• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain On Edge Of Full-Blown Authoritarianism

USViking said:
What? British values prevailing over ISIS values (with a little help from the intel girls and boys)?

Don't worry, kitty- chances are that few if any are going to wind up in jail who don't need to be in jail, with no significant harm done to any innocent person's freedom.
Click to expand...

I just watched the video and honestly I feel even sicker to my stomach after hearing the words come directly from her mouth. That, my friend, is how authoritarianism starts. Shutting down opposition in the name of the country's arbitrary "values." You're really ok with granting the UK government the power to monitor emails en masse, stop and search anybody for arbitrary to non-existent reasons, break up peaceful protests thought to be "extremist" in nature, etc?
 
Last edited:
USViking said:
What? British values prevailing over ISIS values (with a little help from the intel girls and boys)?

Don't worry, kitty- chances are that few if any are going to wind up in jail who don't need to be in jail, with no significant harm done to any innocent person's freedom.
Click to expand...

Its not that its "shutting down ISIS values" (which im pretty sure beheading unbelievers is already "shut down" in all of the Wester World), its how incredibly vague this bull**** is.
 
TeleKat said:
I just watched the video and honestly I feel even sicker to my stomach after hearing the words come directly from her mouth. That, my friend, is how authoritarianism starts. Shutting down opposition in the name of the country's arbitrary "values." You're really ok with granting the UK government the power to monitor emails en masse, stop and search anybody for arbitrary to non-existent reasons, break up peaceful protests thought to be "extremist" in nature, etc?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the US.
 
I would say it's well past time for the UK to address the extremism that's been festering there for some time.
 
TeleKat said:
I just watched the video and honestly I feel even sicker to my stomach after hearing the words come directly from her mouth. That, my friend, is how authoritarianism starts. Shutting down opposition in the name of the country's arbitrary "values."
Click to expand...

:shrug: Their values are as arbitrary as your Libertarian convictions. They're not merely speaking of political opposition, but rather of groups who oppose the very notion of democracy and secular governance entirely.

You're really ok with granting the UK government the power to monitor emails en masse
Click to expand...

Metadata collection? Yeah, both here and abroad. We and others can't expect any semblance of disruptive capabilities against terror plots if we fail to monitor communications through probably the least intrusive avenue possible.

stop and search anybody for arbitrary to non-existent reasons
Click to expand...

If you'll actually read your own link, she spoke out against this tactic, and stated the need for refinement and a reduction in racial profiling.

break up peaceful protests thought to be "extremist" in nature, etc?
Click to expand...

The mere fact that a protest isn't violent shouldn't grant it's participants a green light to propagandize in public. ISIS supporters, White supremacists and a few other groups should be publicly shamed and censored. Free speech isn't always a virtue and shouldn't be treated as a sacred cow in all circumstances.
 
a351 said:
:shrug: Their values are as arbitrary as your Libertarian convictions.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating that non-libertarians lose their right to free speech. Quite the opposite, actually, as you can see.

They're not merely speaking of political opposition, but rather of groups who oppose the very notion of democracy and secular governance entirely.
Click to expand...

They're speaking of anybody the UK government decides is "extremist."

The mere fact that a protest isn't violent shouldn't grant it's participants a green light to propagandize in public. ISIS supporters, White supremacists and a few other groups should be publicly shamed and censored. Free speech isn't always a virtue and shouldn't be treated as a sacred cow in all circumstances.
Click to expand...

Yes it should. You don't have the right to decide what ideas are or are not acceptable. Nor do you, or anyone else for that matter, have the right to shut down opposition to your "values" simply because you don't like them or think they are extreme. If a protest is nonviolent in nature there is absolutely no reason to shut it down. Period. End of story.
 
a351 said:
The mere fact that a protest isn't violent shouldn't grant it's participants a green light to propagandize in public. ISIS supporters, White supremacists and a few other groups should be publicly shamed and censored. Free speech isn't always a virtue and shouldn't be treated as a sacred cow in all circumstances.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post except that part. I think it's best to keep the roaches in the light. If pushed into dark back alleys, it's more likely they might waylay someone.
 
ecofarm said:
I agree with your post except that part. I think it's best to keep the roaches in the light. If pushed into dark back alleys, it's more likely they might waylay someone.
Click to expand...
I suppose there might be some merit to that theory, but it certainly hasn't panned out in Britain's case.
 
a351 said:
I suppose there might be some merit to that theory, but it certainly hasn't panned out in Britain's case.
Click to expand...

Britain might not know what it's up against had it suppressed the nutjobs into the shadows.
 
TeleKat said:
I'm not advocating that non-libertarians lose their right to free speech. Quite the opposite, actually, as you can see.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Some ideas aren't worth protecting though.

They're speaking of anybody the UK government decides is "extremist."
Click to expand...

They're obviously speaking of Islamists, who openly supported a theocracy imposed by violence if necessary. Definitely not an idea that merits sanction on public grounds.

Yes it should. You don't have the right to decide what ideas are or are not acceptable. Nor do you, or anyone else for that matter, have the right to shut down opposition to your "values" simply because you don't like them or think they are extreme.
Click to expand...

Governments do, (at least overseas) especially in matters of national and international security :shrug:


If a protest is nonviolent in nature there is absolutely no reason to shut it down. Period. End of story.
Click to expand...

Non violent protests can and do provoke violence and incite extremist behavior. Whether or not a protest is peaceful or not shouldn't be the litmus test for state sanction.
 
a351 said:
That's fine. Some ideas aren't worth protecting though.
Click to expand...

You don't get to decide that!

They're obviously speaking of Islamists, who openly supported a theocracy imposed by violence if necessary. Definitely not an idea that merits sanction on public grounds.
Click to expand...

They're speaking of anyone the UK government decides is extremist. The woman in the video admitted as much.

Governments do, (at least overseas) especially in matters of national and international security :shrug:
Click to expand...

No they don't. "National security" is not a good reason to supress peaceful protestors.

Non violent protests can and do provoke violence and incite extremist behavior. Whether or not a protest is peaceful or not shouldn't be the litmus test for state sanction.
Click to expand...

Yes it should. If the protestors are peaceful, there is no reason to initiate force against them and get them to stop simply because you don't like their ideas.
 
Paleocon said:
Why do you get to decide what he gets to decide?
Click to expand...

I don't. That's the ****ing point. I'm not here saying the government should shut-down his views because I don't like them. He, however, is not granting those that fit the UK government's arbitrary definition of "extremist" that same respect. Hence the problem.
 
TeleKat said:
I don't. That's the ****ing point. I'm not here saying the government should shut-down his views because I don't like them. He, however, is not granting those that fit the UK government's arbitrary definition of "extremist" that same respect. Hence the problem.
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the government should apply your views over his (it should tolerate speech he dislikes). Why should your views be implemented?
 
Paleocon said:
You are claiming that the government should apply your views over his (it should tolerate speech he dislikes). Why should your views be implemented?
Click to expand...

There's no forcing of views or implementation of any kind involved with the idea that people are free to speak their mind and protest peacefully against the government they live under.
 
TeleKat said:
This is some scary ****. Thoughts?

BBC News - Theresa May: British values will prevail over extremists
Click to expand...

We're in the run-up to a general election in 5-6 months' time. The Tories always play the 'tough on crime', anti-terrorist card about this time because they think it's their strength over the opposition. They'll always do less than they promise, but it's a good reason why it's important that they lose. Not that Labour's that much better on civil liberties these days. It will be interesting to see whether UKIP develop a policy on this, or indeed on anything other than EU exit and immigration control. They will be the new third force in Westminster after the election and hence they'll probably get the chance to form a coalition with the Labour or Tory parties; I'd bet on a Tory/UKIP government next. God help the UK!
 
TeleKat said:
There's no forcing of views or implementation of any kind involved with the idea that people are free to speak their mind and protest peacefully against the government they live under.
Click to expand...

Please clarify your position.

A: The government should implement my view that all political positions should be legal.

B: I don't mind the government implementing censorship.

C: I don't want to answer the question.
 
Luftwaffe said:
One question: Was this approved by the majority within the UK?

IF SO: the people have spoken.

IF NOT: the government has overstepped its limits.

The people decide what is and what is not their right and what the government can and cannot do, not you by yourself.
Click to expand...

It was a speech by the Home Secretary to her party conference. It's not something that anyone has had the chance to vote on yet. It's certainly not the view of the people, since not only was this never presented to them in an election, the Tory party is a minority government in coalition, so it's not even the government's policy yet.
 
Luftwaffe said:
One question: Was this approved by the majority within the UK?

IF SO: the people have spoken.

IF NOT: the government has overstepped its limits.

The people decide what is and what is not their right and what the government can and cannot do, not you by yourself.
Click to expand...

First of all, this hasn't actually been implemented as of yet. But it is being given serious consideration.

Second of all, even if it were implemented by the majority of Britains that still doesn't make it ok. It is not morally justifiable for the majority to oppress the minority. Which is exactly what the policies proposed by the Tories would do.
 
TeleKat said:
First of all, this hasn't actually been implemented as of yet. But it is being given serious consideration.

Second of all, even if it were implemented by the majority of Britains that still doesn't make it ok. It is not morally justifiable for the majority to oppress the minority. Which is exactly what the policies indicated by the whack-job Tories.
Click to expand...

Why exactly, is the proposed action wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom