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.

 

Rights taken away to speak out against the government?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
This subject title may sound misleading, it's more of a question for your opinions.

Lately, the government in the UK has decided that we aren't allowed to say bad things about religion.

Anyone here think about the possibility that they could stretch that to saying bad things about the government?




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
I should think they probably can. I never heard about the first one until now though.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by mashup
This subject title may sound misleading, it's more of a question for your opinions.

Lately, the government in the UK has decided that we aren't allowed to say bad things about religion.

Anyone here think about the possibility that they could stretch that to saying bad things about the government?


I really can't see the Government removing our right to say bad things about the Government - there was a local law passed in Westminster to stop protests outside the Houses of Parliament, but that was to do with safety and/or traffic and such things. Afterall, you can still head down to Hyde Park and blaze away while standing on a crate at Speakers Corner...

I very much doubt the British people would stand for a clampdown on political free speech. For a start, the National Union of Students would march (they marched against Iraq, and tuition fees, and were involved with the Anti-Nazi League) - and thats not to mention the riots in central London when dear old Thatch tried to impose the infamous Poll Tax (every time the government has tried to levy Poll Tax, the people have revolted or rioted).

And the law against saying bad things about religion seems perfectly reasonable to me. The existing anti-racism legislation didn't cover religion, so they passed a law to tidy that up. Indeed, the new anti-hate law for religion is one of the laws good old hook-hand Hamza is being tried for at the moment.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Since they have no set Constitution if the Majority Party in the Parliament voted to limit that right they could. They wield the authority of the Sovereign, with no real codified law to set any sort of standard.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by No1tovote4
Since they have no set Constitution if the Majority Party in the Parliament voted to limit that right they could. They wield the authority of the Sovereign, with no real codified law to set any sort of standard.


We do have a constitution - its called the law! Sure, its not a formal declaration such as the US has - we have no such need for such a document - for all our rights are laid out in the law.

If the House of Commons attempted to limit the right to protest, it would have a tough time getting past the House of Lords. The Law Lords & Lords Temporal would go crazy at such an attempted law! On the offchance it got past the House of Lords, the monarch could refuse to sign it into law...

If memory serves me right, the monarch can refuse to sign something twice - they have to sign it on the 3rd time parliament hands it to them. But by then, the people would've taken to the streets...



new topics

 
0

log in

join