Rave disagrees with Tony Blair shock

[Rave]

Apparently Tony Blair is defending his new Anti-Terror legislation in the Telegraph today. Apparently:

Mr Blair insists: "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack."

I disagree. Personally I think there is no greater civil liberty than to not be subject to house arrest without due process.

Rich :¬)

[nichomach]

I have to admit to a very great distaste for the new AT legislation; basically it just looks to me like an easy way for the government to sidestep due process and impose criminal sanctions on people without benefit of trial. I'd also wonder whether the mere fact that someone's been confined in this way will affect their chances of conviction or acquittal if they do come to trial; there's a vast difference in conviction rates between those held on remand and those given bail, for instance.

[Kumagoro]

I also dont like that MPs and the like get to decide on who is to be locked up.
Films like johnny mnemonic dont seem that implausible now. Imagine what it could be
like in 50 years time.

[Zak33]

oh NO......

I agree with both of them

sod sod sod sod sod sod....

I am all for Anti Terrorism.....but the thought that ....its possibleto be detaned with no physical crime having been perpetrated, on simply a potential, scares me,

Now..I DO expect them both to change their minds, and argue with me

ready

[nichomach]

Hell, no; it seems to me that we're moving more and more to a "guilty until proven innocent" culture, where justice takes a back seat to political expediency and the need to be seen to be "doing something". This isn't just a problem with this government, the last lot put some fairly ropey legislation in as well, but more of a systemic problem. If this government HADN'T brought the legislation in, the other side would have hammered them for being soft on terrorism; now that they have, the Tories can recast themselves as champions of civil liberties (now THERE'S a laugh) and use that to beat the government over the head.

[Stoo]

... and then they wonder why the public is disillusioned with politics in general..

[Zedmeister]

This is serious beyond belief. The fact that a here today and gone tomorrow politician can be, in effect, judge, jury and executioner is horrifying.

Lnkety

Readers comments are always worth a read, for sure. Some of the peoples comments are unsettling. The word "Totalitarian" is being used by some people to describe the government, and not in a humourous Young Ones stlye.

[DaBeeeenster]

How many people have actually died as a result of terrorist activity within the UK since Labour have come to power?

[Stewart]

Apparently Tony Blair is defending his new Anti-Terror legislation in the Telegraph today.

Apparently: Mr Blair insists: "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack."

I disagree. Personally I think there is no greater civil liberty than to not be subject to house arrest without due process.

Rich :¬)

Go to agree with the Big T I'm affraid Rave, there is a lot to be said for the right to walk the streets of your own country, feeling safe and not being torn limb from limb by a nail bomb.

I'll give up a lot of my other liberties to ensure that this one remains in place.

How many people have actually died as a result of terrorist activity within the UK since Labour have come to power?

How many people had died as a result of terrorist activity in New York pre-9/11? How many people in Omagh before the real IRA attrocity? How many people in Spain directly before the train bombs?

The IRA and ETA are factors in the UK and Spain, but its the large one-off attacks that really show the holes in the 'well, how many people have actually been killed' arguement. Be it thousands or none at all, when it comes, men, women and children are slaughtered, in cold blood. Is 9/11 any more or less tragic because of the ammount of people previously killed in New York by terrorists?

[Rave]

Go to agree with the Big T I'm affraid Rave, there is a lot to be said for the right to walk the streets of your own country, feeling safe and not being torn limb from limb by a nail bomb.

I work in Central London. I walk past potential terrorist targets every day. I feel perfectly safe, and thus I could not possibly feel any safer under this new house arrest regime.

I'll give up a lot of my other liberties to ensure that this one remains in place.

Time for my favourite quote ever then:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

If you wish to give up your liberty in exchange for safety, then I suggest you do it by simply remaining in your house, since unless you live in a major skyscraper or above a mainline railway terminal it's unlikely to be affected by any terrorist attacks. Effectively, you should put yourself under house arrest, and then those up us who aren't cowardy-custards can go about our lives without the threat of being arbitrarily detained by a bunch of power-crazed politicians overstepping their mandate.

Is 9/11 any more or less tragic because of the ammount of people previously killed in New York by terrorists?

It's less tragic, because up until the point they died those people lived in one of the free-est, most tolerant and wealthiest nations in the world.

Rich :¬)

[Stewart]

I work in Central London. I walk past potential terrorist targets every day. I feel perfectly safe, and thus I could not possibly feel any safer under this new house arrest regime.

People working in the World Trade Center were feeling perfectly safe when they went to work on 9/11.

Do you see?

EDIT - Did you just call me a cowardy-custard, Rave? You rotter sir!

[TiG]

Wow for the first time in ages, i do believe Vaul has left himself open for a comeback. I certainly agree that personal security should not come at the posibility of people being arrested without sufficent evidence.

I personally still think the legislations are extremely over the top compared to the risks we face.

I'd even go as far as to suggest that the legislation is more like a law in former pre liberated iraq than an open democratic society would have.

TiG

[Rave]

I do. My point is that since I actually have a balanced view of risk, I am a lot less scared of dying in a terrorist attack than I am of dying in (say) a road accident, since it is statistically at least 1000% more likely that I will die prematurely that way.

I do not wish to trade my liberty for some false sense of safety. Life is not safe, and it's absurd to think that a few jumped up nobbers in the house of commons can make it so if we only give them the power to control every aspect of our lives.

[Stewart]

Wow for the first time in ages, i do believe Vaul has left himself open for a comeback.

There is no human right greater than the right to life, no liberty more sacred than your own personal safety. Above all, we all have the right to life, the right to live safely, the right to go about our daily lives without fear of attack. If you disagree, feel free to 'come back' on me, as it were.

Rave - Life is not safe, I agree, but there are always methods to make it as safe as can be. Driving is not safe, but we have speed limits, seat belts, air bags. Preventive measures, if you will.

Same thing with this situation - we will not be 100% safe from attack, but its preventive measures to try to make sure we are as safe as can be.

As for the Ben Franklin quote, I do not give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, members of my family (as I'm sure have yours) have fought and died in 2 world wars to protect our freedom and liberty, but also to ensure our safety. They did not give up anything, they simply would rather sacrifice the enemy than themselves, to remain safe. 'The point is not to die for your country, but to make the other person die for his'.

Same deal here - I wish to remain free to walk the streets, and if to do so, suspects must be retained without trial, then so be it. If it is passed, then it will be legal.

Why would I object to legal messures taken to ensure my safty, my loved one's safety? The saftey of my (as yet non-exsistant) children? Far from giving up those liberties as you claim, I'd fight and give my life to ensure them, as would any man, to protect the lives of his family, but that's rather dramatic, wouldn't you say, when a few preventive measures can go a long way to doing so, whilst allowing me to walk the streets more safely than I was able to do before?

[DaBeeeenster]

Go to agree with the Big T I'm affraid Rave, there is a lot to be said for the right to walk the streets of your own country, feeling safe and not being torn limb from limb by a nail bomb.

I'll give up a lot of my other liberties to ensure that this one remains in place.



How many people had died as a result of terrorist activity in New York pre-9/11? How many people in Omagh before the real IRA attrocity? How many people in Spain directly before the train bombs?

The IRA and ETA are factors in the UK and Spain, but its the large one-off attacks that really show the holes in the 'well, how many people have actually been killed' arguement. Be it thousands or none at all, when it comes, men, women and children are slaughtered, in cold blood. Is 9/11 any more or less tragic because of the ammount of people previously killed in New York by terrorists?

Well, I know, it seems really sensible to start throwing all these hard fought freedoms in the bin because, well, something might happen in the future.

I dont know about you, but I value a free society more than I do the fractional increase in safety that will be generated from these proposed laws. My company offices are about half a mile from the center of the city of London; I can see the gherkin from my window, so I have a reminder of these things every day.

I find it somewhat staggering that people feel the best way to counter terrorism is by way of introducing proto-totalitarian laws. How that is going to solve anything is beyond me. People are making out that it is going to be the only way to solve the problem, which would be funny if it wasn't so disturbing.

[Kumagoro]

I think the problem is more that they might start blurring the lines and use the law to
detain people for other things and over time it will have drifted so much the general
public will have to be wary of them being affected by the law.
I dont have too much of a problem if they have strong evidence to detain them but i
think this should be decided by a judge.