In the aftermath of the London Bombings, Tony Blair advocated for “business as normal” and said that terrorism would not change the British way of life. Now, in the name of fighting terrorism, he wants to deport people who read things he doesn’t like, close down mosques where people say things he doesn’t like, and proscribe groups who believe things he doesn’t like – regardless of whether they actually do anything or not. He also wants to deport refugees to countries where they will be tortured, and extend the police’s power to detain people without charge – as if the present fourteen days was not obscenity enough. There are all sorts of things I want to say to this: that none of these measures would have helped prevent the London attacks; that they repeat the mistakes of Northern Ireland; that you do not win a war of ideas through censorship; that they play into Osama bin Laden’s hands by making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to live in western societies; that this is “giving in to terrorism” in its most fundamental sense. But instead, I’ll echo the Guardian’s response: this “cure” is worse than the disease. The terrorists won’t need to destroy western civilisation (as if they ever could), because Tony Blair will have done it for them. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and freedom from torture are absolutely fundamental to the western way of life, and if we sacrifice them in order to fight terrorism, then we have nothing left to defend.
Idiot/Savant
No Right Turn – New Zealand’s liberal blog
You are absolutely right about all this, and it applies to the USA post 9/11 as much as to England post 7/7. What we needed here four years ago was 100 million people saying the same thing you’ve just said here.
This is very dangerous ground. Instead of coming together, culture to culture, to help each other figure out what can be done to eliminate the root cause that drives young people to join these terrorist groups, they drive a larger wedge of hate. We are in deep world crisis. Blair and Bush are the most imcompetant world leaders our modern world has ever known. How do we stop this madness before it is too late, before they destroy the world?
How do we stop this?
Deport Bush and Blair. Bush is a traitor to his country, and Blair is nothing more than a political puppet trying to construct a legacy by hanging onto Bush’s pantleg.
have run off the end of their tracks. They’re just not competent for the modern era. They can’t cope with the forces created by the global economy and their primitive concepts such as “property,” “press,” the “individual” and even “country” are often trivial to overpower, and increasingly are faced with entire new dimensions where they don’t even apply.
How do we stop this? Not soon, not elegantly, not simply. It’s probably going to be a long erosion kind of process, and we’re going to have to accept watching a lot more of our nations’ greatness destroyed in the meantime.
More and more I think we need to stop looking for advice and precendent to our predecessors who in their day represented the pinnacle of power and civilization. I think instead we need to turn to our ethnic and racial minorities at home and across the underdeveloped world, wherever they have managed to advance democracy against powers who severely overmatched them in funding and sophistication the way our opposition does us.
That may well also require looking to such people for leadership too. We had our chance over the last half century and we utterly squandered it.
Yes. The terrorists have already won. By restricting our own civil liberties and pushing for further restrictions like Nat. I.D. cards and cameras on street corners, we have handed the victory to Al Qaida.
.
As an extra penalty people may also be removed from office if they have abused their position to incite hatred or to attempt to recruit people for jihad (holy war). The same measure also applies from now on to first-time offenders.
The bill is prompted by serious concerns at the level to which the public debate in the Netherlands has descended, writes Donner in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill. According to the minister, society should be protected against comments and remarks that go far beyond the bounds of the acceptable.
~~~
Again, this is a fundamental restriction on freedom of speech – and in ineffective one at that. Banning speech simply drives it underground and lends it a dangerous mystique – as the Germans have discovered with their efforts to ban Holocaust denial and meo-Nazis.
The way to deal with people who think bombing civilians or shovelling people into crematoria is wonderful is to show them (and more importantly, their audiance) just how obscene those ideas really are.
Idiot/Savant
No Right Turn – New Zealand’s liberal blog
If I’m reading this correctly, anyone who continues to support the war of conquest in the Middle East is liable to spend time in a Dutch prison. Hmmmm.
I think that this story is an example of how it could be done. I guess the freepers are going wild for the head of this judge. Anyone who dares to uphold the constitution AND strike a blow to terrorism has got to be a threat to them.