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.

 

Britain to deport anyone who "justifies acts of violence"

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Being part of a society is NOT a right...its a privellage...if you can't abide by the rules of that society, if you support the destabilisation of that society, then get the hell out of that society.




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Good job Britain, they showed some BallZ, it time for the US to implement these same law. If you live in this county and enjoy it benefits yet you support and encourage the killing of its innocent civilians, and preach for terrorism acts then you should not be allowed to live in this country anymore.

What's the problem?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien
Being part of a society is NOT a right...its a privellage...if you can't abide by the rules of that society, if you support the destabilisation of that society, then get the hell out of that society.


What an excellent topic for debate, alien.

I would beg to assert the contrary. Society is a privelege afforded by
the people. If the government and it's meshing of gears doesn't mesh to the people, then something is wrong. Granted there will most likely be problems regardless, and proven terrorists rather than heresay need to be eradicated, but the fact still remains. Society is a cooperative effort, not a given.

The last time I checked, not a single one of us asked to be here..in existence that is. So who is to say that one perspective is right and the other wrong?

Btw, I don't condone terrorism......but neither do I condone the judicious and blatant backtracking of the people tasked with the maintenance and authority of our society. Note that my response to alien is merely taking to task a generalized ism.......

So back to it......one of the issues in this thread isn't necassarily the treatment being afforded to actual terrorists....the issue is the implementation of rules and the implied squeezing of the mental vice grips on the considerations of its inhabitants. If it is determined that disagreeing with the state is grounds for punishment, then many people will be highly limited in the amount of brain power that they are willing to exercise. The government does not have exclusive rights to interpretation and I will go ahead and make up my own mind rather than accept the word of lying government authorities who somehow, someway, manage to keep their personal agendas out of the popular spectrum........



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
When we get out from the semantics and veiw this situation for what it actually is, ie people on a par with the Nazis seeking to destabilise and destroy all democratic processes (and this is what it's about) whose methods make make Blair et al look like girl guide leaders in comparison, I find I don't really care that much about someone, somewhere whose interpretation of laws is coloured by paranoia and hatred. I care about what NOT doing anything about this may mean to my life, my family's life and this country's life in 5, 10, or 20 years time.

It's not only the Muslim community's feelings that have to be taken into account. Sorry but that is the reality.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

What Blair means -- and what everyone, even you, understand -- is that the UK will not put up with foreigners committing, abetting, encouraging, or justifying murderous attacks on British civilians.


But they will abet, encourage, and justify murderous attacks by British authorities against innocent civilians.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
But they will abet, encourage, and justify murderous attacks by British authorities against innocent civilians.

Exscuse me?
Attacks on inocent civilians?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien
Being part of a society is NOT a right...its a privellage...if you can't abide by the rules of that society, if you support the destabilisation of that society, then get the hell out of that society.



THATS RIGHT! If you don't like the machine and don't want to do what it tells you, then you can get the hell out of that society...unless they won't let you leave or imprison you or kill you...

but that's irrelavant, VOD get back to the topic traitor!
Fine, I will...so stop yelling. Let me put it this way:

People who lived in Russia under Stalin had NO RIGHT to talk or work to destabilize that society. People who were born and lived under PolPot and Khmer Rouge had NO RIGHT to try and change or destabilize that society. People who were born into slavery in the southern U.S had NO RIGHT to destabilize that society. Europeans who came to America had NO RIGHT to destabilize the Indian society they found. Jews born into and living under the rule of the Third Reich NO RIGHT to undermine that society. Americans going into IRAQ had NO RIGHT to destabilize that country's society. Mao and Chang Kai Check had NO RIGHT to destabilize the hiarchy of the Chinese society they were born into. American GI's had NO RIGHT to destabilize the soverign society of North Vietnam. Isreali's had NO RIGHT to destablize the Palestinian society they came into in 1948. Women in America had NO RIGHT to destabilize society by pushing for the right to vote. The black population of South Africa had NO RIGHT to destabilize the Dutch society they were born into. The English had NO RIGHT to destabilize the Irish population and society. The Americans had NO RIGHT to destabilize the Afganhi society by changing regimes. Che Guevera had NO RIGHT to organize a peasant movement to destabilze societies in central and south america. The CIA had NO RIGHT to destabilize...well take your pick there.

The point is...........I think you get my point kiddies.

Maybe you don't. Let me try it this way:

U.S militia (1770's) = Patriots
U.S Militia (1920's) - Terrorists (when they camped out in Washington)
Chechyan rebel (1990's) = Freedom Fighters
Chechyan rebel (2000's) = Terrorist
I.R.A = Terrorist
I.R.A = Freedom Fighter
Nelson Mandela (1980's) = Terrorist (as qouted by Dick Cheney)
Nelson Mandela (1990's) = Freedom Fighter
Ghandi = Terroist
Ghandi = Freedom fighter
Osoma Bin Laden (1980's) = Freedom fighter
Osama Bin Laden (2000's) = Terrorist
Now you can play. Just use whatever word YOU feel comfortable with:
Ho Chi Minh = ?
Sitting Bull = ?
George W. Bush = ?
Timothy McVeigh = ?
King George the III = ?
Thomas Jefferson = ?
Fidel Castro = ?
Trostky = ?
Napoleon (before first defeat) = ?
Napolean (after first defeat) = ?
the Romanov's = ?
F.D.R (before Peral Harbor) = ?
F.D.R (after Pearl Harbor) = ?
Karl Rove = ?
Karl Rove (after indictment) = ?
The CIA = ?
Nicarguan Contras = ? (can only be answered by republicans)
John Brown = ?
John Brown's sons who died with him = ?
Pro-lifers who kill doctors = ? (can only be answered by republican women)
Fill in your own local hero = ?
Fill in your own local enemy = ?
Your neighbor who's spying on you RIGHT NOW = ?
The man sleeping with your wife/girlfriend = ?
Your Boss = ?
The man who sold you your car = ?
The man who cuts up your meat at the farmer's market = ?
The man who changed your auto's brakes = ?
The man who's skin color you don't like = ?
The girl who's skin color you don't like but still want to sleep = ?
Your daddy after he finds out you slept with a girl with different colored skin and tells you not too but you won't becuase it WAS SOOOO GOOD = ?

are we learning yet?
probably not


There is no friend/enemy anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
But they will abet, encourage, and justify murderous attacks by British authorities against innocent civilians.


Can you prove this statement?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I'll have to watch his speech again, but I caught a pretty decent segment of it earlier, And I thought he was saying that any foreigners or people of foreign decent to Britain found to be justifying violence or glorifying and supporting terrorism would be deported.


Agent Smith, the new law as it is reported to be by the Home Office:

(New grounds for deportation published by the Home Office included fostering hatred, advocating or justifying violence The telegraph online, 6 Aug )

Now, either there is an equivalent punishment (e.g prison) for people born in Britain (In which case Blair should, as a "justifier of violence", suffer that punishment), or there isn't an equivalent punishment, in which case the proposed law is racist and unfair.

Once the law passed then Blair can decide who it applies to at his whim. . . . and that's when his exact wording will be of huge importance.




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien
Being part of a society is NOT a right...its a privellage...if you can't abide by the rules of that society, if you support the destabilisation of that society, then get the hell out of that society.


If an intelligent Maori can't spot a racist law when he sees one then it's a sad day for NewZealand. . . . .




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
If an intelligent Maori can't spot a racist law when he sees one then it's a sad day for NewZealand. . . . .



...didn't say it wasn't racist...and its quite a nice day here in NZ thanks very much...



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by alien

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
If an intelligent Maori can't spot a racist law when he sees one then it's a sad day for NewZealand. . . . .



...didn't say it wasn't racist...


The proposed new law is currently racist in intent regardless of whether you say it or not. . . . . . . and it is as you say, a pleasant day in New Zealand. . . . . .

You approve of the law even though it is racist?

This is quite common in some NZ Maori circles. . . . . deport the Pakeha huh?



[edit on 6-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by alien

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
If an intelligent Maori can't spot a racist law when he sees one then it's a sad day for NewZealand. . . . .



...didn't say it wasn't racist...


The proposed new law is currently racist in intent regardless of whether you say it or not. . . . . . . and it is as you say, a pleasant day in New Zealand. . . . . .

You approve of the law even though it is racist?

This is quite common in some NZ Maori circles. . . . . deport the Pakeha huh?



[edit on 6-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]


don't get snarky...and don't get personal.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
Agent Smith, the new law as it is reported to be by the Home Office:

(New grounds for deportation published by the Home Office included fostering hatred, advocating or justifying violence The telegraph online, 6 Aug )



No, that's how the Telegraph has reported it to be in their interpretation.
I may be wrong but having watched a good chunk of Blair's speech (which is what YOU were talking about) I can't hear him saying it without the context of it applying to foreigners only.

When you find me the video or audio clip where Blair says it then I will apologise.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
Agent Smith, the new law as it is reported to be by the Home Office:

(New grounds for deportation published by the Home Office included fostering hatred, advocating or justifying violence The telegraph online, 6 Aug )



No, that's how the Telegraph has reported it to be in their interpretation.
I may be wrong but having watched a good chunk of Blair's speech (which is what YOU were talking about) I can't hear him saying it without the context of it applying to foreigners only.

When you find me the video or audio clip where Blair says it then I will apologise.


I watched the whole thing live, when he announced it. he was explicitly asked about what if the people they targetted where British citizens. I cannot quote his exact response, but he did mention those with Dual Nationalities (say Pakistani and British) would be stripped of their citizenship (
How can you do this, they may never have even lived anywhere but the UK!?), or, in the case of a UK citizen only, he went on to state that whilst they cannot be deported (and he used himself as an example, saying he cannot be sent anywhere as he is British only) they will be dealt with under the new law and imprisoned.

I would recommend watching the speach AND the questioning from journalists afterwards. The whole things lasts over an hour (I had very little to do that lunchtime!!)

EDIT: Lets be clear. This new Law, if/when implemented, is ambiguos about what it is targetting, open to interpretation and not restricted to Foreigners.

Hell, not sure if your aware, but the last raft of "Anti-Terror" legislation, that allows for detention without trial, could only be applied to Non-UK citizens due to Human Rights laws that protect us.

Now with this new Law, that is being used to "ammend" Human Rights legislation, it will be taking away the protections we are afforded by Law and open the way for UK Citizens to be detained indefinately without trial........

Something is afoot.... And my comments above comparing this too Episode 3 are not too far fetched. Little by little our protections are being taken away until we will wake up one day and nothing can protect us from an overbearing Government.

[edit on 7/8/05 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
When you find me the video or audio clip where Blair says it then I will apologise.


Smith, I didn't ask for your apology


You are, however, still missing my point which is that if the new law is to be applied to all British residents (whether deportable or imprisonable) then Blair, as a "Justifier of violence" should be convicted and punished.

You have been avoiding this point.




posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by alien

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Originally posted by alien

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
If an intelligent Maori can't spot a racist law when he sees one then it's a sad day for NewZealand. . . . .



...didn't say it wasn't racist...


The proposed new law is currently racist in intent regardless of whether you say it or not. . . . . . . and it is as you say, a pleasant day in New Zealand. . . . . .

You approve of the law even though it is racist?

This is quite common in some NZ Maori circles. . . . . deport the Pakeha huh?



[edit on 6-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]


don't get snarky...and don't get personal.


I am doing neither. . . . and don't try to tell me what to do!

I have a question for you: If the new law is racist then why are you expressing support for it?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
I am doing neither. . . . and don't try to tell me what to do!


That title in red under my name allows me to do that thanks.


I have a question for you: If the new law is racist then why are you expressing support for it?


Simple. I'm racist...and not ashamed to admit it. As is everyone else in this world...its merely the level that alters. Anyone who claims to be without racial bias is a liar.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by alien

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
I am doing neither. . . . and don't try to tell me what to do!


That title in red under my name allows me to do that thanks.


That's where you are mistaken . . . . being an ATS 'Super Moderator' allows you to disable my ATS account, but it does not give you the power to order me around so don't bother trying because I am not the type who listens to bureaucrats.




I have a question for you: If the new law is racist then why are you expressing support for it?


Simple. I'm racist...and not ashamed to admit it. As is everyone else in this world...its merely the level that alters. Anyone who claims to be without racial bias is a liar.


It may be correct in that everybody has a racial bias.. . . . . but those of us who dislike racism are ashamed of any racial bias we might have and strive to reduce it.

You, on the other hand, are NOT ashamed of your racism and are thus a true racist by your own admission.

Sad news for you Brother. . . . I hope that you grow out of it!




posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart
That's where you are mistaken . . . . being an ATS 'Super Moderator' allows you to disable my ATS account, but it does not give you the power to order me around so don't bother trying because I am not the type who listens to bureaucrats.


Well...as long as you are on ATS...abide by the rules: No personal attacks. What constitutes a personal attack is decided by - yup you guessed it - ATS Staff...




It may be correct in that everybody has a racial bias.. . . . . but those of us who dislike racism are ashamed of any racial bias we might have and strive to reduce it.

You, on the other hand, are NOT ashamed of your racism and are thus a true racist by your own admission.

Sad news for you Brother. . . . I hope that you grow out of it!



Be ashamed...hell, beat yourself with a stick and repent for all I care.

I'm not ashamed of my racism because I recognise it, I also recognise it can be a problem. If actually being honest about ones own inner demons is being a true racist...then sweet...make up a 'True Racist' sticker and plaster it on my forehead. Do I go around telling people to 'go home'?? Nope. Do I go around getting agro at other races?? Nope. Why not...because my racism is my business...ain't making it anyone elses...

...but perhaps I'll grow out of that too...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join