Civil liberties

France has extended the state of emergency for three months, among other things this will let them shut down websites, detain people in their own homes without trial, ban marches.

There has been remarkable little outcry about this from civil liberties groups why is that?

I know there are a few threads about the Paris shooting but this one is specificity about the state of emergency/civil liberties aspect.

To me this proves that civilisation/the enlightenment has very shallow roots and that we could easily revert.

smash

mariaalice wrote: »

There has been remarkable little outcry about this from civil liberties groups why is that?

Maybe because there's a serious threat and national security is important?

Tabnabs

There has been quite a strong reaction from CL groups, but you won't find the mainstream media picking up on it. Twitter is a good place to start.

smash

smash wrote: »

Maybe because there's a serious threat and national security is important?

That would mean the idea of civil liberties is not absolute, is contextual and that the meaning of civil liberties changes depending on the circumstance.

GreatDefector

Tabnabs wrote: »

There has been quite a strong reaction from CL groups, but you won't find the mainstream media picking up on it. Twitter is a good place to start.

Thought the champions league was on tomorrow?

sonny.knowles

mariaalice wrote: »

France has extended the state of emergency for three months, among other things this will let them shut down websites, detain people in their own homes without trial, ban marches.

There has been remarkable little outcry about this from civil liberties groups why is that?

I know there are a few threads about the Paris shouting but this one is specificity about the state of emergency/civil liberties aspect.

To me this proves that civilisation/the enlightenment has very shallow roots and that we could easily revert.

Paris shouting? I thing it was a bit more than shouting.

nullzero

mariaalice wrote: »

That would mean the idea of civil liberties is not absolute, is contextual and that the meaning of civil liberties changes depending on the circumstance.

Of course they do. The measures in place in France are there to protect people from an unforeseen terrorist event perpetrated by people living amongst the French people in the very city the attacks occurred. I don't like the idea of a police state anymore than the next person but currently it's hard to see what alternatives France has.

the evasion_kid

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” - hitler

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

Of course they do. The measures in place in France are there to protect people from an unforeseen terrorist event perpetrated by people living amongst the French people in the very city the attacks occurred. I don't like the idea of a police state anymore than the next person but currently it's hard to see what alternatives France has.

I agree with what the French government has done but would be uneasy with it at the same time.

nullzero

mariaalice wrote: »

I agree with what the French government has done but would be uneasy with it at the same time.

Being uneasy with it is fine, I can't see it continuing should the ISIS situation be resolved. It's better to be uneasy in that situation than allowing more attacks.

Paramite Pie

As I see it, our various rights form a hierarchy of rights -- arguably similar to the 'Hierarchy of Needs' seen in psychology.

Physiological needs such as breathing, food, warmth and sleep form then base of the pyramid, safety is secondary -- your body, job security, your overall health etc... but in desperate scenarios you'll risk those for your basic survival.

There's 5 levels all together. (Physiological, Safety, Belonging, Esteem, Self-Actualisation)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg/2000px-Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg.png

Take away a lower level and our more advanced needs and beliefs (creativity & morality) become less immediate or even important.

Our Human Rights could be considered to be at the base of a rights "pyramid" and the foundation for our perspective on rights. Civil Liberties are further up and are extremely important but sometimes my Civil Rights may risk or impede someone's inherent human rights (eg. hate speech calling for violence against another group).

If there's a serious terror threat then the safety of a large number of people may be more important than my right to free-assembly -- it's the ultimate narcissism to complain that my individual rights granted by my nation are worth more than the safety of all citizens in that nation.

Lux23

I'm not sure this would really impact on you unless you have something to hide. Although I suppose internment of innocent people is a possibility with measures such as these. Is due process cancelled?

Tabnabs

Lux23 wrote: »

I'm not sure this would really impact on you unless you have something to hide. Although I suppose internment of innocent people is a possibility with measures such as these. Is due process cancelled?

Even if you have nothing to hide, you have rights and liberties. It's why we put locks on toilet doors...

Lollipops23

The French authorities know the people simply won't take it if they start taking the piss with people's civil liberties. The French people love to protest; it's like their national pastime.

The second they start feeling like it's no longer in their best interests, there'll be hell to pay.

I'd trust the French government waaaay before I'd trust my own.

KomradeBishop

The problem is not when states of emergency are used legitimately in actual emergencies, but when perpetual 'emergencies' are used to justify a permanent state of emergency - what was once a temporary encroachment on civil liberties, then becomes permanent, and is slowly accepted by the public as the new normal.

Given that Europe is pretty much right beside all of the destabilized ME regions, it's definitely plausible that the threat of terrorist attacks could become massively hyped up - ala the US scaremongering over terrorists - and used to justify a permanent rollback of civil liberties, and in addition to that, permanent war (which the US is already engaged in - it's war against the ME and 'terrorists' is now permanently in-place, it will never end).


There is a definite trend in Europe, where the news media and governments are trying to seriously hype-up the terrorist threat - i.e. they are trying to take us down US-style rollback of civil liberties, and towards war - and whether or not they get away with it, largely depends on whether the European public is as stupid and gullible/pliable, as the US public is.

I don't think the EU public is that gullible now, but after a decade or more of terrorist scaremongering and civil liberties rollbacks, I could see it being quite plausible.

DarkyHughes

Was there a state of emergency in this state after the Dublin & Monaghan bombings?

DarkyHughes

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Was there a state of emergency in this state after the Dublin & Monaghan bombings?

There was one in place since before WWII which established the Special Criminal Court which has no jury and has been the subject of much criticism. That state of emergency was replaced by the Emergency Powers Act in 1976, which was referred to the Supreme Court by President O'Dalaigh and before it was enacted a Garda was killed by the IRA. This all led to the famous outburst by Minister Paddy Donegan, the stand off and the resignation of the President.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mariaalice wrote: »

That would mean the idea of civil liberties is not absolute, is contextual and that the meaning of civil liberties changes depending on the circumstance.

You can't seriously think that anybody can do anything they wish, under the umbrella of civil liberty.

There are people out there who want to destroy the society most of us enjoy. Do you want to allow then free rein?

Of course liberties have to change with circumstances. To think otherwise is deluded.

darkpagandeath

Are we sure it was the French Government... and not

The Illuminati ?
Rothschild ?
One world Government ?

Saucer people in conjunction with the reverse vampires ?

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/9189283.jpg

RobertKK

Countries need to do what is needed to keep the peace.

In some countries in recent times, they need dictators, because removing them has been shown to be worse for the people in most cases - exclude Tunisia.

Arsemageddon

While I understand the need for the state of emergency in France and appreciate that it will be temporary I have to say I'm a bit dubious about whether the whole lockdown thing in Brussels is due to genuine threat or if there is some other agenda behind it.

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

While I understand the need for the state of emergency in France and appreciate that it will be temporary I have to say I'm a bit dubious about the whole lockdown thing in Brussels is due to genuine threat or if there is some other agenda behind it.

Like what exactly ?

end of the road

smash wrote: »

Maybe because there's a serious threat and national security is important?

well, not at the expence of civil liberties its not. civil liberties trump any security as far as i'm concerned, and i would never give up any of mine for any supposed protection from the government.

nullzero wrote: »

Of course they do. The measures in place in France are there to protect people from an unforeseen terrorist event perpetrated by people living amongst the French people in the very city the attacks occurred. I don't like the idea of a police state anymore than the next person but currently it's hard to see what alternatives France has.

plenty of alternatives to removing peoples civil liberties. removals of freedoms rights and civil liberties are never worth any protection from the government.

Lux23 wrote: »

I'm not sure this would really impact on you unless you have something to hide.

plenty of ways. for example, plenty of people up in the north of this island had nothing to hide, they were still tortured and or held without trial.

darkpagandeath

end of the road wrote: »

well, not at the expence of civil liberties its not. civil liberties trump any security as far as i'm concerned, and i would never give up any of mine for any supposed protection from the government.



....

Who decides what they are ?

I think we have to be very careful about the suspension of basic liberties.

When Britain faced a wave of pub bombings, the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and Maguire Seven were all victims of the suspension of certain rights, interrogated for extended times without break etc.

Arsemageddon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Like what exactly ?

Belgian government need to be seen to be doing something after a collosal security fvck up...

Dubious tip off by the French so that MEPs or national delegates attached to NATO HQ get the point about the threat from ISIS (the French did activate the common defence clause in the Lisbon Treaty...

I might well be wrong, but it just strikes me as way over the top.

darkpagandeath

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Belgian government need to be seen to be doing something after a collosal security fvck up...

Dubious tip off by the French so that MEPs or national delegates attached to NATO HQ get the point about the threat from ISIS (the French did activate the common defence clause in the Lisbon Treaty...

I might well be wrong, but it just strikes me as way over the top.

To me it's they did not have enough evidence or lack of political will to go after those groups until now otherwise they may have looked Racist.

KomradeBishop

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Like what exactly ?

Getting the heart of the EU used to disproportionate responses to terrorist scares, and used to making civil-liberties-eroding policies based on terrorist scares?

Peregrine

Off topic posts deleted.

K-9

Its a question of finding the right balance between state security, which with terrorism is your safety, and individual rights. Trying to stop terrorist attacks benefits the individual too even if it seems more abstract and harder to quantify than a list of human rights stated by the UN or the EU or whatever.

The problem with this is there's no easily identifiable target and anywhere in Europe could conceivably be attacked, the target is vague so how do you fight it? Even with the tightest security possible the chances are a successful attack will happen eventually anyway, so does the emergency become the norm?

That's without dealing with the practicalities of actually providing police, army and security services with the resources to cope with an emergency.

Have to say France invoking the EU defence clause and Ireland providing support isn't really what I envisaged it would be used for.

dubscottie

Having moved from the UK and living in Ireland for 15 years, I have seen the UK turn into a police state in the name of "security".

Crap I though was normal, I now see as "state control".

You just need to look at any "cop" show on the BBC or Sky. Fart and you are lifted.

Even look at the many Youtube vids of people being arrested for taking snaps in London under some terrorism act.

A friend of mine likes trains. Was interrogated for taking a pic of a train in a new colour scheme by the police.

It will end up that we will all have to have papers and will get "your papers please"

hatrickpatrick

the evasion_kid wrote: »

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” - hitler

The US government has been doing a fine job of implementing this strategy since even before 9/11. The state of human rights and civil liberties in the West today is the second most terrifying development of our recent history. The public and media's apathy towards this, is the most terrifying development.

hatrickpatrick

dubscottie wrote: »

Having moved from the UK and living in Ireland for 15 years, I have seen the UK turn into a police state in the name of "security".

Crap I though was normal, I now see as "state control".

You just need to look at any "cop" show on the BBC or Sky. Fart and you are lifted.

Even look at the many Youtube vids of people being arrested for taking snaps in London under some terrorism act.

A friend of mine likes trains. Was interrogated for taking a pic of a train in a new colour scheme by the police.

It will end up that we will all have to have papers and will get "your papers please"

UK is f*cked. Freedom of speech and freedom of information were abandoned years ago. When a government minister actually uses the phrase "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" in a non-ironic context as a rebuttal to disclosures of secret mass surveillance, you know that civil rights are officially dead. :mad:

dubscottie

A former East German I know joked it was easier to walk round the DDR than the UK as you knew who was watching you.

In the UK you dont. Highest number of CCTV cameras per head of population in the world.

KomradeBishop

I came across the term Zersetsung recently, which is a fascinating/terrifying article on how the DDR/Stasi utilised spying to directly target political activists/opponents, in order to destroy their mental-health/personality/lives, through an extremely fúcked up and professionalized form of 'gaslighting'.

When you read about the type of mass surveillance under operation today, and read about some of the things the UK has done to target just very low-level political activists - ruining the lives of some in the process - when you see all of this, you realize that it's fairly plausible that we may see a lurch towards that kind of surveillance state in the near future, and that terrorists (even if they successfully end up murdering thousands) are far less of a threat to the general public, than those who would roll back our civil liberties, and enable all these sorts of state abuses.

dubscottie

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I came across the term Zersetsung recently, which is a fascinating/terrifying article on how the DDR/Stasi utilised spying to directly target political activists/opponents, in order to destroy their mental-health/personality/lives, through an extremely fúcked up and professionalized form of 'gaslighting'.

When you read about the type of mass surveillance under operation today, and read about some of the things the UK has done to target just very low-level political activists - ruining the lives of some in the process - when you see all of this, you realize that it's fairly plausible that we may see a lurch towards that kind of surveillance state in the near future, and that terrorists (even if they successfully end up murdering thousands) are far less of a threat to the general public, than those who would roll back our civil liberties, and enable all these sorts of state abuses.

What I am talking about in the UK is normal.. there is no subversive bit about it.,

Its common knowledge. But the population thinks its "normal".