Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

gradual eroding of civil liberties

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
like before with the smacking, we only knew they would be voting on it two days before they actually voted on it, wheres the chance to debate, and its like the ID cards, theyre trying to find ways to push it through parliament without having to go through lords etc etc

what is happening these days!?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And I actually thought you were going to raise a good issue.

    Using violence to punish a child is not a "civil liberty", let's get that straight first off. It is being quite rightly restricted; without a defence of reasonable chastisement any beatings become illegal. That doesn't mean you can't control your child with a slight amount of force (a good parent's "smack" will not hurt at all), it means you can't thrash him with a slipper for spilling his drink.

    But yes. I digress.

    Governments have always done this, Parliament is the place in which law is debated not the popular press and not websites. There is no "erosion"of civil liberties in this sense; like it or not, Parliament is sovereign and untouchable.

    The lords are a different issue; Blair will not finish his butchering, sorry, reform of the British legal code because the rump HoL is of no threat to him. No threat = no incentive to change it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hmm no i werent on about that though as a issue, i was on aobut how we hear about things last, and how the government doesjust take everyone for granted
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you want to hear everything watch BBC Parliament. Or read Hansard.

    YOu wouldn't believe the amount of legislation that goes through the House of Commons, you couldn't posibly know it all. A newspaper would be about 900 pages long.

    Don't rely on the media for your information. But in a liberal democracy you elect a government to govern...simple as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    like before with the smacking, we only knew they would be voting on it two days before they actually voted on it, wheres the chance to debate, and its like the ID cards, theyre trying to find ways to push it through parliament without having to go through lords etc etc[/quote

    The introduction of ID cards is a gross violation of civil liberties!

    If you've done nothing wrong, why does the state need to keep tabs on you!?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
    The introduction of ID cards is a gross violation of civil liberties!

    If you've done nothing wrong, why does the state need to keep tabs on you!?

    Whilst I personally agree with you, the counter argument would obviously be: If you've done nothing wrong, why are you so bothered?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    But yes. I digress.

    Governments have always done this, Parliament is the place in which law is debated not the popular press and not websites. There is no "erosion"of civil liberties in this sense; like it or not, Parliament is sovereign and untouchable.

    The lords are a different issue; Blair will not finish his butchering, sorry, reform of the British legal code because the rump HoL is of no threat to him. No threat = no incentive to change it.
    trouble is ...people expect to see EVERYTHING ...that happens on the telly the radio the papre the mag ...governments didn't use to have to put up with this vbut now ...a free press is our eye on them while they have their eye on us constanly.
    trouble is ...it cheapens the whole process.

    the way things are going ...i do expect in the next ten years or less for all kinds of people to be digitaly recorded as undesirable.
    you wouldn't believe how lax and dumb the system is at the moment.
    it's NOW being rectified. on a big scale ...if you were alive in the sixties your obviously the devils spawn ...ex coal miner ...had to put ex ...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IT's a very dangerous time to be living in.

    I don't trust Labour to not declare martial law if they lose the election, they are that dangerous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by briggi
    Whilst I personally agree with you, the counter argument would obviously be: If you've done nothing wrong, why are you so bothered?

    Because the state has no right to have surveillance over its citizens!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
    Because the state has no right to have surveillance over its citizens!

    Like I said, I agree with you and with this statement.

    But anyone who didn't would probably want to know the answer to that question.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    IT's a very dangerous time to be living in.

    I don't trust Labour to not declare martial law if they lose the election, they are that dangerous.
    trouble is ...i no longer trust anu of them.
    whoever was in power right now ...would do the same thing.
    it's an age of fear.
    it's also an age of ungovernable people ...if we don't like a law ewe ejust ignore it.
    thats ungovernablke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
    Because the state has no right to have surveillance over its citizens!

    Wrong. "Rights" are a social construct. You don't have any rights the Parliament doesn't say you do. As Kermit's already pointed out. In this country Parliament is sovereign and legally speaking, can do whatever it likes.

    I'd be sceptical about declaring martial law though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by UpsetChap
    Wrong. "Rights" are a social construct. You don't have any rights the Parliament doesn't say you do. As Kermit's already pointed out. In this country Parliament is sovereign and legally speaking, can do whatever it likes.

    I'd be sceptical about declaring martial law though.
    any institute can only govern as long as it has the peoples will ...jail is an extreme microcosm of the big world ...the warders can only keep control of the place ...as long as the convicts agree.
    once that agreement is broken ...that trust is lost ...all hell brakes loose.
    that trust ...any respect ...is now largely gone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by UpsetChap
    Wrong. "Rights" are a social construct. You don't have any rights the Parliament doesn't say you do. As Kermit's already pointed out. In this country Parliament is sovereign and legally speaking, can do whatever it likes.

    I'd be sceptical about declaring martial law though.

    What relevance is that?

    Parliament may be sovereign, but this is a liberal democracy and in liberal democracy the rights of the people are upheld!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd

    but this is a liberal democracy and in liberal democracy the rights of the people are upheld!
    mmmmm ....but not the wishes?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
    What relevance is that?

    Parliament may be sovereign, but this is a liberal democracy and in liberal democracy the rights of the people are upheld!

    Of great relevance.

    Parliament can vote as it wishes, and decree any law it wishes. IT can suspend elections, it can even supend habeas corpus if it wants to.

    The only protection from Parliament we have is the Monarchy, if she doesn't agree it doiesn't happen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    any institute can only govern as long as it has the peoples will ...jail is an extreme microcosm of the big world ...the warders can only keep control of the place ...as long as the convicts agree.
    once that agreement is broken ...that trust is lost ...all hell brakes loose.
    that trust ...any respect ...is now largely gone.

    Whats any of that got to do with the post of mine that you quoted?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by UpsetChap
    Whats any of that got to do with the post of mine that you quoted?
    i can't remember that far back at the moment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Parliament can do whatever it wishes as long as people believe in its legitimacy. Parliament is nothing but 659 power-lusting idiots who even don’t read laws they vote for, and they couldn’t make any harm if there wasn’t this blind faith in democracy.
    No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.
    Gideon J. Tucker
    Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
    P.J. O'Rourke,
    Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the
    votes decide everything.
    Josef Stalin
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit

    The only protection from Parliament we have is the Monarchy, if she doesn't agree it doiesn't happen.

    What if she (or a future monarch), did agree with motions which were not really in the best interests of her subjects?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    The only protection from Parliament we have is the Monarchy, if she doesn't agree it doiesn't happen.

    But is that ever likely to happen. The last time the royal assent was refused was 300 years ago and even then it was on the advice of ministers? It'd have to a fairly seriously controversial Bill for that to happen.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by UpsetChap
    But is that ever likely to happen. The last time the royal assent was refused was 300 years ago and even then it was on the advice of ministers? It'd have to a fairly seriously controversial Bill for that to happen.

    That's the point I was making.

    Parlaiement can esentially do what it wants.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    That's the point I was making.

    Parlaiement can esentially do what it wants.
    Kermit please make your point clearer, do you like this ( I mean that parliament can do whatever it wants) or you hate this? Or you just look at this philosophically like at a curious fact of rats’ life ( when they are f***ed they jump)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit

    I don't trust Labour to not declare martial law if they lose the election, they are that dangerous.

    Thats ridiculous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
    Because the state has no right to have surveillance over its citizens!

    I live in Belgium and like most other European countries they have ID cards here. It doesnt affect my life in any way whatsoever. It just means I have one simple and handy way to prove my age, identity, nationality etc.

    Civil liberties groups talk a lot of crap.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just don't want my government keeping tabs of me.

    This isn't a totalalitarian state in which government is involved in everything!! Constant surveillance of citizens only occurs in such nations!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by groovechampion
    I live in Belgium and like most other European countries they have ID cards here. It doesnt affect my life in any way whatsoever. It just means I have one simple and handy way to prove my age, identity, nationality etc.

    Civil liberties groups talk a lot of crap.
    Of course. You have a simple way to prove your age, nationality, martial status, education, income, a colour of your eyes, blood pressure, marks you had at primary school, your parents’ savings, address of your lover, your child’s handwriting, your grandparent’s place of birth, money your cousin paid for his broken car, your ability to serve at navy and your opinions about threesome marriage… what about a colour of your panties? If govt is interesting in this isn’t this their right and your duty to have the info on your card?
    Yes, it doesn’t affect your life… if your life is still yours.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kaptin pikarrrd
    What relevance is that?

    Parliament may be sovereign, but this is a liberal democracy and in liberal democracy the rights of the people are upheld!
    What makes you think this is a liberal democracy? Seems more authoritarian to me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Captain Slog
    What makes you think this is a liberal democracy? Seems more authoritarian to me.

    Seems like you have little concept of authoritarian then.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Captain Slog
    What makes you think this is a liberal democracy? Seems more authoritarian to me.

    Because that's what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
Sign In or Register to comment.