Minority Report is here, and not in a cool way

[Jonnas]

In that case though they would be breaking the law (burning without a permit), and would be creating an actual danger (the fire itself), so there's actually a legitimate reason to arrest them. I fail to see how beheading a dummy is remotely more provoking people than protesting. If anything, it seems comedic.

 

It's one thing to say "I disagree your father's line of work and what it represents, I believe he should lose his job" and another one to basically say the same thing, while mimicking said father while acting like a retard and saying he should just die.

 

I'm just saying, once you go into "distasteful" territory, you're basically asking for a fight. And while what's distasteful might vary, there are actions and comments that clearly cross the line, you can't feign ignorance and say you didn't mean to provoke anyone, or that you didn't know they would find it offensive.

 

 

 

Regarding the subject at hand, I'll just say this: I find it that, more often than not, the people who comment "we are losing our democratic rights" have not considered what would've actually happened in a country with limited freedom.

 

Of course, the point is, they arrested three protesters (an exaggerated action, true, removing them from the scene and warning them would've sufficed) that they believed could cause trouble. They let everyone else keep with their protests.

[Emasher]

The police should arrest the people that commit the first violent act in that case. You don't have a right not to be offended, however you do have a right to safety of person.

 

So because some people have less rights than we do we shouldn't hold on to the ones we do have? I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

[chairdriver]

Not going to lie, many of the world's problems would have instantly been lessened if everyone at the wedding ceremony had died in an explosion.

[Emasher]

Not going to lie, many of the world's problems would have instantly been lessened if everyone at the wedding ceremony had died in an explosion.

 

Mind elaborating?

 

I don't see how killing off every Governor General and Prime Minister in the commonwealth as well as the British Nobility would solve much at all.

[chairdriver]

Mind elaborating?

 

I don't see how killing off every Governor General and Prime Minister in the commonwealth as well as the British Nobility would solve much at all.

 

Sometimes to let the heather grow you need to burn it away.

 

It would do away with the monarchy, because it would be like "Oh, who should become King/Queen next?" "I don't know" "Actually, this is a antiquated concept. Monarchs belong to feudal times. Let's just not."

 

And plus, the amount of significant people dead in one masterstroke would probably result in events big enough to get people to seriously question our current state of government/existence. Revolution and whatnot.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

The police should arrest the people that commit the first violent act in that case. You don't have a right not to be offended, however you do have a right to safety of person.

 

But once the potential violence erupts, there's no telling if the police will be able to stop things before things get out of hand. Of course I'm not saying people have a right not to be offended - I'm from the land who made the Muhammed cartoons, after all - but I'm saying that at protests and other tense situations, waiting for the problems to happen before reacting isn't always the best course of action. Precautions need to be taken.

 

My main issue with all this is that people believe this to be "proof" that we're losing our right to free speech, which is, quite frankly, close to sounding like a conspiracy theory if you ask me.

[Paj!]

Sometimes to let the heather grow you need to burn it away.

 

It would do away with the monarchy, because it would be like "Oh, who should become King/Queen next?" "I don't know" "Actually, this is a antiquated concept. Monarchs belong to feudal times. Let's just not."

 

And plus, the amount of significant people dead in one masterstroke would probably result in events big enough to get people to seriously question our current state of government/existence. Revolution and whatnot.

 

[chairdriver]

 

Well, there's a reason Watchmen is stunning.

 

It's because I genuinely sympathise with the "villain", since all the characters are equally as bad as each other, and he makes a good point [/Fagbrother from Jiz]

[Paj!]

Has my concert convinced you that I need to hand out abortions?

 

Well yeah, John. Ozymandias. Magneto. So many fair points between the two.

 

But at the same time, no one likes death or revolution when it's not strictly required on a grand grand scale.

[chairdriver]

Has my concert convinced you that I need to hand out abortions?

 

Well yeah, John. Ozymandias. Magneto. So many fair points between the two.

 

But at the same time, no one likes death or revolution when it's not strictly required on a grand grand scale.

 

Well yeah, no one likes it. But no one likes the fact there's women and children forced to work as prostitutes because they have no other prospects in life. And no one likes that the richest man in the world is richer than several African countries put together. No one likes that there are thousands of infants dying every day because government is so fucked up with petty shit that they can't get their act together and stamp out bullshit corruption and actually give money to help these children.

 

Etc etc. You've heard it all before. But, it's just like... don't let all that Oxfam shit become just a thing you see and know. Go to a council estate in Glasgow, and see it first hand. Then do shit to change things.

Edited April 30, 2011 by chairdriver

[Emasher]

But once the potential violence erupts, there's no telling if the police will be able to stop things before things get out of hand. Of course I'm not saying people have a right not to be offended - I'm from the land who made the Muhammed cartoons, after all - but I'm saying that at protests and other tense situations, waiting for the problems to happen before reacting isn't always the best course of action. Precautions need to be taken.

 

My main issue with all this is that people believe this to be "proof" that we're losing our right to free speech, which is, quite frankly, close to sounding like a conspiracy theory if you ask me.

 

 

Well, like you said, the protestors likely knew what they were getting into, and anyone who might attack them would as well.

 

Alone this would just be an isolated incident. Its all the other stuff that's going on in addition to this that's worrying.

 

Just looking at the Anglosphere we have:

 

Police Brutality, a key example being people who weren't even protesting getting arrested at the G8/20 summits in both the UK and Canada (and in the case of Canada, being denied their legal rights after being arrested).

Internet Censorship laws in Australia.

The Patriot Act in the United States as well as Guantanamo Bay.

Government agencies making major policies without consulting the legislative branches, a key example being the CRTC (Canada) forcing ISPs to use a usage based billing system so that the big companies could implement it without having to worry about competition.

Proposed legislation in Canada to allow police to monitor people's internet connections without a warrant.

People being kicked out of public political events in the US and Canada because they asked the wrong questions or had their pictures taken with the wrong people.

People being charged with assault for defending themselves as well as people breaking into houses, slipping and hurting themselves, and then suing the home owner and winning.

The whole Wikileaks thing.

The Canadian government proroguing parliament to avoid a non confidence motion and stay in power.

People coming back from vacation to find squatters have broken into their homes and changed the locks and the police refusing to do anything about it in the UK.

Children getting suspended from school for defending themselves from bullies and other things that aren't considered a crime.

Police abusing their power and violating people's rights.

The Canadian government allowing large companies to pollute the environment to the extent that it causes health problems for the local aboriginal population.

 

I could go on.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Emasher

[Paj!]

@chair; Extreme action like you mentioned wouldn't necessarily do anything to change things.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Well, like you said, the protestors likely knew what they were getting into, and anyone who might attack them would as well.

 

I'm afraid I'm missing your point here. Would you like to elaborate?

 

Alone this would just be an isolated incident. Its all the other stuff that's going on in addition to this that's worrying.

 

Just looking at the Anglosphere we have:

 

Police Brutality, a key example being people who weren't even protesting getting arrested at the G8/20 summits in both the UK and Canada (and in the case of Canada, being denied their legal rights after being arrested).

Internet Censorship laws in Australia.

The Patriot Act in the United States.

Government agencies making major policies without consulting the legislative branches, a key example being the CRTC (Canada) forcing ISPs to use a usage based billing system so that the big companies could implement it without having to worry about competition.

Proposed legislation in Canada to allow police to monitor people's internet connections without a warrant.

People being kicked out of public political events in the US and Canada because they asked the wrong questions or had their pictures taken with the wrong people.

People being charged with assault for defending themselves as well as people breaking into houses, slipping and hurting themselves, and then suing the home owner and winning.

The whole Wikileaks thing.

The Canadian government proroguing parliament to avoid a non confidence motion and stay in power.

People coming back from vacation to find squatters have broken into their homes and changed the locks and the police refusing to do anything about it in the UK.

Children getting suspended from school for defending themselves from bullies and other things that aren't considered a crime.

Police abusing their power and violating people's rights.

The Canadian government allowing large companies to pollute the environment to the extent that it causes health problems for the local aboriginal population.

 

I could go on.

 

But each of these cases is more proof that free speech is threatened than the single incident we're discussing. Of all the arrests that take place, I honestly think this one was justified - and I'm very alert when it comes to misuse of police power.

[Jonnas]

The police should arrest the people that commit the first violent act in that case. You don't have a right not to be offended, however you do have a right to safety of person.

 

What I'm trying to say is that the provokers should not be free from responsibility. If a fight erupts due do their distasteful insults, they had a part in it starting.

 

The police arrested (and I reiterate, I think it was too much) those 3 people because violent confrontations could erupt from it, because yes, they are part of the problem.

 

The police's job is to maintain peace, and it is more effective to prevent violence than it is to fix it once it started. Punishing those who misbehave is an action intended to prevent future problems, not their goal or objective.

 

So, they removed the troublemakers from the scene, a far better option than asking others to endure the insults, and certainly a far better option than needing to stop a riot.

 

So because some people have less rights than we do we shouldn't hold on to the ones we do have? I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

 

What I'm saying is that this is an exaggeration. In Venezuela, a peaceful protest (without exaggerated measures such as a mock execution) against Chávez's government would be met with tear gas and everyone involved being arrested and interrogated. And yes, it could easily happen before it actually started.

 

In the UK, a protest against a Royal Marriage involves distasteful imagery for no good reason and 3 people are arrested. Somehow, this means the government is trying to take away free speech, according to Mad Monkey.

 

I'm just saying, gain some perspective.

 

My main issue with all this is that people believe this to be "proof" that we're losing our right to free speech, which is, quite frankly, close to sounding like a conspiracy theory if you ask me.

 

This also sums up my feelings.

 

Well, like you said, the protestors likely knew what they were getting into, and anyone who might attack them would as well.

 

In the heat of the moment, nobody knows what they're getting themselves into. And whether they care or not is irrelevant, the police still has a job to do.

 

Alone this would just be an isolated incident. Its all the other stuff that's going on in addition to this that's worrying.

 

Just looking at the Anglosphere we have:

 

Police Brutality, a key example being people who weren't even protesting getting arrested at the G8/20 summits in both the UK and Canada (and in the case of Canada, being denied their legal rights after being arrested).

Internet Censorship laws in Australia.

The Patriot Act in the United States as well as Guantanamo Bay.

Government agencies making major policies without consulting the legislative branches, a key example being the CRTC (Canada) forcing ISPs to use a usage based billing system so that the big companies could implement it without having to worry about competition.

Proposed legislation in Canada to allow police to monitor people's internet connections without a warrant.

People being kicked out of public political events in the US and Canada because they asked the wrong questions or had their pictures taken with the wrong people.

People being charged with assault for defending themselves as well as people breaking into houses, slipping and hurting themselves, and then suing the home owner and winning.

The whole Wikileaks thing.

The Canadian government proroguing parliament to avoid a non confidence motion and stay in power.

People coming back from vacation to find squatters have broken into their homes and changed the locks and the police refusing to do anything about it in the UK.

Children getting suspended from school for defending themselves from bullies and other things that aren't considered a crime.

Police abusing their power and violating people's rights.

The Canadian government allowing large companies to pollute the environment to the extent that it causes health problems for the local aboriginal population.

 

I could go on.

 

See, this is irrelevant to this particular incident. Yes, those actually are good points, and not exaggerated.

But this single "anti-royalty protesters" incident? Tempest in a glass of water.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Jonnas
Automerged Doublepost

[chairdriver]

@chair; Extreme action like you mentioned wouldn't necessarily do anything to change things.

 

Not necessarily, but far more likely than political discourse.

 

There's no such thing as a bloodless revolution.

 

 

 

---

 

 

Ultimately, this all comes down to community. When I'm around James, who ran away from home at 14 and was coerced into prostitution [the only reason he's now a PhD student at Oxford is because he's the most intelligent person I've ever experienced], I feel like everything I've known in life previously is a lie. Like... a massive, obvious lie. He quotes a line of Marx, and everything is, for the first time, in it's right place.

 

I went to the Free School with him, which is this scheme in London, where anarchists have taken over this building, and basically everyday, people come and give lectures, impart knowledge, on random things -- things you want to know about in life. 17th century theatre. The concept is that education is totally free, both in monetary terms, and that you should learn what you want to learn, without quotas, or exams. When you're there, it's amazing, because there's this atmosphere that you've never experienced. And you wonder why all schools aren't like that.

 

But then, I hang with my friend Natasha who is so upper class that her mother lives in Singapore, and you meet her friends and it kinda feels like "Ok, everything makes sense. Fellate some people while you're at uni, then sponge off them later on in life, and make lots of money." (apart from a few, who are genuinely so insidiously right-wing that its genuinely engrained into their character, and I can't communicate with them without wanting to kill). It's a totally different vibe. I can feel myself fitting in. It makes sense.

 

But then, a day later, when I hang out with Ruari, who takes everything in his stride, in a laid-back but aware way, I think "Both hypercapitalism and anarchism are wrong."

 

Community dictates your views.

 

 

And to assume the country/UK/world is one homogenous mass of community is wrong. My natural instinct is to get rid of countries. Or make countries less important than they are. Make arbitrary borders and regions less important, and make collections of community or maybe mixtures of community more important. Not sure where I'm going with this, other than WE NEED TO DISSECT EVERYTHING WE KNOW, THEN BUILD IT UP AGAIN ON WHAT WE KNOW IS TRUE.

 

Or just do shit in life. Shake things up. Make it interesting. Why is it OK to kill people in Afghanistan, but to kill people in Westminster would be the worst crime?

[Emasher]

What I'm trying to say is that the provokers should not be free from responsibility. If a fight erupts due do their distasteful insults, they had a part in it starting.

 

The police arrested (and I reiterate, I think it was too much) those 3 people because violent confrontations could erupt from it, because yes, they are part of the problem.

 

The police's job is to maintain peace, and it is more effective to prevent violence than it is to fix it once it started. Punishing those who misbehave is an action intended to prevent future problems, not their goal or objective.

 

So, they removed the troublemakers from the scene, a far better option than asking others to endure the insults, and certainly a far better option than needing to stop a riot.

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that this is an exaggeration. In Venezuela, a peaceful protest (without exaggerated measures such as a mock execution) against Chávez's government would be met with tear gas and everyone involved being arrested and interrogated. And yes, it could easily happen before it actually started.

 

In the UK, a protest against a Royal Marriage involves distasteful imagery for no good reason and 3 people are arrested. Somehow, this means the government is trying to take away free speech, according to Mad Monkey.

 

I'm just saying, gain some perspective.

 

 

 

This also sums up my feelings.

 

 

 

In the heat of the moment, nobody knows what they're getting themselves into. And whether they care or not is irrelevant, the police still has a job to do.

 

 

 

See, this is irrelevant to this particular incident. Yes, those actually are good points, and not exaggerated.

But this single "anti-royalty protesters" incident? Tempest in a glass of water.

 

Again, insulting someone isn't a crime. The ones responsible for any fight that broke out would be the ones who started the actual fight. Unlike some events these people appear to have legitimate concerns and didn't appear to want to start a fight, just protest in their way.

 

The points were in response to another comment, I wasn't trying to prove anything about this with them.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Again, insulting someone isn't a crime. The ones responsible for any fight that broke out would be the ones who started the actual fight. Unlike some events these people appear to have legitimate concerns and didn't appear to want to start a fight, just protest in their way.

 

Right, this discussion has effectively entered a circle. We're simply reiterating the same arguments and counterarguments by now.

 

You're arguing that the ones who started the fight are the ones resposible, and we're arguing that preventive measures should be taken before that happens.

 

Unless this debate can move on from this, I think we should just stop now. I'm tired of repeating myself.

[ReZourceman]

I think we need to keep an eye on Chairdriver.

[Iun]

It doesn't matter what they are protesting against, or the occasion, the fact is they are being arrested for something they haven't actually done yet, and something that is not actually against the law.

 

 

 

Yes, I remember that one time I was arrested for planning to murder my wife!

 

What BS is that, huh? I hadn't even done anything yet, only started lacing the rims of her cups and toothbrush with arsenic.

 

 

...

 

...

 

 

You. Enormous. Twat.

 

 

Any of you whinging little lefties who thinks England sucks should come to China: you can get arrested for doing fuck-all and spend the rest of your life in prison for even thinking about constitutional change. You have got it made and all you can whinge about how hard it is for you.

 

Free speech? Arrogant snivellers. Free speech is not the right to harass, insult, abuse or threaten others. And certainly not an excuse to ruin somebody's wedding day.

 

If you've honestly got nothing better to do than insult people on what is supposed to be the happiest day of their lives then go find some stones, tie yourself up in a burlap sack and hop off the end of Brighton pier.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Iun

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Yes, I remember that one time I was arrested for planning to murder my wife!

 

What BS is that, huh? I hadn't even done anything yet, only started lacing the rims of her cups and toothbrush with arsenic.

 

 

...

 

...

 

 

You. Enormous. Twat.

 

 

Any of you whinging little lefties who thinks England sucks should come to China: you can get arrested for doing fuck-all and spend the rest of your life in prison for even thinking about constitutional change. You have got it made and all you can whinge about how hard it is for you.

 

Free speech? Arrogant snivellers. Free speech is not the right to harass, insult, abuse or threaten others. And certainly not an excuse to ruin somebody's wedding day.

 

If you've honestly got nothing better to do than insult people on what is supposed to be the happiest day of their lives then go find some stones, tie yourself up in a burlap sack and hop off the end of Brighton pier.

 

We may not see eye to eye on everything, dear nemesis, but I had to mentally applaud you for this post.

[The fish]

Any of you whinging little lefties who thinks England sucks should come to China: you can get arrested for doing fuck-all and spend the rest of your life in prison for even thinking about constitutional change. You have got it made and all you can whinge about how hard it is for you.

 

Free speech? Arrogant snivellers. Free speech is not the right to harass, insult, abuse or threaten others. And certainly not an excuse to ruin somebody's wedding day.

 

If you've honestly got nothing better to do than insult people on what is supposed to be the happiest day of their lives then go find some stones, tie yourself up in a burlap sack and hop off the end of Brighton pier.

 

Several things:

 

The "there are bigger problems, so don't worry about yours" argument (otherwise known as "you don't know how good you've got it" argument) is an argument made out of 100% premium-grade stupid. I'm insulted that you've even said that.

 

Leading nicely onto the second paragraph, then, well, yes and no. Anything could be taken as an insult, even true things (we're wondering dangerously close to the evil that is the UK's fucked libel laws here), and you have the right to, in an instance, insult someone, though it helps if you can justify why. You can't, however, harass or threaten others. In this particular scenario, I don't think anyone really believes they were seriously attempting to harass or threaten anyone. Being distasteful, definitely, but not threatening.

 

As for your third paragraph, I couldn't agree more. Especially those bloody "anti-capitalists": I'd happily invest in a few burlap sacks. And then invest in a burlap sack making company, just to piss them off a bit.

[Iun]

Several things:

 

The "there are bigger problems, so don't worry about yours" argument (otherwise known as "you don't know how good you've got it" argument) is an argument made out of 100% premium-grade stupid. I'm insulted that you've even said that.

 

Sorry to insult you - my right to free speech, no? The argument is valid. If the only thing you can find to moan about is the privileges held by a few that really don't affect your life, then you need to go home on your folding bicycle, make yourself a cup of Fairtrade coffee and take a damn hard look in your recycled glass mirror and try and work out WHERE THE FUCK YOU WENT WRONG.

 

 

Leading nicely onto the second paragraph, then, well, yes and no. Anything could be taken as an insult, even true things (we're wondering dangerously close to the evil that is the UK's fucked libel laws here), and you have the right to, in an instance, insult someone, though it helps if you can justify why. You can't, however, harass or threaten others. In this particular scenario, I don't think anyone really believes they were seriously attempting to harass or threaten anyone. Being distasteful, definitely, but not threatening.

 

What do they gain by being so distasteful? "Oh look at us an our 'anti-establishment' leanings! We're so progressive! Let's burn some effigies!" Eat a dick, the lot of you.

 

If these are *COUGH* "intellectuals" (I think I saw "Professor of Anthropology" mentioned somewhere) then really they should be acting in a more responsible and respectful manner. That is unless their funding has been cut and they need the publicity.

 

"Let's be utter cocksuckers on one of the most important days in recent British civil society history! That'll certainly show the monarchists!"

[The fish]

Sorry to insult you - my right to free speech, no? The argument is valid. If the only thing you can find to moan about is the privileges held by a few that really don't affect your life, then you need to go home on your folding bicycle, make yourself a cup of Fairtrade coffee and take a damn hard look in your recycled glass mirror and try and work out WHERE THE FUCK YOU WENT WRONG.

 

 

You put it better than I could. Iun, if the only thing you can find to moan about is the privileges held by a few that really don't affect your life, then you need to go home on your folding bicycle, make yourself a cup of Fairtrade coffee and take a damn hard look in your recycled glass mirror and try and work out WHERE THE FUCK YOU WENT WRONG. Why do you care that they are staging a protest? It's for a stupid reason and done in a stupid manner, but, at the end of the day, no one gets hurt. Why does it matter to you?

 

 

What do they gain by being so distasteful? "Oh look at us an our 'anti-establishment' leanings! We're so progressive! Let's burn some effigies!" Eat a dick, the lot of you.

 

 

They gain publicity, I'm guessing. Hell, we're talking about it, though I guess not in the way they wanted. So what if they're morons? I don't see what you have against them having the right to be morons, as long as no one gets hurt and they're not (actually) calling for people's deaths or the like.

 

 

If these are *COUGH* "intellectuals" (I think I saw "Professor of Anthropology" mentioned somewhere) then really they should be acting in a more responsible and respectful manner. That is unless their funding has been cut and they need the publicity.

 

 

No one really cares about "nice and boring, placard waving" protests any more. Indeed, a professor of anthropology, of all people, would probably know that what they were planning to do (and, indeed, what in the end happened) would be a more effective method of spreading their message.

[chairdriver]

And plus, most professors of philosophy/anthropology have read the relevant literature such that they know that the only thing that does anything is direct action.

[Iun]

And plus, most professors of philosophy/anthropology have read the relevant literature such that they know that the only thing that does anything is direct action.

 

WELL THANK THE BLOODY LORD! This is the day they've all been waiting for! All those years of sitting around doing fuck-all have finally paid off! Their time has come! They're at home donning their tweed jackets as we type with a steely look in their eye and a newfound sense of purpose.

 

"Avanti!" They cry. "There's a Royal Wedding afoot! It's time for some direct action, and the world will be looking to us, the Basketweaving teachers for leadership! Onward, I say!"

 

Why do you care that they are staging a protest? It's for a stupid reason and done in a stupid manner, but, at the end of the day, no one gets hurt. Why does it matter to you?

 

Why does it matter to them? Their lives wouldn't be significantly improved by the burning of the civil list, they're clearly doing it to maintain some semblance of usefulness.