It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Welcome to 1984

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
dom

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Anyone else been listening to Blair on the radio/TV?

news.bbc.co.uk...

The list of things he wants to do is extensive and rather open to abuse. Apparently there'll be a watch list of websites and shops, if a foreign person is associated with them in any way then they can be deported. Sounds crazy!

And "indirect incitement to terrorism" could potentially cover any kind of anti-government view, including the view that the Iraq war was an enormous mistake and Tony Blair should shove a stick of C4 up his arse and light a match. If I was an immigrant, and said that, I could be deported! Isn't that going just a few too many steps towards a police state?

Even if these powers were used appropriately by *this* government, they're so open to abuse that we should really be quite alarmed about their presence in UK law...

Anyone else have any thoughts?




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Sounds great , cant wait for something like this to come to
the states.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by C0le]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Hey dom, what makes you think these measures will be reserved for just foreigners?
We already live in a dictatorship, democracy is just an illusion for the masses. Big corporate interests and the international banking concerns dictate policy, both at home and abroad.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Im watching on skynews, mosques can be closed aswell,certain muslim groups banned, websites banned, people coming into this country must swear alligence and will be forced to take lessons in English, indirect incitement to terrorism will get you thrown out the country or if you are born here, you will face prison.

is this how Democracy dies?


dom

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Hey dom, what makes you think these measures will be reserved for just foreigners?
We already live in a dictatorship, democracy is just an illusion for the masses. Big corporate interests and the international banking concerns dictate policy, both at home and abroad.


Well, these laws are pretty specific in regards to deportation. It would require an act of parliament to allow the government to just spit out British citizens, and we don't own Australia any more so we wouldn't have anywhere to put them...

But I know what you mean, these are steps towards a very uncomfortable place.

The strangest thing of all is that all of these bombers already had UK citizenship, so we wouldn't have been able to use these laws on any of them anyway. It's pretty naive to think that people in the UK are *only* upset about Iraq because of outside influence. Perhaps people just are upset about it anyway. There's no need for them to have been "got at" by outside influences, they could be entirely radicalised just by doing enough searches on google...

Blair resigning would probably have more effect in terms of deradicalising society than these laws, which will just help to concrete the view that Blair doesn't like "foreigners"...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

And "indirect incitement to terrorism" could potentially cover any kind of anti-government view, including the view that the Iraq war was an enormous mistake and Tony Blair should shove a stick of C4 up his arse and light a match. If I was an immigrant, and said that, I could be deported! Isn't that going just a few too many steps towards a police state?


1984 you say ?
I get taken back way before that upon reading your post.(313 AD to 476 AD)

Reminds me of historyclass in college, There was a time in the Roman Empire when it was forbidden to be "christian" and you could let almost anyone get arrested for being "christian".If you didn't like a certain person or buisness you accused them of beeing christian adn tehy would be executed without much trail or proces.


The real mass persecution of the Christian people came during the reign of the emperor Nero who needed a scapegoat on whom to blame the great fire during his reign. He chose the Christians because they were only a new group and did not have the total acceptance of the Roman people. These persecutions were horrible and involved all sorts of barbaric tortures which included the victim being fed to the lions, crucified or being used as a human torch.

These same persecutions which were meant to discourage christianity actually helped it to grow because it was believed that the Christians died for their religion (became Martyrs) which made them look even more nobel to the people.


I see much similarities between this and the way the West is demonising Islam.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Even Blair resigning wouldn't change much.
Whatever party actually resides in Downing Street, there is still the old establishment of senior civil servants behind the scenes. They remain whatever party is in power and it is those people who steer policy and look after the big money interests.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   


It would require an act of parliament to allow the government to just spit out British citizens


This won't face any problems in parliament, it will pass without a problem.

So, these laws don't cover UK citizens yet?


dom

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Even Blair resigning wouldn't change much.
Whatever party actually resides in Downing Street, there is still the old establishment of senior civil servants behind the scenes. They remain whatever party is in power and it is those people who steer policy and look after the big money interests.


True, true.

I guess the only hope would be that we'd get a PM who would act with intelligence and sincerity when it comes to things like declaring war on other countries. Perhaps that's too much to hope for...

Certainly, in the UK there seems to be little real opposition to Labour. The Conservatives would have done the same thing, only the LD's wouldn't have. It makes me wonder whether or not we shouldn't change our laws so that the PM is an elected leader, rather than selected by the party in power. If we had to vote for parliament and PM's seperately then they'd be far more accountability.


dom

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


It would require an act of parliament to allow the government to just spit out British citizens


This won't face any problems in parliament, it will pass without a problem.

So, these laws don't cover UK citizens yet?


Nope, just foreign nationals.

After all, you can do anything to foreigners, including occupying their countries and killing tens of thousands of civilians...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
When will this apply to UK Citizens? when we put it through parliament?


dom

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
When will this apply to UK Citizens? when we put it through parliament?


No plans to do that yet. But you can be imprisoned for certain things under new laws.

Already you can be locked up for a few years if anything is found in your possession that could be useful to terrorists. i.e. household detergents, etc.. There is no requirement in law to prove intent, just ownership. I suspect it'd be overruled under the human rights act if they did try to abuse it, but the way it's defined in law is scary.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
The media channels now are focusing on this threat to our civil liberties.

heck, Skynews are saying that Al Jazeera should be banned in this country because of their bais views.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
Sounds great , cant wait for something like this to come to
the states.


You won't have to wait long...

Source



It is now becoming illegal to call the wars the modern day tyrants wage as illegal, immoral and illegitimate. From the recent statements of Bush, Blair and their allies in the media, it is clear that they are not going to tolerate a single word that does not approve their totalitarian agenda. Everything else would be extremism, indirectly supporting “terrorism.”




It means that anything that does not support and agrees with what Bush and Blair are doing is indirectly leading to extremism and terrorism.

The first casualty of this strategy would be the hundreds of web sites which are coming with evidence and analysis to show that 9/11 was an inside job and that Bush and Blair lied through their teeth to make invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan possible.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
We are living in the, in the dark ages
Haven't seen some daylight in what seems ages
All the information is locked far beyond
Locked in circuits and bathed in silicon

And we're fast asleep with our dreams seething
In and though all is still we are still breathing
But it's him in the dark, he makes me null and void
But it's him in the dark, I think I'm paranoid

A world of half-truths, what goes unspoken
Lines of communication are stripped and broken
And the dark is cold with hands freezing
But this deep-freeze seems strangely pleasing

And the powr-trippers receive facelifts
And the button-pushers all work night shifts
And the misdemeanors seem so ghastly
While the media punch is so lasting

And the Eastern comrades find out much too late
And free men are free to subjugate
Under megashadow, under nine to five
Still it's self-extinction that keeps us alive

We are living in the, in the dark ages
Haven't seen some daylight in what seems ages
All the information is locked far beyond
Locked in circuits and bathed in silicon

I don't know

Go to sleep
We are in the dark ages

(Nomeansno)



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0le
Sounds great , cant wait for something like this to come to
the states.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by C0le]


I seriously believe that the only reason you even respond to ANY thread at
all c0le (how original and unbelievably prepubescent it is of you to have
the cognizance of using integers in your nickname to replace letters) is
very akin to that of a childs mentality-to push the envelope and attempt
to see where the line will be drawn and what you can get away with as
well as what a response might be. From almost all of your posts ive seen
to this point you add NOTHING to a discussion other than adversity.


That being said, It's a sad day in our history when, well, let me quote
a line from a song - "What If" from Creed....

"What if your words, could be judged like a crime....."



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Tough eh ? No more running about London calling for the death of London. I find it very telling that these goofs never really live in the countries they are so proud of. Why is that I wonder ? They abandon their land and then boast about how great their culture is in the new culture they moved too. It's never the other way around is it ?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
New ATS member here. Hello all.

This is an interesting thread. The test of balance between liberty and safety begins to materialize. Those who have supported the Patriot Act now have a springing board in which to make their case. Here in NYC, the trains have become a faculty of search and seizure, while there is talk of legitimizing racial profiling begining to echo in the halls of the legislature, all in the name of the war on terror. However, with 5 million people riding the MTA on a daily basis, it is easy to understand why the NYCLU is already taking the city to court.


dom

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Looking at the list of measures, they include banning Hizb ut Tahrir.

From their website

" We regard the use of terror or militancy in the establishment of the Khilafah as a contravention of the shari’ah. Rather we work to change the public opinion of the masses and convince the people of power and influence in society. "

So they're not promoting violence. i.e. they're just being banned for their political beliefs, which seems to be a bit backwards. Personally I think they're a bunch of nutters, but if they don't promote violence why are they being banned? The NF and BNP are allowed to exist as long as they don't incite violence. Double standards?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   


So they're not promoting violence. i.e. they're just being banned for their political beliefs


true, but they want to change the UK way of life and turn the UK into an Islamic state, the Monarchy and parliament is not going to let a political group stand. 2.7% is the muslim population in this Country and its unfair for us non-muslim to live under Islamic law.

The British National Socialist Party will probably be banned too because they openly admit that they want to overthrow democracy in the UK. Plus they celebrate on Hitler's birthday.



[edit on 5-8-2005 by infinite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join