?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Sigh - B. Henderson Asher's Moments of Mirth [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Listen in, listen Ian!

[ website | Flickr ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Sigh [Mar. 14th, 2009|11:05 am]
Listen in, listen Ian!
Idiocy begetting idiocy.
linkReply

Comments:
From: funnynamehere
2009-03-14 11:29 am (UTC)
What is with people called David Davis or slight variations thereof? This guy, the former Shadow Home Secretary, the one who used to work at the FA, the..er..well, they're all arses anyway.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: barrysarll
2009-03-14 02:20 pm (UTC)
He's not talking about banning all anti-war protests, just ones like this which trade in hate speech and are part of a general extremist agenda.
(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: ruudboy
2009-03-14 03:29 pm (UTC)
I think you're mixing up David Davies with David Davis.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: amuchmoreexotic
2009-03-14 03:35 pm (UTC)
Which one was on Midlands Today again?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pookalso
2009-03-14 03:33 pm (UTC)
As defined how though?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: amuchmoreexotic
2009-03-14 03:35 pm (UTC)
But like all these laws regulating what people can say or write, it'll end up being applied as widely as possible and abused. There's always a few nuts on any anti-war protest, and if this was passed, anyone standing near them could be arrested on suspicion of "hate speech".

Also, I'm sure MI6 would rather the fundies remain free to gather openly and shout out their opinions so they know who to keep an eye on.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: barrysarll
2009-03-14 05:50 pm (UTC)
If this leads to anti-war marches being a bit more rigorous about weeding out some of the loathsome elements who always turn up and try to hijack proceedings, then as far as I'm concerned that's another bonus.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: amuchmoreexotic
2009-03-14 05:52 pm (UTC)
Sure, but what if it leads to the effective criminalization of anti-war marches at police discretion?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: barrysarll
2009-03-14 06:05 pm (UTC)
Do you remember that Charlie Brooker article where he was saying that it would almost be worth living in a fascist dystopia where we all have chips in our brains, just because of how much it would piss off all the tiresome conspiracy nuts? I increasingly concur.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: amuchmoreexotic
2009-03-14 06:24 pm (UTC)
Climate change protesters got charged under anti-terrorism laws, though, and in reality, not some paranoid lefty Naomi Wolf disaster scenario. And the proposed anti-dissing-our-troops legislation would be derived from taking the religious hatred laws, crossing out "fundies" and substituting "soldiers". I don't think making it illegal to *say something*, anything, is ever a good idea.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ruudboy
2009-03-14 08:17 pm (UTC)
I agree. In principle, of course, and in practice too - has such a law ever had a useful effect?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: barrysarll
2009-03-15 10:43 am (UTC)
Generally I agree, but when people are giving comfort and support to the enemy in time of war, there has generally been an exception made. Of course, ideally they'd just get the treason laws out of mothballs for the purpose, but throughout proceedings the government has been lamentably reluctant to use those, even in cases liek Abu Hamza and Anjem Choudary where it is richly deserved.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: amuchmoreexotic
2009-03-15 10:49 am (UTC)
I don't think 20 twats with signs in Luton is going to make much difference to the Taliban's morale one way or the other. They already seem pretty motivated.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: barrysarll
2009-03-15 11:13 am (UTC)
I was thinking more in terms of showing them that, while we may be the sort of decadents who don't believe in stoning rape victims to death, we do still have balls enough to execute their cheerleaders.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: amuchmoreexotic
2009-03-15 11:27 am (UTC)
I think it would be a better strategy to spend the money on proper equipment for killing actual Talibans in their natural habitat.

Also, I have a beard and a camera, so I'm not keen on more dubious "anti-terrorist" laws, let alone ones with capital punishment attached. Torturing captives from Afghanistan hasn't put off the Taliban, so I don't think putting random protestors to death would bother them either.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)