet legend, the US will have a civil war by 2005!!! holy s--t!!! :P

http://www.johntitor.com

I hope so, maybe there will be a nuke in there some where and everybody will realise that nukes should be decommisioned.

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

This thread is turning into troll bate. That johntitor site is the worst reference ever, just been reading about the 5100 computer. Some people actualy belive this crap what next?

Daryl McBride from SCO says that trolling was invented by the SCO corporation. Its IP rights belong to SCO and users using trolling should pay $1695 or be formaly charged.

[cstaylor]

Jez: hate to break it to you, but we're seeing the beginnings of the second Islamic enlightment. Hope you like preying five times a day.

[Caustic Saint]

Jez: hate to break it to you, but we're seeing the beginnings of the second Islamic enlightment. Hope you like preying five times a day.

Or being preyed upon if you don't!

[cstaylor]

Shit, (excuse the French), hoisted with my own petard.

That would be praying, not preying.

[GargoyleTS]

Well Jez, Bush has made a lot of enemies and demands very strict security measures when going abroad to such hostile lands as the UK, France, Germany and other European countries that harbor terrorists. (/sarcasm)

Quite honestly, I wish the guys plane would take a dive, but don't want it to until next September to minimize the Cheney's reign. (and the worst part is I am either really out of it or Cheney is being horribly quiet, cause I had to ask my brother who the VP was)

[kimpatsukun]

We have the red-neck Texan come over, wants parts of London to be shut down so the feel nice and safe. Does he know that every so often he might bump into members of the general pulic? Or behind 7 inches of bomb proof glass the opinions of the normal people get lost. I know he considers himself a president at war, and his security is an issue, but still closing off parts of a major city it too much.

I remember when I was living in Austin, Texas. He was the Govener. He made it legal to have a concealed firearm, cause "every one was doing it"! This guy is not liked here, what about elsewhere?

I was really hoping that all these al-kaeda supports (and there are alot in the UK) would get shoot Airforce1 down.

[jez]

Jez: hate to break it to you, but we're seeing the beginnings of the second Islamic enlightment. Hope you like preying five times a day. 8O

Does this relate to my original post? Maybe I'm missing something...

[cstaylor]

Jez: hate to break it to you, but we're seeing the beginnings of the second Islamic enlightment. Hope you like praying five times a day.

Does this relate to my original post? Maybe I'm missing something...

"If we don't hang together, we most assuredly will hang separately".

I fail to see how the protestors are offering us anything but noise and heat. They may not like the current institutions, but I think they'd find life under a Caliphate far worse. Al Queda has already achieved their first goal (American troops out of Saudi Arabia), yet they persist in attacking western targets. Could it be that it was their *first* goal to get the American military out of Saudi Arabia?

The British public has never been a true weathervane for predicting the best outcome for world events anyways. "While England Slept" by Churchill lays it out for you, with the public supporting politicians who told them to ignore the rising storm of the Nazis.

[jez]

You fail to grasp my point, so I'll clarify. Free speech=speaking your mind without fear of censorship or suppression. The UK government failed to grant that right during Bush's visit.
The fact that "under a caliphate" things would be worse, is of no relevance. The level of democracy in our country should not be decided in comparison to other countries. Democracy should be entire and unconditional. It is not 'lucky' to have democracy. It is an inalienable right.

[cstaylor]

No, Free Speech (under the U.S. Constitution, I have no idea under U.K. law) means "the *government* shall pass no law abridging free speech, or *peacefully* assemble. The people were permitted to assemble and protest without incident. No law was violated, and I still fail to see your point.

Now, what is the goal of all this protesting? Divide the free world? Make it simple for the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule? Their numbers are daunting even if we stick together.

What I fail to understand is the logic? At what point do you cease withdrawl? Rhineland? Anschluss? Sudentland? Czechoslovakia? Poland?

As I said before, soft-headed, well-meaning Britons have made this mistake before. Let's hope Blair has more steel in his spine than MacDonald or Baldwin.

[jez]

I will stick to the topic, even if you fail to, consistently.

No, Free Speech (under the U.S. Constitution, I have no idea under U.K. law) means "the *government* shall pass no law abridging free speech, or *peacefully* assemble. The people were permitted to assemble and protest without incident. No law was violated, and I still fail to see your point.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_839631.html?menu=news.latestheadlines.uknews
Later the same day, the Home Secretary, David Blunket, said it was right that the Metropolitan Police allowed protesters to get near enough for George Bush to hear them. What would you call that? Upholding free speech?
Whether you think protesters are right or wrong is not my point. In a democracy, citizen's opinions should be defended, whether you aggree or not. And once again, democracy is not something we are 'lucky' to have. It was, and continues to be, fought for.

[GuyJean]

Hey, CS

Al Queda has already achieved their first goal (American troops out of Saudi Arabia), yet they persist in attacking western targets.

Closing the bases in Saudi Arabia was caused by Al Queda's tactics? I thought there was already an established timeline for leaving Saudi Arabia, before the bearded freaks started unleashing their hate.. That was one of the reasons I didn't understand their motivation for 9/11..

As for the people protesting; I think they're protesting for a wide variety of reasons.. Some are just anti-Bush because it's 'cool' to hate authority. Others, I'm sure, are protesting his method for dealing with terrorists. And still others, like myself, don't really appreciate being lied into supporting a war..

Bush is too old school for this new world, IMO.

GJ

[jez]

[quote="GuyJean"]
As for the people protesting]
I hope you weren't answering my post with this...
Anyway, I will make one comment. Were you 'lied into supporting the war'? Did you actually believe the lies? It's fine to make mistakes, of course. Just wondering...

[GuyJean]

I hope you weren't answering my post with this...

Actually, I wasn't talking to you at all.. There's a reason for the "Hey, CS", then quoting his comment.

Were you 'lied into supporting the war'? Did you actually believe the lies? It's fine to make mistakes, of course.

You condescending twit.. I think you and Bush are quite similar, because your tone frequently ends up damaging your cause.

GJ

[jez]

I hope you weren't answering my post with this...

Actually, I wasn't talking to you at all.. There's a reason for the "Hey, CS", then quoting his comment.

Were you 'lied into supporting the war'? Did you actually believe the lies? It's fine to make mistakes, of course.

You condescending twit.. I think you and Bush are quite similar, because your tone frequently ends up damaging your cause.

GJ

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm also sorry you feel the need to use insults. I asked you if you were talking to me, regarding the second part of your post, since it regarded protesters, but I felt it didn't really follow the topic I had set in my original post. I was simply checking.
As for my tone, it wasn't meant to be condescending, and I regret it if it sounded that way. As I said, it's alright to make mistakes, everyone does, including myself. I must admit, though, that I do find it surprising that anyone could believe that the so-called 'leaders' have any interest in telling the truth, especially when it comes to something like war. But then, that's the nature of propganda, it has the ability of making people believe anything, even that there are flying saucers landing in a field nearby(anything to keep the minds of the masses busy).
The difference between Bush and me, is that I have no reason to lie. And that's a pretty big difference.

[jez]

Of course, I would rather people didn't think I was condescending, or a twit, or whatever.I would rather people thought I was a nice guy! However, I have no cause to sell. I am simply saying it as I believe it is. It's not for my own personal good, but for what I believe to be the good of the people of this world. I don't want people to believe me because of my tone, but because the facts I put forward make sense. I just hope people will look into what I and others say, even if they end up not agreeing.

[cstaylor]

I will stick to the topic, even if you fail to, consistently.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_839631.html?menu=news.latestheadlines.uknews
Later the same day, the Home Secretary, David Blunket, said it was right that the Metropolitan Police allowed protesters to get near enough for George Bush to hear them. What would you call that? Upholding free speech?
Whether you think protesters are right or wrong is not my point. In a democracy, citizen's opinions should be defended, whether you aggree or not. And once again, democracy is not something we are 'lucky' to have. It was, and continues to be, fought for.

Sorry, Jez, but where you practice free speech is not protected. For example, you cannot go into library and scream at the top of your lungs, "Bush is a twit". You will be thrown out. Like I said, I don't know how free speech is protected in England, but in the U.S. *where* you practice free speech is NOT protected. For example, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, because of security concerns.

Citizens opinions? Citizens opinions??? Why does it matter how close they get to the president of a foreign country? That's not free speech? Free speech is a right (again, I don't know U.K. law, so I'm going with U.S. law) that citizens have to speak in *certain* locations where they won't harm other people. The government has no right to censor a citizen, but you've consistently failed to admit that British protestors were given their right to peacefully assemble.

[cstaylor]

Closing the bases in Saudi Arabia was caused by Al Queda's tactics?

I'm sorry I can't point you to the entire article, but the Saudi's didn't ask for American withdrawl until after the attack on New York.

As for the people protesting]I'd summarize it as, "he seems dumber than me, let's protest!". Bush comes across as unintelligent... whether it's really true or not, I don't know, but the numbers are too large for just loser anarchists and other riff-raff.

Others, I'm sure, are protesting his method for dealing with terrorists.

Yeah, I heard that the issue of British citizens held in Guatanamo is a big deal. If the administration had been on top of it, they would have coordinated a release of the Britons back to England a few days before the meeting. Things are blowing up with or without those in custody, so why not take the wind from the protestor's sails?

And still others, like myself, don't really appreciate being lied into supporting a war..

Yeah, it's rough, although I don't believe it was about oil: it's about moving the Saudi bases over to Iraq in order to contain Iran (the U.S. has bases on four sides of Iran now: Turkey, Qatar, Afghanistan, and now Iraq).

Bush is too old school for this new world, IMO.

I've been rereading some of Reagan's speeches, and I think Bush is trying to emulate him, but he just can't get the delivery right.

[jez]

Sorry, Jez, but where you practice free speech is not protected. For example, you cannot go into library and scream at the top of your lungs, "Bush is a twit". You will be thrown out. Like I said, I don't know how free speech is protected in England, but in the U.S. *where* you practice free speech is NOT protected. For example, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech, because of security concerns.

Can you tell me how it could be a security concern for someone to criticise Bush in the street near the palace? Or why it would be an arrestable offence?

Citizens opinions? Citizens opinions??? Why does it matter how close they get to the president of a foreign country? That's not free speech? Free speech is a right (again, I don't know U.K. law, so I'm going with U.S. law) that citizens have to speak in *certain* locations where they won't harm other people.

It matters beacuse that is how we make our voices heard. You don't make your voice heard by putting a piece of paper in a box with a cross next to 'labour' 'conservative' or 'lib dem', particularly if it isn't even the representative of one of those parties running the show, but rather the 'leader' of another country.
I repeat what I said, which was that the Home Secretary said it was right to let citizens protest close enough for GB to hear. He said that, I didn't. It was an obvious lie, as the story I posted a link to shows.

[Socratesabroad]

Can you tell me how it could be a security concern for someone to criticise Bush in the street near the palace? Or why it would be an arrestable offence?

I think your statement answered itself, i.e., near the palace. Close enough for earshot is more than close enough for an armed attack with an explosive or similar device. And as far as arrestable offenses, I actually read the links you posted, but there was no mention of the Home Secretary's comments, so I will set them aside. With regard to arrestable offenses (I would imagine that British law in this regard is similar to US, though there may be differences), offenses include:
1) Disturbing the peace

Using a loudhailer and to the tune of She'll Be Coming Round the Mountain, Mr Gittens sang...

2) Incitement to riot

A small group of anti-war protesters joined him in song to the horror of Bush supporters who urged them to shut up.

3) Protesting without a permit (it obviously does not say so directly, but the inference from the article is that the protestor did this as an impromptu thing)

Two City of London police officers approached him and took him to one side and said that if he continued he could be arrested.
Gittens then stopped but said: "I was just continuing for as long as I could. I was not trying to drown out their anthem.

It matters beacuse that is how we make our voices heard. You don't make your voice heard by putting a piece of paper in a box with a cross next to 'labour' 'conservative' or 'lib dem', particularly if it isn't even the representative of one of those parties running the show, but rather the 'leader' of another country.

Sorry, but this statement smacks of vigilanteism or even unilateralism - the system doesn't represent my views or is illegitimate in my view, so I'm going to act alone, outside the established channels. Seems to me this is the same charge leveled against Bush.

I repeat what I said, which was that the Home Secretary said it was right to let citizens protest close enough for GB to hear. He said that, I didn't. It was an obvious lie, as the story I posted a link to shows.

Again, I beg to disagree - the link does no such thing. The link from the ANANOVA site has been quoted here a bit and the BBC article, aside from one brief quote from a protestor leader, offers even this little tidbit:

Coach driver Michael Evans said: "Mr Blair lives here, we wanted him as our MP, and if he wants to invite Mr Bush, then it is a great honour for the people of Trimdon.

Thus, in the language of debate, your claims are unsupported. Minus evidence to buttress your opinions or logical analysis in its place, your statements are just that - one person's opinion. I'll just offer my opinion that you're wrong - there, the two cancel out.

And I am still scratching my head as to how this thread had anything to do with foreigners in Japan...

[jez]

To answer your point about the Home Secretary's comments first(I will post a longer post when I have more time:). I didn't claim his comments were in the link. I watched "Prime Minister's Question Time" last week, and those were the comments he held. It's obviously up to you to believe it or not, but I can assure you that that is what he said(though perhaps not in those exact same words). I repeat, that his comments contradict the events described in the Ananova article.

[jez]

Sorry, Jez, but where you practice free speech is not protected.

http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000655.php
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/WorldNewsTonight/protest_zones_031112-2.html

"If there is a pattern of trying to keep people expressing an adverse view of the president where he and the media can't hear it, then you've got a situation where First Amendment rights are being abridged," Judge Avern Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan told ABCNEWS."

"I think they went a little too far," District Justice Shirley Rowe Trkula said of the police who arrested Neel. "He has the right to protest. This is America."

Sorry, but the UK doesn't have a written constitution...
The point of my original post was not to discuss the law, however, but to give my personal opinion. It is my personal opinion, that restricting protesters to specific 'zones' is undemocratic.

2) Incitement to riot
ANANOVA wrote:

A small group of anti-war protesters joined him in song to the horror of Bush supporters who urged them to shut up.

Is urging people to join in a peaceful protest, an 'incitement to riot'?

3) Protesting without a permit (it obviously does not say so directly, but the inference from the article is that the protestor did this as an impromptu thing)

As far as I know, people are not consistently prevented in Britain from singing on the street ie busking(I have seen many people being prevented from doing that in Japan btw), and I very much doubt buskers all have permits. There may be laws regarding disturbance of the peace, but if the enforcement of those laws depends on whether there is a foreign dignitory in town or not, I don't think that is very demcratic. Again, IMO.

[cstaylor]

Jez,

Thanks for pointing out those articles. I can see the Secret Service's point (their job is to protect the President's life), and when one of these cases goes to court, maybe we'll see an interesting ruling.

But on the part of the media: isn't it their job to find these protest zones and report on them?

[jez]

But on the part of the media: isn't it their job to find these protest zones and report on them?

Not if their job is to report what the ruling classes have to say. See "Manufacturing Consent", by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky.

[jez]

I can see the Secret Service's point (their job is to protect the President's life)

If that job means stopping people from demonstrating peacefully, is that democratic? What is the point of demonstrating, if the people you are demonstrating can't hear? If we could trust the media, we wouldn't need to demonstrate: we could simply write letters to media outlets.

[AssKissinger]

Manufacturing Consent", by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky is really overrated. I read Manufacturing Consent. He just points out a bunch of obvious crap that everyone already knew. It's too bad the left doesn't have more prolific writers. But Chomsky should stick to liguistics. Other crappy lefty writers include Howard Zinn and Michael Moore. Moore's films are good but his writing is weak.

[jez]

Manufacturing Consent", by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky is really overrated.

Not an argument.

I read Manufacturing Consent. He just points out a bunch of obvious crap that everyone already knew.

Well if everyone knew it, you're accepting it's true, right? And if everyone knew it, how come most people still believe the press and the 'official line'?