Please go to the "free speech area"

[Stuart Mackey]

History has taught me not to be concerned by PATRIOT.

History should tell you that such things are disposed of only because people are concerned.

[Alyrium Denryle]

History has taught me not to be concerned by PATRIOT.

History should tell you that such things are disposed of only because people are concerned.

Agreed. he principle difference between now and the 50's is that people are not concerned with the civil rights violations. There is virtually no publicity on it, and what you do see is what the Bush administration wants you to see. As a result, people just arent concerned with something that, at the moment doesnt have an effect on them, but which still threatens to erode our basic freedoms.

[Vympel]

Slightly related:

No palace parade for Bush as Blair gets cold feet
By Tim Walker
(Filed: 19/10/2003)


Plans for the Queen and George W Bush to make a triumphant procession along the Mall during the president's state visit next month have been abandoned because of fears of anti-war protests.

The decision, taken by Downing Street after consultations with Buckingham Palace, the White House and Scotland Yard, has disappointed the president and his senior aides.

The procession is traditionally the public high point of a state visit. A senior Palace official said yesterday that detailed plans had been made. "But Downing Street, anxious about possible anti-war protests from the start, has now decided to pull the plug on it," said the official.

"We are liaising with the White House and they have made no attempt to hide their disappointment. They saw it, obviously, as a great photo opportunity."

President Bush's trip is the first full state visit of an American president since the Queen came to the throne 52 years ago. He will travel by helicopter to avoid protesters who line road routes. Other proposed events have also been curtailed or cancelled, and he will not address Parliament because of fears of a boycott by MPs.

With anti-war campaigners, including militant Muslims, determined to make a protest during the visit, Downing Street has decided to stage photo events that they can control. The President and the Queen are expected to be photographed together during tea at Buckingham Palace and inspecting the guard.

The state visit by President Jiang Zemin of China in 1999 was marred when a guardsman with a rifle and fixed bayonet was seen pursuing a protester along the Mall.

? Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, has urged the Queen and the British government to boycott the forthcoming Commonwealth leaders' conference if Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean leader, attends the meeting. Mr Ancram yesterday called on Tony Blair to advise the Queen to pull out of the summit, in Nigeria in December, if Mr Mugabe defies Commonwealth leaders by attending.

[Durandal]

Duchess already succumbed to Godwin's Law, by invoking a comparison with Nazi Germany.

That's one thing you won't get me on, 'cause Kojikun's picture on the first page, in my never-so-humble opinion, counts first.

You're right, but it wasn't the picture; he made a reference to SS agents in sort of a pun. In any case, your concession is accepted.

[Stuart Mackey]

Slightly related:

No palace parade for Bush as Blair gets cold feet
By Tim Walker
(Filed: 19/10/2003)

The state visit by President Jiang Zemin of China in 1999 was marred when a guardsman with a rifle and fixed bayonet was seen pursuing a protester along the Mall.

Why do I find this funny? I shouldnt, but I do...

? Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, has urged the Queen and the British government to boycott the forthcoming Commonwealth leaders' conference if Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean leader, attends the meeting. Mr Ancram yesterday called on Tony Blair to advise the Queen to pull out of the summit, in Nigeria in December, if Mr Mugabe defies Commonwealth leaders by attending.

In regards to the Commonweath the British PM does not have that authority. The Queen is head of the Commonweath and the HofS of a number of its constituant nations, as such HM the Queen acts on the advice of the Commonweath genral secretary and the constituant nations.
In short, Ancram is an Idiot.

[Joe Momma]

I also like the implied argument that we can thank HUAC and the other 50s fascists for the civil rights movement even though the latter was the exact opposite of what those oppressive government programs were trying to accomplish. So it's good to do bad things if it inspires people to try and fight back? (SNIP)

I never implied that and apologize if it was taken that way. My intent there was merely to signal that things worse than PATRIOT have been followed by significant improvement, and thus we should not be particularly worried that PATRIOT will lead to a permanent erosion of freedoms, as history does not bear this out.

Others have adequately addressed the point that it was being concerned about those erosions that moved people to try and undo them lest they become permanent. Still I'd like to add that this suggests that temporary erosions of civil rights are fine too, which is highly debateable. And before anyone tosses out the old "In times of war the law falls silent" cliche, I'd like to suggest that one of the reasons for codifying civil rights in the first place is to make sure that principles fundamental to our society aren't conveniently disposed of in times of threat. It makes no sense to respond to perceived threats to our way of life from others by destroying it first ourselves.

However, my point is to say that the general standards of the board in terms of analyzing news events have declined--not to say that mine are better than those of the rest of the posters. We have simply all fallen into responding to articles in reaction to our inherent political biases, myself included. Fair enough?

Not really, given that you hadn't bothered to examine the evidence on either side of this issue. Instead, you provided a series of weak theoretical defenses with no supporting evidence and at the same time refused to even look at the evidence presented on the other side. Reacting with a bias isn't necessarily bad if the facts behind that bias support it, which yours didn't. I don't think you can justify the claim that there's a parity of bias on both sides here.

BTW, are you assuming that anyone who accepted this article as having some basis in fact is necessarily a liberal? There are plenty of conservatives (and I mean actual "keep the government at the minimum necessary for social functioning" conservatives, not asshat fundies or crony capitalists) who are appalled by this sort of attack on free speech as well. Or is the bias you're talking about split along a different set of lines?

-- Joe Momma

[Joe Momma]

No palace parade for Bush as Blair gets cold feet

Chilly extremities aren't that uncommon when you've got heart problems.

Oh, it's not that kind of cold feet. Never mind.

-- Joe Momma

The loudest sound in the universe is the last heartbeat.