May threatens ban on 'hate-inciting' radicals, even if they don't promote violence Radical groups should be banned to prevent them inspiring others to violence, even if they're not promoting violence themselves, according to Home Secretary Theresa May. Currently the UK Home Secretary can ban any group overtly promoting violent rebellion, and has successfully done so in the past. A new task force led by the …
I concur, Ms May, I hate you and your policies.
And I encourage anyone else who is against a 1984 style monitored and censored society to feel the same as I do.
Hate is an emotion, a feeling, a thought, I am allowed to hate the Nazi's, I am allowed to hate fascism and I should be allowed to express my feelings and encourage others to feel the same way I do....
Big Brother is watching us, freedom is an ideal we are sleepwalking away from...
You are only allowed to hate that which is approved by the government (Nazis are a good example). Sadly it is that way in every country. Not that I am 'pro-hate' it just seems disingenuous for government to expose the populace to 'divisive' propaganda but not allow the populace to do the same. No new story there I guess.
"Hate is an emotion, a feeling, a thought, I am allowed to hate the Nazi's,"
You are allowed to hate Nazi's. I don't, I pity them, because they are retarded fools. They are empathically handicapped. You don't hate somebody because he's walking with a crutch and shouldn't hate somebody because he's empathically handicapped.
But you're allowed too.
However, you're not allowed to inspire others to violence. After all, Nazi's, like any racists, are people too.
You only thought (you have that right in the US) permission (elsewhere) but (the right in the US) permission that you thought can be taken away just like it was given to you in the first place. We of the US have the constitutional right to free speech in the US but it dose not mean that a person can say what he wants. We here in the US have had several conservative speakers who were to speak college audience who were stopped by violent demonstration and at a graduating class of doctors the speaker who was from the same school was told not to speak. Not because any of these speakers were promoting hate or overthrow of a government but because they had views that was not the mainstream of the liberal universities.
So with those whose country dose not guarantee your freedom of speech which is given by permission and not law can and will be taken back from you depending on those in power. Good luck in protecting your freedom of speech you will kneed it very much!
Freedom of speech doesn't mean private colleges can't decide not to pay someone thousands of dollars to give a speech.
Since you made the claim, why don't you post the name of a conservative speaker who was dismissed from speaking at a college, or violently demonstrated against, so we can dissect his background and see if he ever advocated hate.
Let's not forget that the terror incident upon which they are attempting to base this anti-freedom* legislation was triggered by the victim wearing a "Help for Heroes" t-shirt. The reason this charity exists at all is because the LABOUR ** government who were responsible for sending our troops into an illegal war, subsequently failed to provide adequate funding for the care of soldiers injured in that conflict.
So if you voted for Labour back in 2001/2005, then your choice makes you responsible for (i) an illegal war, (ii) failure to care for the troops who performed their duty for this country and (iii) giving terrorists reason to kill one our soldiers. This likely was not your intention, but this chain of events would not have happened if the electorate had not voted Labour. Ultimately this is a democracy, that is how decisions are made, so Labour voters are at the root of the chain of responsibility, no matter how much they protest their innocence.
Incidentally, I'm well aware that the Tories would likely have taken us into an illegal war too, but they are less likely to have cut care costs for our injured soldiers.
* Freedom allegedly being what our soldiers have been fighting for in most conflicts since WW2.
** whom I HATE intensely for destroying our nation but hereby do not incite anyone else to hate them.
"Incidentally, I'm well aware that the Tories would likely have taken us into an illegal war too, but they are less likely to have cut care costs for our injured soldiers."
So it wasn't a Conservative government that shut the military hospitals and left an inferior level of NHS provided care in its place?
Giving the establishment powers to censor expression of non-specific feelings, as distinct from censoring suggestion on how to act upon those feelings, is a shift of biblic proportions.
If the reporting is accurate, I cannot begin to imagine what protest there would be against this blatant attempt to edge closer towards a totalitarian state. The potential for abuse of such a power would be overwhelming to the extent that I simply cannot see this ever happening.
Which is a good thing, as I, for one, would not leave the gates of parliament unless and until the law reverted, or I was removed.
'Cos it'll be censored.
I wonder how long it'll be before this is extended to people inciting resistance to government 'reforms' that we 'need' to 'save' the economy by funneling more cash to big businesses where it can be more efficiently used to buy Bentleys and yachts.
> you're NOT ALLOWED to protest there without a Police/Government permit
The permits aren't too tricky to come by[1] as long as you do a bit of preparation.
Mark Thomas has an excellent story about having a Police escort through another demonstration so that he could have his own demos[2], just because he had all his permits.
Vic.
[1] No, of course they shouldn't be necessary. But they are.
[2] He held many demonstrations that day - got a Guinness World Record for it. I'm not sure if he still holds that one or not...
Which is a good thing, as I, for one, would not leave the gates of parliament unless and until the law reverted, or I was removed.
If you don't have a permit, the Met is going to do it very, very quickly. Check out "Steven Jago", who got arrested while holding a placard quoting 1984 outside Parliament. Oh, the irony...
These people will set up encrypted channels of communication where they be able to talk with less fear of interception. Why not let them spew their BS on forums and mailing lists and use it to drive intelligence. No snoopers charter would help if they turn to crypto. All it will mean is the 99.99999% of people who are not terrorists end up with their privacy infringed and ISPs are burdened with the onerous task of collating this information and policing their members.
She needs to be shown the door... Doesn't matter what she says now, no one (with any sense of humanity / liberty) will take what she says in a positive light. She used a tragic, sensless attack to save face after the rejection of her snoopers charter... She's even worse than Jacqui Smith...
Bad news when Clegg is our only hope to stop totalitarianism - and we haven't had anyone say "I agree with Nick" in a while.
Anon because, well, you know... Not that it'll do much good once Theresa storms into Rackspace demanding copies of all of theregisters databases to track down those of us guilty of thought crime.
Did anyone see this interview?. Once again the buzzword "paedophile" was thrown in along with "terrorist" when the ugly one was talking about re-introducing the Communications Data Bill, just to make sure everyone is just that little bit more scared because this is what its all about; ruling by fear and we all know that a frightened population is a controlled population.
But even more funny and sinister is how they now call anything explosive a "weapon of mass destruction", at least the Americans do. A hand grenade now equals a nuke in terms of the punishment one gets for possession.
So, if Saddam was only attacked today, they would have found tons and tons of WMD all over Eyerack to justify any invasion. Interesting how goal posts are moved to make scoring goals easier for politicians...
".....they now call anything explosive a "weapon of mass destruction", at least the Americans do. A hand grenade now equals a nuke....." Complete and utter male bovine manure. Please do supply some verifiable quotes where grenades have been referred to as weapons of mass destruction.
".....if Saddam was only attacked today, they would have found tons and tons of WMD all over....." I suggest you and the other sheeple go read this website and then reconsider the issue of WMDs in Iraq - you may need an adult to explain the long words for you:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/biological.html
While I'm on your side of the aisle politically, he's actually correct about the first, even if he didn't have quite the right language. And the example is actually the recent Boston bombing attack. If you think about it, the IEDs they used in the attack are the functional equivalent of a hand grenade. He's being charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. To me this is part of the problem with treating the war against Islamofascism as a police action instead of a war. There might not be defined battlefields, but it remains a war.
I do concur about the WMDs and Iran. I expect if we had gone in immediately we would have found them. But with Teddy and his buddies delaying action, Saddam had plenty of time to move them elsewhere. Possibly to Syria where we now have various reports of chemical weapons being used, and depending on who is doing the claiming it is either the government or the rebels doing the gassing.
This post has been deleted by its author
I can think of a few groups that incite hatred and de-normalisation of others. Most of them are of the new-puritan nannying type. Think of anti-smoking groups that make out that smokers are evil. Should these groups be banned. I would love it to be so, but it's unlikely to happen as these groups are on the same side as authoritarian politicians. But it shows how difficult it is to define a hate group.
<-- Fail for obvious reasons.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
