The Prevention of Terrorism Bill has finally passed, after the government compromised by allowing the bill to be reviewed in a year's time. But they have not compromised on the substantive amendments to the bill regarding judicial oversight and the burden of proof - meaning that the UK is now the only western democracy which allows its citizens to be imprisoned in their own home on "reasonable suspicion" solely on the word of a government Minister. It's a stunning victory for Al Qaeda, and one that did not require a single terrorist act on British soil. Instead, all it needed was for politicians to sacrifice the very thing they are supposed to be defending in favour of a sordid bidding war about who can be "toughest" on terrorism.
The bill has yet to receive the Royal Assent, but it will - and this should thoroughly disabuse local Monarchists of the notion that the Queen is somehow "the defender of democracy". No bill has been rejected since 1707, because to do so would spell the end of the British monarchy. As a result, any power the monarch might have to defend democracy and human rights is effectively neutered. So why keep the fiction?
I guess the democratic process has spoken. People seem to want their perceived security over their freedom.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, they want their perceived security over the freedom of others. Because there's no question who the target of this law is: British Muslims. And I think its going to have the same effect on them as internment did on the Irish, by squeezing out moderates and driving their kids into the arms of extremists. Which will, of course, be used as a reason to show that such oppression is fully justified...
ReplyDeleteDemocracy just _loves_ a self fulfilling prophecy though doesn't it. Besides, it doesn't matter, the battle lines have been drawn and now we are just waiting to see who wins. Secular democracy is going to become more and more totalitarian because it can't co-exit peacefully with an active faith.
ReplyDeleteI think that the golden age of the "West" is about to fall, not very far at the moment, but the momentum is slowly gathering.
Oh and they may assume that the new Bill will only affect the freedom of "others", but it doesn't. It affects the freedom of all since today the threat may be seen to be Muslims, but tomorrow, well who knows?
ReplyDeletemuerk, the fall of western civilization has very litle to do with the reduction in civil rights if anything it is partly a result of civil rights. (if you want i can expand on that)
ReplyDeleteNoe I am not arguing for us to remove civil rights I am just saying we should not be nieve, or engage in self deception. Few like to admit it but a perfectly free society is OBVIOUSLY not the most economically efficient and military influential way to run a country.
Civilizations fall when they run out of power (or money) and it is the countries with few civil rights that are accumulating power (eg china) and those with many (eg the EU) that are loosing it.
Also the Chinese have quite a high level of security they have low murder rates and terrorism rates and NOONE is threatening them except the muslims that they opress in the south (and even then not much) even the tibetans that they oppress in the west dont threaten them.
"the fall of western civilization has very litle to do with the reduction in civil rights"
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is.
Muerk: I don't think the problem is so much with an active faith as people who are going around kiling one another because of it. But the threat of that happening in the UK has been vastly inflated for political purposes, by a government desperate to portray itself as "tough" (and its opposition as "soft") on terrorism.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course this affects the freedom of all; the freedom of any depends on the freedom of all. But the British government has been very careful to pick out its target - Muslims - and demonise them. Despite this, there were still a hell of a lot of people cheering for the Lords...
Idiot: "I don't think the problem is so much with an active faith as people who are going around kiling one another because of it."
ReplyDeleteI believe that secular democracy can't happily co-exist with any traditional active faith. As you said in another comment, human/civil rights should be enforced. The issue is, what counts as a "right" and how rigidly (and brutaly) is it enforced?
In the end the secular will not accept the religious, you display this yourself with your denotation of "bigot" as anyone who believes in marriage only between different genders - a status quo position beyond human history.
When secular democracy alienates and is derogative towards the wellspring of its own existance, then it is deconstructing its own foundation and will eventually topple.
I dislike the Bush administration, but it got one 'pulse point' correct, that those with a traditional religious faith _feel_ disenfranchised.
Not only do I live in a country that disagrees with my Catholic identity, I live in a country that regards my beliefs as hurtful and damaging. My state regards as acceptable and positive things that I believe are disordered and evil, such as abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, and eventually euthanasia.
My fear is that a secular democracy won't allow me open expression of my faith because it would regard it as hateful, and indeed perhaps even seditious ;)
Indeed the state wishes greater and greater enforcement of its human/civil rights. Eventually, to be dramatic, we'll be back in the catacombs - at least politically.
"Not only do I live in a country that disagrees with my Catholic identity, I live in a country that regards my beliefs as hurtful and damaging. My state regards as acceptable and positive things that I believe are disordered and evil, such as abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, and eventually euthanasia."
ReplyDeleteThe state regards the above list (with the exception of euthanasia) as permissable, the law says nothing about morality. You are perfectly entitled to refuse to participate in any of the above.
"My fear is that a secular democracy won't allow me open expression of my faith because it would regard it as hateful, and indeed perhaps even seditious ;) "
You are perfectly entitled to express your beliefs. You run the risk that Mr Savant will call you a "bigot", but that's simply him passing his own moral judgement on your beliefs.
Catnip: "You are perfectly entitled to refuse to participate in any of the above."
ReplyDeleteObviously. But that is meaningless to me, since I am also perfectly entitled to refuse to participate in murdering the local librarians, or stealing from the corner dairy, or assaulting our postman or snorting cocaine.
Thankfully, the state regards these actions as unacceptable and has outlawed them. (And if you don't call that a morality then I'd like to see how you do define it.)
As for Idiot calling me a bigot, that I can handle just fine. It's when the state legislates that I'm a bigot that I get concerned.
Muerk: What liberal democracy will not tolerate is people who insist that everybody else should live exactly like them. You are not forbidden from expressing your faith, but from imposing it. If this makes you feel "disenfranchised", I'm sorry, but you'll just have to get used to it - just as Catholics and Protestants had to get used to tolerating one another after the Reformation.
ReplyDelete"You are not forbidden from expressing your faith, but from imposing it."
ReplyDeleteThe concern is that eventually expression would forbidden, that the secular humanist ideology would become imposed.
At the moment, churches are exempt from parts of the Human Rights Act that would affect how religious organisations govern themselves. But I believe that eventually that will be challenged.
Muerk: "Obviously. But that is meaningless to me, since I am also perfectly entitled to refuse to participate in murdering the local librarians, or stealing from the corner dairy, or assaulting our postman or snorting cocaine."
ReplyDeleteThe reason that theft and murder are illegal is because these crimes involve inflicting harm on third parties who are unwilling participants.
I don't see how the fact that (for example) contraception is available to those who want it does any harm to those who do not.
I included snorting cocaine specifically because it involves self-harm, and we do legislate for that.
ReplyDeleteBut really, the issue is whether eventually, my beliefs will be regarded as so harmful that they will be publically silenced under the auspices of protecting human rights.