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.

 

UK: What Right Do They Have To............?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
There are no laws right now that specifically prohibit a revolution using force. I think that answers your original question but it’s still not that simple and the question still doesn’t really make sense.


That's the point, i wouldn't legislate for it


If you think it should be a protected right then you have to. Just as if you want the right to freedom to a fair trial then that must be protected by the relevant legislation.

But to do that would be pointless for the reasons I gave in the example.



Originally posted by Mike_A
If we need to revolt it WILL be illegal but no one will care because we’re having a revolution.


Then why is it illegal?


Because you would be acting against a corrupt government. By definition such a government will not have any reason to follow our democratic principles or our current laws. If not then there would be no need for a revolution.

It would be illegal because they would say so.

In a functioning democracy there is no need for a revolution so there is no need to legislate on it. With a corrupt government any laws are ignored by both the government and the dissidents so there is no need to legislate on it. Thus it makes no sense.


It shouldn't have to be violent because at the start of it the government should just step aside. If they can't be voted out then they should step aside at the first true signs of a violent uprising.


Signs like what? How do you know the uprising has the backing of the majority? Would the million people who marched against the Iraq war be enough of a sign for a government to step down? What about IRA activity?

If you need to take a formal poll to determine whether the uprising has enough of backing isn’t that just a general election or a vote of no confidence? Both of which already exist.


What do you consider corruption? I see the stark fact that the parties that get most funding tend to be the ones in power. Labour and conservatives have such funding they cannot successfully be contested by a smaller party. Legal corruption no, moral corruption absolutely. Parties should be funded by the tax payer absolutely equally to give them a fair voice.


I consider corruption in this case to be as defined by law. Moral corruption is relative and you can’t be so black and white as to say our system is corrupt by your definition.

I, for example, disagree with you on party funding. While I think a minimum should be provided to any party that can demonstrate enough public support I do not think that total private funding should be limited by law. That addition funding can be used to grab public support it can also be used to commission research that shapes better policies.


Actually i am working on that, i have written more letters than you can imagine. Nothing comes of it however and that is my point at the moment,


Maybe you’ve not tried hard enough or maybe your view isn’t shared by the majority. Just because you’re not having any success in getting the government to share your own personal views doesn’t mean they’re corrupt.


The peaceful options in this day and age though don't seem to be doing anything.


I very much disagree. See the Gurkha Justice Campaign and Michael Marper’s case against the Home Office for example of public protest and legal challenges changing government policy.


I am only asking about whether the government is allowed to put down a revolt, what right they have to do it etc. I still cannot see why you struggle to stick to that topic and expand it to the democratic process bein involved.


Because the two are inextricably linked. I could write “none! Vive le revolution!” in all caps and have done with it but I’d much rather explore the issue in depth.

So again, what kind of revolt are you talking about when you ask the question? If you mean through the use of violence then see my answer above. If you mean a peaceful revolt then I would say that we already have those rights and I have detailed them as being our right to vote, challenge the government in court, lobby MP’s and protest.

BTW The topic expanded when you started discussing the dominance of the two parties on 31-3-2009 @ 07:31 PM, I’ve only explained why the question doesn’t make sense.


Sorry no. When it comes to that stage there isn't much time to educate yourself, if we're again talking about a hypothetical.


A prerequisite for a revolt is desire from the people to remove the government. If that existed in the UK (or any democracy) then the people would use the democratic rights they now have.

If there was a sudden and complete breakdown of the democratic system that denied peaceful options then a revolution might just happen. However that would be a remarkable thing to happen in the UK in 2009 and the context you gave was “When the parties are not doing what the people want, and when the people seemingly have given up on the democratic process then a violent revolution is what is left.” Not quite the same scenario.

Also I haven’t been talking about any hypothetical I’ve been talking in the context of the UK today.


I didn't say we're a complete dictatorship yet, i said there are worrying signs.


No you questioned whether we were far from having all peaceful options closed to us and whether we are free, the inference being that we’re not.

As mentioned the examples show we are. There has been no successful challenge to the ruling over Dr Kelly’s death, there was never any legal obligation to consult the public over the Lisbon treaty, and a number of facets of our surveillance culture have been successfully challenged in court. And next year we will all be given a chance to change the government if we’re not happy with them.







[edit on 1-4-2009 by Mike_A]




posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The government(s) has no right to stop people from revolting. But the people have the responsibility to be prepared for everything that entails. If you're one of the unfortunate souls who live in a country where your right to bear arms has been taken away, i doubt you could ever stage a revolution. You certainly CAN revolt, but think carefully about all of the consequences before attempting it. A revolt is a war like any other and your enemy will use all available military tactics to defeat you including, but certainly not limited to, cutting off your food supply. Revolution is possible and may one day be necessary but make d@mn sure you're prepared.


TheAssociate



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
The government(s) has no right to stop people from revolting. But the people have the responsibility to be prepared for everything that entails. If you're one of the unfortunate souls who live in a country where your right to bear arms has been taken away, i doubt you could ever stage a revolution. You certainly CAN revolt, but think carefully about all of the consequences before attempting it. A revolt is a war like any other and your enemy will use all available military tactics to defeat you including, but certainly not limited to, cutting off your food supply. Revolution is possible and may one day be necessary but make d@mn sure you're prepared.


TheAssociate




Who says you must stage and prepare your revolutionary army in the country you intend to revolt in? There's nothing stopping you from preparing yourself in another country with a corrupt government, with easy access to the so called 'black market'.
Ironic that you would do so? Yes. Possibly wrong.
But it would provide you with a solid ground to base your revolution on. Plus, If it were me, I would be much more concerned with the fate of my own nation, and family, to be picky about were we got our weapons from to begin with.


Also, you must think that, in quelling your revolt, the current government must also be careful, as to win the people over to their side once again. Not doing so would just cause another revolt.
As with any revolt, whether you win or not, is not always the defining factor. If you win, then you can start rebuilding the country on sound and moral principles. If not, then you die martyrs, and in doing so, you have won the country over to your cause. And ultimately, you will win, albeit you won't live to see your final victory.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The OP's concept of a violent revolution seems predicated on the idea that everyone engaged in the revolt is agreed about what the issues, goals and means are.

I know in the U.S., if we had a revolution, it would soon disintegrate into smaller factions fighting to have their particular agenda victorious. The socialists and the survivalists, for example, probably both agree on the need for a popular rebellion but they would not be fighting for the same ends. There would eventually be a bloody clash among the different warring factions.

Remember, the Russian revolution broke down into a war between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Arguably, Russia might be better off now if the Mensheviks had won.



posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


In truth that is how most revolutions go. However my question was only asking the legal and moral question of what right a government has to stop a population from revolting. When revolutions take place, a grab for power by many ambitious people, mostly men will occur. The hope is that it ends with a good or at least well meaning person. The reality is often different.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join