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 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!?
what is happening these days!?
0
Comments
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.
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.
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 ...
I don't trust Labour to not declare martial law if they lose the election, they are that dangerous.
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.
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.
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.
once that agreement is broken ...that trust is lost ...all hell brakes loose.
that trust ...any respect ...is now largely gone.
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.
Whats any of that got to do with the post of mine that you quoted?
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
What if she (or a future monarch), did agree with motions which were not really in the best interests of her subjects?
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.
Thats ridiculous.
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.
This isn't a totalalitarian state in which government is involved in everything!! Constant surveillance of citizens only occurs in such nations!
Yes, it doesn’t affect your life… if your life is still yours.
Seems like you have little concept of authoritarian then.
Because that's what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy