The Death of Democracy

#1
Put broadly the generally agreed criteria for a functioning democracy are:
1. Freedom of expression, including freedom of the media.
2. Freedom of association.
3. Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law.

What we face now is one of the greatest challenges to the defence of our liberal democratic traditions - and it is not the terrorists in London, or elsewhere providing this threat. (All rational people have and will always despise those who murder ordinary people going about their business, and we have always seen those who wish to carry out such indiscriminate acts as having no place in democratic society and they should have no leniency afforded to them.)

Unfortunately, British citizens now find themselves faced with a government that is stripping their democratic rights away. Tony Blair and his government, along with the collusion of many of the other political parties have built a country where we are now unable to get within one kilometre of Parliament to voice our opposition (Serious Organised Crime and Police Act - Designated Area Order 2005); where our every activity and movement will be tracked (ID Cards Bill - National Identification Register); where trial by jury is being eroded as it doesn't conform to the government's ideas of justice; and if the government gets its way and passes the new Prevention of Terrorism Law, we may be faced with the prospect of not even being allowed to talk about the very issue it seeks to prevent. How far away do these type of measures take us from the criteria for a democratic society?

A democratic society is not one that rushes to repression, state surveillance and draconian police powers as soon as any part of it is threatened; real democracy is able to engage the people in debate on how society should be governed, without fear and recrimination; a real democracy is one where whatever threats we face, we are strong enough to resist them.

The irony, of course, is that while stripping away the democratic rights of UK citizens on the altar of the EU, this government now wages war in Iraq & Afghanistan in the name of freedom and purports to be spreading democracy. The annihilation of British historical traditions did not succeed by way of two World Wars, yet may well succeed by bribery, corruption and subversion by the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, aided and abetted by some British MP's whose desire for self-agrandisement far outstrips their patriotism. The British people deserve better.
 
#2
And I entirely agree with you, Ex-Gren.

Problem is - what the fek can we do about it? Now. To stop further rot.

Have you a manifesto? If so, we should be told . . . .
 
#5
Interesting

I am willing to bet that if i stood at the cenataph tomorrow and read out loud the names of the dead I wouldn't get arrested. However, if I got a load of journos there and then tried it I would be arrested pdq.

Therefore it isn't the freedom of expression that is being denied, it is - as the act states - the demonstrating without permission within one square km of parliament.

But You knew that already of course :roll:
 
#6
Just wondering - in US law, apparently if the people of the country are unhappy with the president / government, they have the right to walk into the White House and kick them out. There has to be a no fewer than a certain number of people (but it's something silly like 12), but as far as I know that's all there is to it (aside from getting past security maybe). Can't give references etc I'm afraid, cos I'm clueless about law and politics.

Does anything like this exist in the UK? It would be interesting to see if there is anything, possibly in ancient law. Anyone know anything about it?



....>>>NB, these are thoughts from the little world inside my little head and are in no way to be considered representative of ARRSE in general (even if that may or may not be so.... <<<
 
#7
Sven said:
Interesting

I am willing to bet that if i stood at the cenataph tomorrow and read out loud the names of the dead I wouldn't get arrested. However, if I got a load of journos there and then tried it I would be arrested pdq.

Therefore it isn't the freedom of expression that is being denied, it is - as the act states - the demonstrating without permission within one square km of parliament.

But You knew that already of course :roll:
Realy your such a c*ck :x
 
#8
caubeen said:
And I entirely agree with you, Ex-Gren.

Problem is - what the fek can we do about it? Now. To stop further rot.

Have you a manifesto? If so, we should be told . . . .
I don't have a manifesto. but you might try The Freedom Association founded on 31 July 1975, The Freedom Association believes that a free society can only be properly maintained if there is an understanding of the economic, constitutional and moral principles that alone can sustain that society.

"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson

The Seven Principles of a Free Society

1) Individual Freedom

2) Personal and Family Responsibility

3) The Rule of Law

4) Limited Government

5) Free Market Economy

6) National Parliamentary Democracy

7) Strong National Defences

"Freedom is usually appreciated only by those who have lost it, consequently it requires not praise but intelligent, active and continuous defence. We campaign for limited government and the fundamental freedoms essential to the maintenance of a humane and civilized society." Norris McWhirter C.B.E. (1925-2004)

Hope this resonates with you.
 
#9
halo_jones said:
Sven said:
Interesting

I am willing to bet that if i stood at the cenataph tomorrow and read out loud the names of the dead I wouldn't get arrested. However, if I got a load of journos there and then tried it I would be arrested pdq.

Therefore it isn't the freedom of expression that is being denied, it is - as the act states - the demonstrating without permission within one square km of parliament.

But You knew that already of course :roll:
Realy your such a c*ck :x
Gosh, just for pointing out the actualitie
 
#10
Sven said:
Interesting

I am willing to bet that if i stood at the cenataph tomorrow and read out loud the names of the dead I wouldn't get arrested. However, if I got a load of journos there and then tried it I would be arrested pdq.

Therefore it isn't the freedom of expression that is being denied, it is - as the act states - the demonstrating without permission within one square km of parliament.

But You knew that already of course :roll:
I'd bet you would. On either sort of occasion.

In scenario 1 you'd be removed as a suspected lunatic. That's what we've come to, in these days of "Tommy go away!"

In scen. 2 you'd be on the news highlights.

Neither - or both, depending on your interpretation of the law - could be deemed "demonstrating without permission".

But how would either help to deliver us from the situation Ex-Gren describes? Which is presumably what he/we want to know.
 
#11
With you all the way ex-gren.
Sven, it amounts to the same thing FFS.
 
#12
Ex-Grenadier said:
caubeen said:
And I entirely agree with you, Ex-Gren.

Problem is - what the fek can we do about it? Now. To stop further rot.

Have you a manifesto? If so, we should be told . . . .
I don't have a manifesto. but you might try The Freedom Association founded on 31 July 1975, The Freedom Association believes that a free society can only be properly maintained if there is an understanding of the economic, constitutional and moral principles that alone can sustain that society.

"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson

The Seven Principles of a Free Society

1) Individual Freedom

2) Personal and Family Responsibility

3) The Rule of Law

4) Limited Government

5) Free Market Economy

6) National Parliamentary Democracy

7) Strong National Defences

"Freedom is usually appreciated only by those who have lost it, consequently it requires not praise but intelligent, active and continuous defence. We campaign for limited government and the fundamental freedoms essential to the maintenance of a humane and civilized society." Norris McWhirter C.B.E. (1925-2004)

Hope this resonates with you.
It does resonate - and VMT for posting it.

I agree with what both McWhirter twins sought to promote.

The message is clear; but the means of implementing it effectively, however, are less obvious.

We wouldn't want a putsch of the kind that (allegedly) Bill Stirling et al. tried to organise under Harold Wilson, would we?

Any ideas?
 
#13
radioactiveman said:
With you all the way ex-gren.
Sven, it amounts to the same thing FFS.
No

Freedom of speech is just that. If I wasn't able to stand on Speakers Corner and shout that the government was the equivilent of the Stasi then my freedom of speech would have been curtailed. If I wasn't able to ask the Met that I be allowed to jump up and down in front of Parliament and EVENTUALLY get that permission that would be infringing my rights.

As it is, I can do both
 
#14
Sven
Why should one have to ask permission in order to protest?
Surely the very act of asking implicitly accepts that there is the possibility of refusal. Moreover why within a 1km of Parliament? Could it be perchance that this stops me standing outside Downing St?
Give me one good reason for this asinine law other than to spare the blushes of a Government which has singularly failed in every sphere of policy.
 
#15
Freedom of speech is just that. If I wasn't able to stand on Speakers Corner and shout that the government was the equivilent of the Stasi then my freedom of speech would have been curtailed. If I wasn't able to ask the Met that I be allowed to jump up and down in front of Parliament and EVENTUALLY get that permission that would be infringing my rights.

As it is, I can do both
Really?? So what if you were to do all of the above in say..protest at immigration/asylum-seekers/any ethnic demograph monopolising a certain crime statistic?

Awaiting your answer.
 
#16
supermatelot said:
Freedom of speech is just that. If I wasn't able to stand on Speakers Corner and shout that the government was the equivilent of the Stasi then my freedom of speech would have been curtailed. If I wasn't able to ask the Met that I be allowed to jump up and down in front of Parliament and EVENTUALLY get that permission that would be infringing my rights.

As it is, I can do both
Really?? So what if you were to do all of the above in say..protest at immigration/asylum-seekers/any ethnic demograph monopolising a certain crime statistic?

Awaiting your answer.
So long as You aren't inciting a hatred of a particular race.

Of course, other people would then be free to call You a racist bigot.
 
#17
caubeen said:
We wouldn't want a putsch of the kind that (allegedly) Bill Stirling et al. tried to organise under Harold Wilson, would we?

Any ideas?
I agree that an alleged putsch of the nature you refer to is out of the question for me and most others. However, the Party political system is disintegrating. The Labour and Conservatives seem to be copying one another, whilst the LibDems adopt a chameleon aspect dependent upon where they are. In the circumstances, decent, ordinary people are seeking an answer that is ethically based. I am profoundly convinced that ultimately another way will be found, outside the present Party system, uniting people around commonly-held ethical principles. If I had the total answer to that I wouldn't be struggling in a debate/discussion of this sort. I hope this answer is helpful if not entirely satisfying.
 
#18
wud join - but point no2 worries me in that a large % of the population dont aspire to that - ergo we deserve what we get (the silent majority who will happliy qeue waiting for our turn at the gas chambers)
 
#19
So you agree then Sven-it's all in the eye of the beholder and democracy is relative to the ruling party's beliefs?
 
#20
Ex-Grenadier said:
caubeen said:
We wouldn't want a putsch of the kind that (allegedly) Bill Stirling et al. tried to organise under Harold Wilson, would we?

Any ideas?
I agree that an alleged putsch of the nature you refer to is out of the question for me and most others. However, the Party political system is disintegrating. The Labour and Conservatives seem to be copying one another, whilst the LibDems adopt a chameleon aspect dependent upon where they are. In the circumstances, decent, ordinary people are seeking an answer that is ethically based. I am profoundly convinced that ultimately another way will be found, outside the present Party system, uniting people around commonly-held ethical principles. If I had the total answer to that I wouldn't be struggling in a debate/discussion of this sort. I hope this answer is helpful if not entirely satisfying.
What chameleon aspect do the Lib Dems take on their stance on the Iraq War, or on green taxes, id cards etc. In fact, I'm pretty sure Boy Dave is covering ground in many places that the Lib Dems pioneered a long long time ago. Except of course, that We didn't have a chauffer carrying our shoes in the car
 

Similar threads

Top