Once upon a time I would have felt awkward about quoting Mark Thomas’s New Statesman column with approval, but we live in interesting times:
In Parliament Square recently, a banner reading “Parliament Square belongs to the people” was deemed a statement of fact and therefore not a protest. Barbara Tucker’s banner, on the other hand, which declared “I am not the serious organised criminal”, was deemed a protest and Tucker faces trial in February. Who knows, had she used the words “I am a flippant chaotic law-abider” the banner may have been legal. In August police arrested Mark Barrett for the crime of having a picnic in Parliament Square. Two weeks later five others were arrested in possession of cakes iced with the slogans such as “Peace ” and “Love” in pink sugary letters. When the state is arresting people with iced cakes, it really is time either to change the law or for ministers to start incorporating khaki uniforms into their daywear.
[If I had a picture of the ever-changing parliamentary fortifications, I would insert it here. But I don’t. And, as Brian found at the dca not so long ago, it would probably be illegal.]
I never thought I’d see the day when Mark Thomas was quoted on Samizdata. I’ve been to see him twice and I laughed my ass off. Funny man, he “poked a few people in the eye” with his TV japes too. I can’t say I agree with everything I read on here nor many of the words of Mr Thomas. Strange how impingement on liberty can rally people in condemnation.
There are a number of lefty comedians I like as people and am amused by even as I’m disagreeing with them.
… though I’m not disagreeing in this case, obviously.
Dunno about khaki uniforms – perhaps brown shirts rather.
Am I correct in believing Mark Thomas isn’t a member of SWP/Respect crowd ? Its just they seem to keep each other in work at the BBC but he rarely seems to get on TV or radio. Its a pity as he is funny even if you don’t agree with him on many issues.
How funny!
My own laughter is of the VERY nervous variety. Small snippets such as this accompanied the advent of a comic Austrian with a small toothbrush moustache.
Ultimately, and untold millions of deaths later, it tiuned out not to have been very funny at all.
Yeeesssss, but…………………………
What was that comment in the post above about Brits being more free than Americans?
Compare and contrast:
‘Protesting’ in Parliament Square and the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament is outlawed, and single individuals carrying signs who are deemed to be ‘protesting’ are hauled off to Bow Street, fingerprinted, DNA-tested and (hopefully) bailed to appear before the magistrates to be convicted and sentenced.
Meanwhile, in Washington, DC, there is a contentious nomination to the US Supreme Court underway, and so many people have things to say about that. Last Monday, on the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the US, some 75,000 people met and marched down the National Mall, to the steps of the US Capitol and then to the Supreme Court. Signs, chanting, bullhorns, PA systems, and noisy and inflammatory addresses to the assembled crowds were the order of the day.
They got full cooperation from the DC police, who closed streets, set up barricades to protect the march and crowds, and provided escort vehicles, mounted officers and all the other trappings that go with a large public demonstration. I find no record of any arrests at all connected with this march.
It is this sort of contrast which springs to mind when Brits question my assertions that their civil liberties are being taken from them bit by bit, or when some Brit lectures me about how President Bush’s jackbooted stormtroopers are crushing all dissent.
llater,
llamas
Llamas, the question of our liberties being eroded is not up for debate as it is fact. Your example of “Pro life” protesters being left alone and “helped” by the local police is interesting.
“For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” -GW Bush givning a speech in 2003. It seems that your govt is on the side of the protestors you mention. It being in the govts interest to leave this “protest” alone. There’s always a reason if you look for it. A bad example in my opinion.
A look at the patriot act might change your mind about “freedom”. I always think about Jack Nicholson’s little speech In “Easy Rider” where he talks about freedom and the fact that if one tells people they aren’t free they get mighty upset and want to inflict their anger on whomever tells them this. Seems to be very true in my experience. The fact is that all our freedoms are being eroded and bickering about who is the most free is a waste of energy. IMHO.
gravid wrote:
‘It seems that your govt is on the side of the protestors you mention. It being in the govts interest to leave this “protest” alone. There’s always a reason if you look for it. A bad example in my opinion.’
What you say might be true – if it wasn’t for the fact that, when protestors who hold the opposite opinion go to the same places and protest in the same ways – they get treated just the same:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040425.wmarc0425/BNStory/Front/
I chose Monday’s protest because it was the most recent. It happens that I don’t agree with much of what Monday’s protestors stand for. But it’s an excellent example of how public demonstrations are handled in the US – regardless of the demonstrators’ point of view. Half-a-million (estimated) protestors pack Washington DC to express an opinion directly opposite to that of President Bush’s adminstration, and noone says a word to stop them. Your suggestion that the government only tolerates protestors that it agrees with doesn’t hold up.
As to the Patriot Act – perhaps you’d care to describe just what parts of it you consider to be ‘erosive’ of the freedom of the average citizen? And cite examples of that erosion in practice?
llater,
llamas
Seven states (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana and Vermont) and 389 cities and counties (including New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, Eugene, Oregon, Philadelphia, and Cambridge, Massachusetts) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties. Arcata, California was the first city to pass an ordinance that bars city employees (including police and librarians) from assisting or cooperating with any federal investigations under the Act that would violate civil liberties (Nullification). The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is helping coordinate local efforts to pass resolutions. Pundits question the validity of these ordinances, noting that under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, federal law overrides state and local laws. However, others have opined that the federal employees, in using such procedures for investigations, violate the Constitution’s clauses in the fourth amendment, and in these cases, the Constitution overrides the USA PATRIOT Act’s provisions.
Thanks to wikipedia for that quote.
Due proces of law being negated, slicing and dicing of the constitution. It makes a provision very much like the Prevention of terrorism act we have here in the UK. This law was used, my apologies, abused greatly and many innocent people were tortured, detained and imprisoned under it. I’m not saying it didn’t put a lot of “bad guys” out of action just that it was misused. In fact one aspect of it meant that no more than 3 people could congregate in public together. Imagine that, hardly ever enforced but there if “needed”.
This is the sort of thing I mean when speaking about the patriot act. As for “the average citizen” this law is not to fight terrorists it is to subdue the populace when needs be.
If it is so easy to protest then why do they segregate any anti Bush protestors into fenced off compounds away from where Bush actually is?
We are all being subjected to these loss of liberties.
gravid – no, I asked for specifics. Not a quote from Wikipedia (!) followed by a set of generic assertions about unspecified ‘slicing and dicing’ of the Constitution, followed by a further comparison with a law passed at another time, in a different country. Specifics, if you please.
As to protestors not being able to protest eg President Bush when he is actually present to hear their protests – I remind you that the Constitution protects the right to protest and demonstrate peaceably, and that right is sedulously upheld in the US, yea, even unto those irritating geeks who accost you in airports. But nowhere does the Constitution require the person being protested to make themselves available. And many places where protestors are segregated are [i]private[/i] (ie, non-governmental) functions, where the Constitution does not apply and organizers may make any arrangement they like to accommodate protestors – or no arrangement at all.
You’ll find, if you Google enough, plenty of examples of President Bush, and other Presidents, being exposed to direct and in-person public protests of their selves and their administrations. That doesn’t mean that they are required to attend the protests or pay them the slightest heed.
llater,
llamas
Llamas, before I start can I ask if you fully support the “patriot” act?
Sections 216 & 220 – one judge can give the order for wiretap-trap & trace not just in his/her jurisdiction but anywhere in the USA.
Section 213 – no notice of search.
Section 210 – use of subpoena rather than court order to obtain information.
Section 206 – roving wiretap.
Section 214 – no need to prove that target is agent of “foreign power” before gaining permission for wiretap/trap & Trace.
Section 215 grants the FBI the authority to request an order “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)” relevant to an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.( I cut and paste this -EPIC.org (c) )
I don’t “google” I search. Google is not a verb.
I can’t think why anyone with any libertarian values would agree with this sort of legislation.
I am off to sup some ale and ponder the overthrow of the state. I may have had some ale already !
This thread may have dropped off the radar, but I’m being asked a question so I’ll answer. gravid wrote:
‘Llamas, before I start can I ask if you fully support the “patriot” act?
Answer – I have reservations about some parts of the Patriot Act. However, none of them are those you list. Here’s why:
Sections 216 & 220 – one judge can give the order for wiretap-trap & trace not just in his/her jurisdiction but anywhere in the USA.
Answer – I have no problem with this – it’s essentially identical to present-day wiretap procedures..
Section 213 – no notice of search.
Answer – I have no problem with ex-parte search warrants. Besides, section 213 doesn’t say, what you say it says – it allows for delayed notice of service of a warrant (on a judge’s order, mind you), no ‘no notice of search’.
Section 210 – use of subpoena rather than court order to obtain information.
Answer – a sub-poena is an order of the court. I don’t understand what this means? Anyway, Section 210 does not say, what you say it does – it refers to the scope of subpoenas. Go ahead – Google it.
Section 206 – roving wiretap.
Answer – no problem with that, if a judge has authorized it.
Section 214 – no need to prove that target is agent of “foreign power” before gaining permission for wiretap/trap & Trace.
Answer – go read the section. All it does is change the wording of the current law so as to make the foreign intelligence the target, and remove the requirement that the person handling it be an agent of a foreign power. I have no problem with it.
Section 215 grants the FBI the authority to request an order “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)” relevant to an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities
Answer – the FBI can request a search warrant. I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is your inaccurate and uninformed questions. You obviously haven’t actually read the law, and certainly not the sections you cite – you just Googled for the answer you wanted, and cut-and-pasted from someone else who hasn’t read the law either.
Now, why don’t you actually go read the law, and compare what it actually says, with what you say it says, and then come back and see what you think about my answers?
llater,
llamas
Llamas, you take a very agressive and pedantic tone. The sections of the act I posted are sections that I see as probably being used to infringe the civil liberty of innocent individuals. Whether you have a “problem” with them is none of my concern. The question was which sections of the act I found to be erosive of an individuals liberty. Whether you agree with me or not is immaterial to your question. I have read the sections I quoted, pardon me if I didn’t retype or cut and paste them for your perusal. I assumed you had access to the act. If you don’t it resides here – http://www.fincen.gov/hr3162.pdf.
Google is not a verb.
And ‘aggressive’ is spelled ‘aggressive’ – not ‘agressive’. So let’s throw grammar grenades back and forth, shall we?
‘Pedantic’? You betcha! But correct!
I notice that you don’t actually address the fact that almost none of the descriptions you gave of sections of the Patriot Act actually describe what those sections do or don’t say and do. I would have thought it was obvious that I had read them in the original act , just as it was obvious that you had not.
I asked for specific examples of where the provisions of the Patriot Act have been ‘erosive’ of the civil liberties of innocent individuals. You have not yet provided a single example, preferring instead to assert that you see where they ‘probably’ ‘could be’ so. Which is all that anyone who opposes the Patriot Act can ever come up with, becasue for the most part it simply tidies up inconsistencies and loose ends in existing laws, or updates them to reflect new technologies. I don’t believe that things like search warrants, court orders for wiretaps and other, similar evidence-gathering techniques are ‘erosive’ of civil liberties, so long as they are practised under a court’s supervision and remedies exist for their misuse. And I don’t believe that most reasonable people think otherwise.
llater,
llamas
Oh, and by the way – gravid wrote
‘Google is not a verb’.
Well, you like to reference Wikipedia, so would it surprise you to learn that, according to Wikipedia – it is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_(verb)
Care to try again?
llater,
llamas
I have only ever referenced wikipedia once and won’t be doing so again, since it isn’t a reliable source of knowledge. Since we have both read the act ( no matter what you may believe, I have ) we seem to be bickering like lawyers and since I don’t work “pro bono” this will be my last comment.
Who is becasue, someone you know?
Aah, the joys of mistyping eh? Glad I’m not the only one. As part of my employment I have to understand many pieces of legislation. The horror that many are written in such vague a fashion never ceases to amaze me.
Gotta go, bored now.
The legend is that “google” only got to be a word at all as a typing mistake; that Brin and Page intended to register googol.com It is a legend I find hard to believe.
Nevertheless, I do believe that in English – such a libertarian language – a word may be a verb if you can be understood when you verb it.