Should Peaceful Protests Be Banned On Health and Safety Grounds?

Anti War protest outside Labour Conference is banned by Labour controlled Manchester City Council on Health and Safety Grounds.

I have to admit I was divided about whether to support the government on this one. But due to changing times (the diluting of democracy ect)
www.owos.info...
and numerous other things (like having a damn good debate) I decided to support our glorious British State on this one.

Here is the story…

1. [url=http://www.itvregions.com/Granada/News/City+council+accused+of+censoring+conference+protest.htm] Detailed Story[url]
2. www.indymedia.org.uk...
3. news.independent.co.uk...

Analysis…
Because any protest can be banned on health and safety grounds I think all protests should be banned on health and safety grounds. After all; protests can be dangerous things (dangerous levels of noise, crowd behaviour and ideas).
This way we would be protecting the democracy that men and woman have died for by ensuring those who may wish to use it come to no harm (and as you well know, the first duty of any government is to protect its people-flock).
There is something to be said for a temporary opt out clause of the health and safety legislation. This would enable people to protest peacefully and because of this I am against it. It would also mean picnicking families could sit next to giraffe's at Longleet (like they did in the 60’s). Schoolteachers could even take pupils to a factory without the factory manager refusing because they’re not ensured (against “one in a million” chances).

Furthermore I sympathise with the government because it would be unfair to expect our Dear Leaders to walk into a conference room with ten protesters sitting outside. Of course they’re all brave people (I'm sure they’ve done it before) (many times in fact) but it might risk bringing our leaders into contact with “ordinary people” (something judging from the way a bunch of school children protested against his Excellency Tony Blair at a recent school visit… www.indymedia.org.uk...
www.youtube.com... (refresh it).
I personally wouldn’t wish on anyone).

Side Point
It’s these same people want you to give you’re DNA and Eye Scan to them in exchange for a British passport (how democratic). But you can trust them. And you WILL trust them with I.D cards (unless you want to be confined to this country forever; or more precisely the year 2013 when even non passport holders may be forced to have one en.wikipedia.org...).

Here’s the technology: news.bbc.co.uk...
Here’s the law: news.zdnet.co.uk...
More Detail from Wikipedia… en.wikipedia.org...

Note: I bring up I.D cards not to talk about “stupid bits of DNA paper” directly; but because I find it reassuring that a ruling political party which cares so much about its people that it is even prepared to ensure the safety of people it disagrees with (i.e. protesters) (by stopping them from protesting) should also look out for the whole country enough to give us all a little piece of them; and them of us. This is all part of the wonderful, wonderful new world our Dear Tony has been democratically elected to give us (and pretty much has).

So what do you think fellow members of ATS? Do you think protesters should be banned from protesting under Health and Safety Legistation?
Or do you perhaps instead think it’s all a waist of money? That perhaps instead only pro-government demonstrators should be banned from protesting at outside Labour Party Conferences?

I'm happy to argue the government’s case all the way on this one. By the way I hate that ATS name; I wish it was something like NBFU (New Blair For Us) (it would be very futuristic, wouldn’t it?)

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

They are banning those protests so they dont have to put up with it.

Here we go more of our rights taken away.

Its a no wonder alot off the public in the UK are fed up with the Authorities. As well with the politicians.


Makes my blood boil.

Side Point

Side Point
It’s these same people want you to give you’re DNA and Eye Scan to them in exchange for a British passport (how democratic). But you can trust them. And you WILL trust them with I.D cards (unless you want to be confined to this country forever; or more precisely the year 2013 when even non passport holders may be forced to have one.


Note: I bring up I.D cards not to talk about “stupid bits of DNA paper” directly; but because I find it reassuring that a ruling political party which cares so much about its people that it is even prepared to ensure the safety of people it disagrees with (i.e. protesters) (by stopping them from protesting) should also look out for the whole country enough to give us all a little piece of them; and them of us. This is all part of the wonderful, wonderful new world our Dear Tony has been democratically elected to give us (and pretty much has).

So what do you think fellow members of ATS? Do you think protesters should be banned from protesting under Health and Safety Legistation?
Or do you perhaps instead think it’s all a waist of money? That perhaps instead only pro-government demonstrators should be banned from protesting at outside Labour Party Conferences?

I'm happy to argue the government’s case all the way on this one. By the way I hate that ATS name; I wish it was something like NBFU (New Blair For Us) (it would be very futuristic, wouldn’t it?)

Well if they are forcing people like me to have an Id Card, they better be paying for it. Hell will freeze over first before I Pay for one.

As for banning Protests. No they should not be stopped. Tthis is meant to be a democracy. How can it be one if they are taken away our rights to have our say?, weither it is peacfull or not.


[edit on 16-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

well, if it breaks out into a riot, then yes, i see their point..

but the chance of a riot is very,very low. however, certain protests should be banned to prevent riots breaking out (i think we remember all the May day protests)

Liberal1984 has put together an excellent thread with some good points.

It's an interesting one, I agree.

Of course 'we' all wish to be able to protest without interference from the authorities (particularly if it's they themselves people wish to protest about).

But it would only be the most blinkered and determined critic who refused to accept that these things have a history and also that things have changed and there are other issues to consider.

It's not exaggeration.

We've (thankfully) yet to see it in England in recent modern times but the cover of mass crowds has been used for gun and blast-bomb attacks (very recently even in the UK, in Northern Ireland) and abroad for gun & bomb attacks.
There's no point pretending it could never happen here.

As for whether a city wants even an old style mass riot....er, I mean demo?
Who can blame them?
Having experienced several in London back in the 1980/90's I can understand why.
Far too often it got totally out of hand and far too many idiots think they're a good cover and an excuse for a bit of a 'bundle' with the cops and few hours fairly risk-free rioting, wrecking some of the stores/shops they choose to pick on.

.....and naturally those hallowed 'rights' - of others - suddenly stop being so precious afterall and the 'rights' of others never get a look in, right?

It's just too bad and a shame if you have to work - or, God forbid, live.....with children - in the area and get caught in the (utterly terrifying) middle of it all or if your day is just utterly ruined by being stranded for hours by the on-going event and can't move, anywhere, because of it all going on for umteen hours, that's just tough, right?

They have their 'rights' and any or indeed all of yours can go and get stuffed, ok?

S'funny tho; when it's a Labour government or a Labour council seeking to limit the numbers and locations people can protest at (no-one has said people cannot protest at all, right?) 'middle (class) England' supposedly and apparantly (according to some of it's 'broadsheet' press) gets very distressed.

......and yet when it was Thatcher banning more than 6 people on a picket line it was the most reasonable and sensible thing in the world - given some of the trouble there'd been on the mass pickets before.

Definitely two (or more) sides to this one.

Interesting, eh?



[edit on 16-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

well, if it breaks out into a riot, then yes, i see their point..

I meant Peacfull Protests not Protestors who are hell bent on causing Mayhem.

I should has said hope that clears that one up.

but the chance of a riot is very,very low. however, certain protests should be banned to prevent riots breaking out (i think we remember all the May day protests)

I remember themay day riots and I remember the Poll Tax riots, completely different from someone standing outside a conference having a peacefull demo.

Remeber also what happend the that O.A.P., who was a member of the labour party who forcefully removed from the conference for protesting.

That was disgusting.

To me they re trying tot ake away more of our rights, its a no wonder peoplein this country have the hump not only with the Gov but also with poiliticians as a whole.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
I meant Peacfull Protests not Protestors who are hell bent on causing Mayhem.

I should has said hope that clears that one up.

- The problem is sj that almost every protest that ever went wrong was originally planned as a peaceful protest.

It's very hard to stop the determined riotous nutter element out once it gets going and enough crowds have gathered.
That's just the reality of how it happens.

I remember themay day riots and I remember the Poll Tax riots, completely different from someone standing outside a conference having a peacefull demo.

- Surely the point is that if it could be guaranteed to be confined to a small gathering making their point peacefully then no-one would have much of a problem with that, it's just that you just can't guarantee it being like that.

.....and once you start imposing the restrictions you get accussed of all sorts and that whole 'what a bunch of fascists' agenda starts being pushed etc etc.

Remeber also what happend the that O.A.P., who was a member of the labour party who forcefully removed from the conference for protesting.

That was disgusting.

- The manner of his removal was a little rough & OTT, I agree.

But he had no actual 'right' to disrupt that private meeting.

That is what those party conferences - of any political party - are, private meetings and neither he nor any other member of the public (or even members of the Labour party) has any 'right' to disrupt it just because he felt like it.

It was perfectly correct that he be asked to stop and then leave (and be thrown out if/when he refused) as any other nuisance would be at any other private meeting they stood up an tried to disrupt.

Just try mounting a protest at something else private and see how long your 'right' to mount a protest lasts, before being ordered to stop or physically ejected.

its a no wonder peoplein this country have the hump not only with the Gov but also with poiliticians as a whole.

- Part of the problem also does seem to be that sometimes people imagine they have 'rights' that they do not have and have never actually had
(like Wolfgang at the Labour conference).

It seems a group is going ahead with their protest. Iinlight of the Authority Bannin Peacefull protests on the grounds of Health and Safety.

Just a little excerpt from the Article:

Protesters are vowing to go ahead with a peace camp in Manchester despite receiving a letter from the council leader outlining why it was banned.

Sir Richard Leese told campaign group Military Families Against The War its Albert Square camp was unacceptable on health and safety grounds.

But spokeswoman Rose Gentle said the group would defy council objections.

Source

It is funny how the Authority kept ignoring them until the Media got involved eh.

The manner of his removal was a little rough & OTT, I agree.

But he had no actual 'right' to disrupt that private meeting.

That is what those party conferences - of any political party - are, private meetings and neither he nor any other member of the public (or even members of the Labour party) has any 'right' to disrupt it just because he felt like it.

It was perfectly correct that he be asked to stop and then leave (and be thrown out if/when he refused) as any other nuisance would be at any other private meeting they stood up an tried to disrupt.

Just try mounting a protest at something else private and see how long your 'right' to mount a protest lasts, before being ordered to stop or physically ejected.

Sminkey? That was not a private meeting. That took place at the conference where he was removed from. And he was a Labour Member. He had every right to sit there peacefully protesting without being forceably removed.

What happens when Members of Unions protest, they gonna use the exact same manner, they used in removing this guy.


[edit on 16-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

Part of the problem also does seem to be that sometimes people imagine they have 'rights' that they do not have and have never actually had

Hang on we put these so called people into power to protect our rights, i.e. to free speech and to peacefully demonstrate.

And what do they do they take our rights away from us. Is that not what a democracy is? The right to free speech and to demonstrate peacefully?

[edit on 16-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
That was not a private meeting.

- Sorry but you are wrong on this sj.

A political party conference is a private meeting.

he was a Labour Member.

- It still doesn't give him the right to disrupt the meeting.

He had every right to sit there peacefully protesting without being forceably removed.

- No he didn't because he was not "peacefully protesting" anyway.

He may have called it peaceful but he was clearly seen on TV cupping his hands to his mouth and attempting to shout down and catcall speakers on the platform.

That was not deemed acceptable (same as it wouldn't be tollerated at any private meeting).

Like it or not political party conferences are not public events, that's the facts of the matter, they just aren't sj.

What happens when Members of Unions protest, they gonna use the exact same manner, they used in removing this guy.

- They may well get ejected too, yes, but on another day they might not, who can tell?

Hang on we put these so called people into power to protect our rights, i.e. to free speech and to peacefully demonstrate.

- I was referring to this widely perceived idea that creating a disruption in a private meeting was somehow ones' 'right'.

It is not and your rights have not been curtailed here because you never did have that right in the first place.

As for which rights they must preserve, well there's where it starts to get murky, right?
It isn't always an easy, neat and straight 'black and white' choice, is it?

And what do they do they take our rights away from us. Is that not what a democracy is? The right to free speech and to demonstrate peacefully?

- ....and what about when it gets complicated and you get conflicting rights sj, hmmmm?

What about everybodies' right to safety and a life free from threat?

How about the rights of those attending the conference or living near to it to live in peace or go about their lawful business without a riot on their doorstep?

Like I said there area variety of angles on this but to try and turn this into a daft cartoon version of reality with those nasty fascists doing the best to stop the poor and always innocent protester is just blinkered and rather silly.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

A political party conference is a private meeting

If Party Political Party Conferences are Private, then why are public tv cameras allowed into watch them live?

I have seen them in the past live on tv. The TV News channels are Public not private.

It still doesn't give him the right to disrupt the meeting.

Still the way they handled that situation, was disgusting.

I remember themay day riots and I remember the Poll Tax riots, completely different from someone standing outside a conference having a peacefull demo.

- Surely the point is that if it could be guaranteed to be confined to a small gathering making their point peacefully then no-one would have much of a problem with that, it's just that you just can't guarantee it being like that.

.....and once you start imposing the restrictions you get accussed of all sorts and that whole 'what a bunch of fascists' agenda starts being pushed etc etc.

I agree with Sminkeypinkey: The poll tax riots must never be repeated.

In fact (as a newly self discovered patriot) I think they should never have happened.
Instead we should be all be paying poll tax in its original form so that poor families with lots of children have less to go round. This is fair because they produce more rubbish and if they don’t like it they can starve. Margaret Thatcher would probably have thwarted her narrow party rebellion and remained PM. This too would be a good thing.

So the poll tax riots demonstrates how dangerous protest can be.

More recently The (peaceful) Iraq War Protests caused Environmental Damage. Think of all the journeys those people had to make, the extra police, and traffic congestion. All because of what? So that we can live in a society where people have the right to protest uninterrupted? Ridiculous!!! I personally would rather live in a society (like Nazi Germany) where I can get home on time so that I can see the leaders on the evening news. This is far healthier than mingling with a public crowd where I might be exposed to dangerous ideas.

Fear Risk
We cannot afford to take risks in a age of terrorism; Osama Bin Laden could be using a man whole cover as a cave from which he could unleash a stampede of Afghan goats onto the crowd.
Worse he might use the movements of his “Rag Head” supporters in the crowd (who I believe could number their thousands in the U.K according to the BBC news.bbc.co.uk...) to relay subliminal messages back to his Worldwide Network of Terror & Evil Ltd which would then unleash thousands of planes armed with nuclear bombs, and fly them into tall buildings.

Economy Property?
All of this is another reason why peaceful protest is “so yesterday”. In fact we can never take risks; because we are all the equal property of the State.
As such: If Gordon Brown wanted to reintroduce national service that would be fine, if the government wants our DNA for I.D cards that fines, if they want to put calcium in everyone’ bred that’s fine, and if I'm sane and terminally and I would like to die that’s not fine. I don’t own my body; Tony Blair, and his felloe Excellencies in the cabinet does. Which is why when I wake up in the morning I remember “I'm in safe hands”. And if it wasn’t them it would be the Tories and… err, yuck we don’t want that do we?
.
As for kids falling out of trees well I would say that’s a serious sign of parental neglect. I remember as a child when I took some pretty big risks climbing trees, which means the children of today should do as I say (and not as I did). Who could learn anything anyway climbing a tree now that I‘ve done it? If they were really focused on their education at school they could learn it from textbooks.

Point Is: Should anything go wrong the NHS will have to pick up the bill, and that’s a waist of taxpayers money, and that’s oh; such a terrible thing. After all we only have an annual bill of 520 billion pounds to go around.

A New Vision…
One day I hope to live in a world where convicts can be auctioned of to help develop the economies of third world countries. This is just one of the potential uses of biometric passports!! And providing it’s in the pipeline I’ll never feel the need to go on a protest.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
If Party Political Party Conferences are Private, then why are public tv cameras allowed into watch them live?

- Oh for goodness sakes sj, wise up.

The TV cameras are there by invitation from the organisers. And what?

There are a host of private functions where the media are invited to broadcast the events to a wide public audience but that does not in itself make the event a "public" one in the sense of members of the public being able to show up and do what they like.

Being a paying ticket holder or an invited member to such an event does not entitle one to behave however one likes either.

There is no 'right' being denied here because that supposed 'right' does not exist in the first place.......like I said part of the problem here is an unusual interpretation of what 'our rights' actually are.

Just because the party and the conference organiser agree to invite a TV or radio broadcast to relay the events to the public does not make those events any less 'private'.

Still the way they handled that situation, was disgusting.

- I have already agreed that his rough handling was uncalled for.

But he brought his being asked to leave upon himself by his behaviour and his enforced ejection was because he refused to be quiet and then leave when told to.

=========================================================

- How amusing lib, don't give up the day job tho, eh?

But the facts are that the poll tax riots did not eject Thatcher from power.

Neither did the Miners strike and connected riots (a far bigger and more sustained period of civil disobedience and unrest).

Neither did the months of on-going large scale demos/riots concerned with the printers in east London.

If anything the riots here have the opposite effect as 'middle England' tends to consolidate around what they see as the duly elected government and the forces of law and order against a dangerous anarchy or unrepresentitive narrow interest group
(those SWP posters used to put people right off......so much co that they usually are seen on marches and demos now with the 'SWP' bit cut off them).

The biggest thing to rid the country of the poll tax was the quiet sustained well of nationwide anger and rejection, it was a culmination of dissatisfaction (based on a wide range of issues from the return of mass unemployment to record home reposession rates) and when the 2nd recession began her early 1980's economic 'experiment' was seen for the tosh it was.
All that pain for nothing.

It wasn't just about a few events where showy violent and idiot youths wrecked what they could and fought with the Police in a couple of rare one-off events.

The disasterous looming electoral results was what did for Thatcher, a looming disaster that even had the normally staid (or in the case of the Thatcher-ites ideologically motivated and therefore norminally 'loyal') tory party choose to act against here and get rid.

They just managed to stave it off for a couple of years pretending Major was going to be a vast change
(and in fairness his government did ditch the Poll Tax......and replace it wiuth the Council Tax, yippee eh? ).


[edit on 19-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

An Alternative
If Labour has “true” commitment to democracy then it should change the conference buildings location so that people may protest outside it.
This is no impossible task for one of Britain’s major political parties (especially when that political party is in government). And it is not much for us (the public) to expect ether. Especially when this (same political party) has passed legislation demanding our DNA and our Eye Scans (apparently): “in exchange for our right to exit this country and carry its I.D cards”.

On the Removal People
I agree with spencerjohnstone that the way the guy was treated, was “disgusting”; and with sminkeypinky that the general rule for a meetings is that: “you don’t mouth of at public meetings; especially if the TV cameras are there”

However I'm sure the old man felt reason to shout the words “rubbish” at Jack Straw as he defended the indefensible (his Iraq policy).

Anyway isn’t it just like Labour to show contempt for civil liberties whenever it suits the purposes of government? This is demonstrated by the news that it’s banned the other expression of democracy (polite) (peaceful protest) outside its annual party conference.

Summary
I do not believe; and cannot believe this is “just” or “wise” of Labour.
Ultimately the thing about peaceful protest is that as long as it’s peaceful you can ignore it. If Labour can ignore it; why doesn’t it tolerate it?
Why does it go so far as to blatantly abuse health and safety intended laws?
And if Labour can’t tolerate an expression of democracy why can’t it? Is it really a case putting a personal “eye saw” before the populaces right to peacefully demonstrate outside a place?
If it is; I wonder what this would say about themselves; say their commitment to politics? Or their view of their own views verses other peoples?

Originally posted by Liberal1984
If Labour has “true” commitment to democracy

- Oh for God's sake get off of it lib.

What is that supposed to mean?

What's your definition of "a true commitment" or not, any chance of it being anything more than a little bit of personal rhetoric?

then it should change the conference buildings location so that people may protest outside it.

- Why?
Why should they?

the general rule for a meetings is that: “you don’t mouth of at public meetings; especially if the TV cameras are there”

- Well that's nice.

You just preferred to ignore the fact that a party political conference isn't a public meeting at all, it's a private meeting and that fact is not altered by inviting the cameras in.

How about this -
Try going along to Wimbledon and claiming it is a public event (it's on TV afterall) where you can mount disruptive political protests and see how far you get.
Then refuse to shut up and be sure to refuse to leave when asked and see how long it takes until you get physically ejected.
Then try telling anyone who'll listen how your right to free speech was trampled on.

It's a nonsense and the only reason people gave Wolfgang the time of day was because it looked bad because he was an old guy brusquely treated and it was a political event connected to Iraq (so many people's sympathies weren't exactly on the parties' side).

Anyway isn’t it just like Labour to show contempt for civil liberties whenever it suits the purposes of government? This is demonstrated by the news that it’s banned the other expression of democracy (polite) (peaceful protest) outside its annual party conference.

- No.
This is absolutely wrong.

The Labour government has done no such thing.

This has arisen solely because of the concerns of the Manchester City council (and also presumably because of what the police have told them).

The Labour government has done nothing to do with this, actually.



[edit on 19-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

However I'm sure the old man felt reason to shout the words “rubbish” at Jack Straw as he defended the indefensible (his Iraq policy).

Anyway isn’t it just like Labour to show contempt for civil liberties whenever it suits the purposes of government? This is demonstrated by the news that it’s banned the other expression of democracy (polite) (peaceful protest) outside its annual party conference.

Agrees with you dude, Labour have showing Contempt for this Populations Civil Liberties ever since they were voted into Gov.

They are more concerned with spin than listenin to what the British Public Views are.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Labour have showing Contempt for this Populations Civil Liberties ever since they were voted into Gov.

- Perhaps you'd care to explain which 'rights' it is that you imagine you have lost then sj?

There are several 'civil liberties' and 'rights' (often hard-fought and won after decades if not centuries of struggle) that people have gained through the acts of this government.

You could try being a little less closed-minded and blinkered about it.

Here's a little quizz for you -
You're implying all this government has ever done is take 'civil liberties' and 'rights' away from you; so go on, lets hear about them then
and
then perhaps you'd let us know where your 'rights' and 'liberty' has been extended and expanded under this government.

Can you even name, say 3, separate and significant new rights, that you didn't have before, that you do now under this government to match, say 3, you think they have taken away, hmmmm?


[edit on 19-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Linlk

2004, Home Secretary Introduces New Terror Laws, Civil Rights Groups condemmed the proposals as unnacceptable.

LINK

2006, New Sweeping Powers being pushed by the Home Office, to ban suspect hackers from the internet, could infringe
Civil Liberties

"Obviously one pitfall is that this could adversely affect people's civil liberties,
without going through the judicial process. The judicial process is there for a reason
— to prevent the State from abusing its citizens," said Starnes.

Link

2005 - On April 30th a funeral procession for civil liberties made an appearance at the annual
May Day march and rally organised by Lancaster and Morecambe TUC. Appropriately,
Lancaster’s May Day this year took place under the theme of civil liberties, but
most used this platform to promote various political parties, with the exception
of the anti-war contingent who used the occasion to point out the decline of our
civil liberties under the current government.

Link

2005

Charles Kennedy: He may be a backbencher but he still has influence as an MP: The Liberal Democrats will today set out their proposals for safeguarding British civil liberties in the face of an increasingly unaccountable and presidential-style Labour Government.


Link

The cornerstone of a freedom established almost 800 years ago is now under threat from a Labour government.

If your after a piss takin contest Sminkey im not rising to it. Keep going on attacking my comments I could give a rats a**. Maybe you need to go back to supporting Labour since you seem to get all defensive everytime someone criticizes them.

[edit on 19-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

[edit on 19-9-2006 by spencerjohnstone]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
If your after a piss takin contest Sminkey im not rising to it. Keep going on attacking my comments I could give a rats a**.

- Maybe this is where you're going wrong sj, maybe you've got the wrong idea of what an adult political discussion board is.

No-one is "attacking" or "rising" to anything.

Above all it's about lifting the quality of the debate if we can.

If you keep making sweeping assertions without giving anything at all to back up those claims then you'll keep on being met with scepticism and being asked to back up your claims.

Opinion is fine but you can't present mere opinion as if it is the facts of the matter.

Your opinion might well be that this government has done nothing but restrict or curtail your 'rights' or 'civil liberties' but the facts show that this opinion is actually totally incorrect.

There are, actually, several examples of where this government has expanded and extended your rights and civil liberties.

Maybe you need to go back to supporting Labour since you seem to get all defensive everytime someone criticizes them.

- No, it's got nothing to do with "supporting" anybody and it is simply all about asking for evidence.

If you want to make vague and sweeping claims about what you say this government has done then you'll be asked to say specifically what you are talking about and back that up.

That is perfectly correct and reasonable.

Your idea of debate might be that you can say what you like unchallenged but sorry sj that won't happen here.

You can say what you like (within the T&C) but the whole point of debate is for others to challenge your views and ask you to substantiate them to find out how you arrived at the conclusions you make and the assertions you claim.

You're entitled to hold whatever views you like, no-one is denying you that.
But this is a discussion forum and we are entitled to expect more than mere statements of opinion, we are entitled to a rounded and informed debate.
We're supposed to be denying ignorance, right?

Now I can point out several instances where your rights and civil liberties have been expanded and extended by this government so your claims are (factually) quite wrong.

I had hoped you might come back with a slightly more open and flexible view but it appears you want to clutch your rather simplistic and 'black and white' version of reality.

OK, so here are a few examples (there are others) where I'm backing up my claims.....

...... and demonstrating that your claims that they've shown only "Contempt for this Populations Civil Liberties ever since they were voted into Gov" are quite wrong and inaccurate.

New rights for part-time workers

New Rights For Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Workers

New rights for parents and teenagers

Working fathers. Rights to leave and pay

Right to roam becomes a reality

Statutory Right to Privacy

The incorporation of the European convention on Human Rights into British Law

Your links were interesting but you really ought to bear in mind that media comment or the opinions and interpretations of opposition groups and/or politicians aren't necessarily 'proof' of anything.

It is also immensely ironic that the proposals that have now become law and that which is still not yet law and merely proposed (or in some cases merely 'claimed' by political opponents) will all be subject to judicial review and legal challenge under the ECHR and other law this supposedly repressive government has passed.

Also of great irony are things like how come this government has sometimes been blamed for alterations in the law when they have attempted to alter a bad law for the better - a prime example of this was Labour's changes (mainly in definitions) to the 'right to silence' laws - which were changed under previous governments (in the case of the 'right to silence' changes they were done by John Major's tory governmment in 1994).

Not that you'd know it when you hear some of the poorly informed and slanted shouting coming from certain sections of 'the gallery', hmmmm?


Henry Porter (from The Observer) was recently held up here (IIRC it was on the ID cards thread) as a devastating critic of the government's record on rights and liberties etc etc.

He corresponded with Tony Blair about this and both were good (and brave) enough to allow this correspondence to be made public.
It makes for extremely interesting reading. Recommended.

Tony Blair - Henry Porter correspondence


[edit on 19-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I actually can't find the words to say how much this sickens me.

Protesting is something that has been a part of British society, for well over 100 years. Workers, women, immigrants, anti-war activists and many other groups have used it to voice their opinions on the matters at hand. Do people remember the days Thatcher was in charge and the ideas of the Poll Tax? Even the most hardened Labour support should remember the problems the Tory Government had when people vote with their feet.

What about the rights of groups such as women?

Protesting can be dangerous. Most people know this, but then so can walking down the stairs.

Do people remember the early days of the Labour Government? When they would go on these protests along side the workers that they represented? How it was the greatest showing at any one time.

Until the Government replaces protesting with a viable way to grasp the opinions of the public, all it seems to me is them shutting their eyes to problems. If someone disagrees with you, you don’t shut your eyes and whistle till they go away and to hide behind the idea of “health and safety” is laughable.

The Labour Government has done a lot of good. However, every moment they do something like this and allow it to happen is more and more people who will vote for another party. It is taking another freedom away and people can't argue that it is alright because they have given us other freedoms.

Originally posted by Odium
Protesting is something that has been a part of British society, for well over 100 years.

- No-one is banning protest Odium.

It is just being banned from certain areas.

If someone disagrees with you, you don’t shut your eyes and whistle till they go away and to hide behind the idea of “health and safety” is laughable.

- Well sadly these days it isn't.

These days, amongst other reasons, it is regularly being driven by insurance concerns and an insurer who will refuse to cover or be liable if something should go wrong.

and people can't argue that it is alright because they have given us other freedoms.

- That was not my point.

My point was that the claim that 'all they had ever done was to take rights and liberty away' was wrong, which it was.

It's also worth pointing out once - again - that this has nothing to do with the government telling people what they can and can't do, it is a decision reached by the city council.

Naturally the comments and compromise offered by the coucil has been completely ignored in this debate so far -

Sir Richard said the council had a "proud record" of supporting democratic protest and had opposed the war in Iraq.

"We have been liaising fully with organisers of the 'Stop The War' march to be held in Manchester on September 23, to the extent that they will be using our stage," he wrote.

"Indeed, one of the reasons for rejecting your request for a peace camp in Albert Square is that we will need the space to build that very staging.
We have also, with the police, identified a location close to the convention centre, where people will be able to visibly and audibly make their protests throughout the period of the conference."

He said the protest had not been rejected on security grounds, as had been claimed.

He went on: "We would like you to be reasonable in identifying a compromise that would be acceptable to us on health and safety and public liability grounds, and still allows you to exercise your right to protest."

But Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon died in Iraq in 2004, hit back, claiming the council had ignored them until media reports forced a reply.

www.24dash.com...



[edit on 19-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Thanks your external source sminkeypinkey; it looks as though the council
is still capable of a traditional last minute spin operation to save face.
In the source a Sir Richard says “the council had opposed the war in Iraq”. Well given that it’s a council I imagine it also simultaneously supported it (unless everyone single person in it was against it). Anyway in our system it’s the MP and not the local city council which votes in parliament on these decisions.

It was also interesting to here from the source the protester Rose Gentle claim the council had ignored them (i.e. their questions on where else to protest requests) “until media reports forced a reply”.

On the War
Some Labour Manchester Council people were actively against the war; but this does not mean they are against the Labour Party; therefore the suspicion that Labour controlled Manchester Council used health and safety “concerns” to clear the Labour Party Conference area of peaceful protestors remains.
(Obviously it’s hard to see them succeeding now).

Speaking of Which
Manchester Labour MP: Sir Gerald Kaufman MP voted for the war in Iraq. He says weapons of mass destruction were never the issue; he thinks we should have gone to war on certain Security Council resolutions being violated alone.
www.epolitix.com...
But to be fair The other two Labour MP’s Tony Lloyd and Graham Stinger voted against the war: Here’s a list of anti war MP’s www.stopwar.org.uk...


ANYWAY...

Originally posted by Sminkeypinky

No-one is banning protest Odium.

It is just being banned from certain areas.

Yes like anywhere that’s politically significant or important. Certainly not a Labour Party Conference; but a kilometre away from parliament should do (now in force under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005). www.parliament-square.org.uk...
See Also: en.wikipedia.org...

RE 4th last post by Sminkeypinky…

Anyway isn’t it just like Labour to show contempt for civil liberties whenever it suits the purposes of government? This is demonstrated by the news that it’s banned the other expression of democracy (polite) (peaceful protest) outside its annual party conference.

The Labour government has done no such thing.

This has arisen solely because of the concerns of the Manchester City council (and also presumably because of what the police have told them).

The Labour government has done nothing to do with this, actually.

So it’s the Health and Safety Act that’s taken away these peoples civil liberties? And the poor Labour controlled Manchester City Council is just doing a bit of law enforcement (to protect the well being of those protesting outside its political parties Conference?)
Well ok (given a tight benefit of the doubt). But it isn’t the work of legislation introduced by the Labour government that these people have to apply for permission to protest in the first place? (Genuine question)
I mean wasn’t there a time when you could just form a protest (i.e. without anyone having the time to check-create a stupid interpretation of the Health and Safety Act? (It may not comply with)

If Labour had any “true” commitment to democracy

Oh for God's sake get off of it lib.

What is that supposed to mean?

What's your definition of "a true commitment" or not, any chance of it being anything more than a little bit of personal rhetoric?

Sminkeypinkey that quotes got less personal rhetoric than a stupid slogan for a national political party like “forward not back” (Labour election 2005)
But since you (apparently) fail to understand it; what I meant was: If Labour (as in the Labour Party) has (as in to posses or hold dear) any commitment to democracy then it should relocate the Labour Conference’s location so that people can protest outside it.

Why?
Why should they?

Why: Because it’s the right thing; because it looks democratic, because it is democratic because it shows tolerance of other people’s views and passion.

Why should they: Because they’re England’s ruling political party, because they have demanded that you will hand over my DNA and my eye scan in exchange for one of their biometric passports (i.e. equal to my legal right to leave this country). Because hundreds of thousands of British men, woman and children (perhaps millions in total) have died in order protect our civil freedoms, and because one of those freedoms has always been the right to peacefully protest anywhere on the streets I like.
Labour may as well have abolished the right to peaceful protest as peaceful protest is no good if you can’t do it outside somewhere like a political conference. It’s arrogant in the extreme to think that some field will do, or somewhere one or two miles away; and it insults not just those anti war protesters wishing to protest there and then but in my opinion anyone proud to be a British citizen (or indeed worthy of being reincarnated one ever again).

Spencerjohnstone: Thanks very much you the links; I’ll add them to my collection.

I 100% agree with you that Labour has shown contempt for democracy ever since they got as far as using pioneering propaganda (dubbed new Labour speak) to explain away and (intellectually) shut up the British people.
However we can only plausibly say they have shown contempt for democracy if we remember: It was they who lied to us about why were at war, abused the Health and Safety act to get peaceful people of their turf so that things like nice for the cameras at their party conference, or introduced Draconian protest legislation in the name of fighting terrorism, or indeed biometric passports. It’s these things that confirm they (as a collective) have little or no loyalty to the common ideals-symptoms of democracy. It’s a shame we (the public) have only been able to judge them with certainty with hindsight.

Odium
Personally I too think it’s disgusting they use Health and Safety Legislation to clear an apparently democratic political party’s conference of peaceful protesters outside it. I think it’s bad that they use spin to get themselves out of this mess; but it’s so characteristic I would also be shocked if they hadn’t.

However if Manchester Council is innocent in this (i.e. was genuinely scared protesters might sue it for letting them protest) (in the event something disastrous happens) then isn’t it quite apparent that Health and Safety Legislation needs trimming?
We need a constitution to protect our rights against your average government legislation; but somehow I don’t think that’s coming any time too soon.