Permission to Speak Freely

[William Joyce]

None in Europe, sadly.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/taki.html

 

[HopeandGlory]

None in Europe, sadly.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/taki.html

Have to disagree - we do have this freedom in the UK - whether or not anyone listens is a different matter . . .

 

[William Joyce]

Have to disagree - we do have this freedom in the UK - whether or not anyone listens is a different matter . . .

Yes, good distinction, though USMB doesn't have a separate section for the UK or Ireland, so I tucked it in "Europe."

 

[Dr Grump]

None in Europe, sadly.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/taki.html

Kinda reminds of Sheehan and that woman who supported Bush getting chucked out of meetings for wearing T-shirts...
[edit] Better qualify that - the part where the British woman was taken out by 14 cops for reading out Brit servicemen's names at the cenotaph is what I am referring to..

 

[Annie]

We Brits live in the most free society in the world, no one can deny this.The Americans have a very sound base for freedom with their constitution but it is such a shame that it only applies to those that are deemed worthy.We in Great Britain extend our courtesy and laws to all others with no distinction made for race colour or creed, in all honesty does the same rule apply in the USA?

If I remember correctly, there are limits on speech in both countries and in times of 'extremis' UK has the precedents in place to make limitations much easier. Here is one link that backs that up in degrees, I'll look further at some things I have on comparative governments:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...edu&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

 

[William Joyce]

To K's post I would add the UK's Race Relations Act, which would barely pass First Amendment muster in the states. Under it, a young man named David Wilson was sent to prison in Scotland for distributing flyers warning that Muslims were dangerous. And, BNP leader Nick Griffin just sat for a criminal trial for having given a speech in which he called Islam a "wicked" faith. This, mind you, was BEFORE 7/7. Meanwhile, sheiks in London can call for the destruction of the UK, and the Crown service will look the other way.

So, in response to roomy, sorry, fella. The "color-blind" fairness of your country is belied by the facts. White Britons do not have the same rights to free speech as non-white foreigners.

 

[Said1]

We Brits live in the most free society in the world, no one can deny this.The Americans have a very sound base for freedom with their constitution but it is such a shame that it only applies to those that are deemed worthy.We in Great Britain extend our courtesy and laws to all others with no distinction made for race colour or creed, in all honesty does the same rule apply in the USA?

But your laws pertaining to human rights are not protected by a constitution, written or otherwise. They are common laws, like any other. If laws past by your legislature conflict with human rights laws, well that's that then, eh?

 

[Dr Grump]

But your laws pertaining to human rights are not protected by a constitution, written or otherwise. They are common laws, like any other. If laws past by your legislature conflict with human rights laws, well that's that then, eh?

The Constitution can be amended. It is not sacrosanct...

 

[Diuretic]

But your laws pertaining to human rights are not protected by a constitution, written or otherwise. They are common laws, like any other. If laws past by your legislature conflict with human rights laws, well that's that then, eh?

Tony Blair is doing his nut over legislation that he introduced which incorporated the European human rights legislation into British legislation. Now he wants to undo what he did. Bloody hypocrite.

 

[HopeandGlory]

Tony Blair is doing his nut over legislation that he introduced which incorporated the European human rights legislation into British legislation. Now he wants to undo what he did. Bloody hypocrite.

This one has jumped up and bitten him on the arse. Usual case of do first, think later!

 

[Diuretic]

What annoys the whatsit out of me is that it's all very well to announce this stuff and then bring it in in a fanfare of publicity and then flash the toothy grin at everyone and make sure the warm inner glow's in everyone (the only warm inner glow I trust is usually from a Jameson's bottle) but hello, it's the law and that means even the government has to obey it! And now he's slagging off the courts! He wrote the bloody law in the first place.

Politicians!

 

[Said1]

The Constitution can be amended. It is not sacrosanct...

However, the point still stands. Any laws pertaining to human rights in the UK are common laws. How often has the constitution been amended to make concessions for new common laws, out of curiosity?

Abby,would you like to s'plain the difference?

 

[Annie]

However, the point still stands. Any laws pertaining to human rights in the UK are common laws. How often has the constitution been amended to make concessions for new common laws, out of curiosity?

Abby,would you like to s'plain the difference?

27 amendments. first 10 immediately after ratification, Bill of Right. Of the other 17, 3 are 'reconstruction amendments; 1 initiated prohibition, another took it out; 1 added to limit presidential terms, after FDR went for 4.

Not easily changed, purposefully.

 

[Said1]

27 amendments. first 10 immediately after ratification, Bill of Right. Of the other 17, 3 are 'reconstruction amendments; 1 initiated prohibition, another took it out; 1 added to limit presidential terms, after FDR went for 4.

Not easily changed, purposefully.

Exactly, and that's over the last 150 yrs?

I know it's not written in stone, but the idea is that they are above common laws and not easily changed.

 

[Said1]

9 since 1982. I had to look that up.

And because you're probably going to ask, there is no set, written seperation of church and state outlined within our consitution, although God is mentioned.

Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983 dealt with Aboriginal rights.

Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation) permitted future changes to the distribution of seats for Parliament to be done by ordinary statute.

Constitution Amendment, 1987 (Newfoundland Act) extended education rights to the Pentecostal Church.

Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (New Brunswick Act) made English and French both official languages in New Brunswick.

Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1993 (Prince Edward Island) cleared the way for the "fixed link" bridge to replace ferry services to P.E.I.

Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1997 (Newfoundland Act) allowed the Province of Newfoundland to create a secular school system to replace the church-based education system.

Constitution Amendment, 1997 (Quebec) permitted the province to replace the denominational school boards with ones organized on linguistic lines.

Constitution Amendment, 1998 (Newfoundland) allowed the province to abolish the denominational school system.

Constitution Act, 1999 (Nunavut) provides for representation in the House of Commons and the Senate for the Nunavut Territory.

Constitution Amendment 2001 (Newfoundland and Labrador) officially changed the name of the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

 

[Diuretic]

However, the point still stands. Any laws pertaining to human rights in the UK are common laws. <snipped>

Just a tiny point. There are a few statutes that pertain to human rights in the UK. One of them said hello to Uncle Tony just last week.

 

[Said1]

Just a tiny point. There are a few statutes that pertain to human rights in the UK. One of them said hello to Uncle Tony just last week.

What happened?

And don't leave me hanging, I need my daily stories.

 

[Diuretic]

This is from a blog - it's a reputable legal blog though, not an off-the-wall nutter:

Government angry that it can't deport hijackers.
After Mr Justice Sullivan, in a carefully worded judgment, accused the government of "an abuse of power...at the highest level" and insisted the Afghans should remain in Britain until it was safe for them to return to their own country, John Reid, the latest entrant through the revolving doors of the Big Brother house, has confirmed that the government will appeal the "inexplicable" decision by Sullivan J not to allow the deportation of nine Afghans who hijacked a plane and flew to Britain six years ago.

Sullivan J's judgment is perfectly 'explicable' to all but the dullest of minds. It was carefully worded and applied the Human Rights laws brought in by the Prime Minister's government in a fair and impartial manner.




Mr Justice Sullivan, perhaps anticipating a dissenting judgment from Lord Protector Blair, said "Lest there be any misunderstanding, the issue in this case is not whether the executive should take action to discourage hijacking, but whether the executive should be required to take such action within the law as laid down by parliament and the courts," Blair went on to hyperventilate... "It's not an abuse of justice for us to order their deportation, it's an abuse of common sense frankly to be in a position where we can't do this,"


The problem is one of law. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), incorporated directly into English law in the Human Rights Act 1998, requires judges to interpret any existing English legislation in the light of the ECHR. (I provide the link just in case any advisers to Tony Blair read this piece and have difficulty remembering this legislation because no note was taken during the fireside sofa chatwith Tony when the HRA 1998 was considered).

The European Convention on Human Rights came about for a very good reason. I quote from our own Ministry of Defence website: "This is one of the earliest and most important treaties passed by the Council of Europe, a group of nations invited by Sir Winston Churchill to come together after the Second World War to stop such atrocities and acts of cruelty happening again."

In the great scheme of things, the matter of the Afghan hijacking may be a minor episode - but we simply can't take the 'common sense' approach advocated by The Great Protector in a vain attempt to cuddle up to the great British Public - because once we start to ignore or interpret our way around laws intended to protect human rights we start to slide down the slippery slope to convenient atrocity of greater magnitude. Sullivan J expressed the view that the abuse of power by the Home Office was the perfect example of a minister &#8220;being given an unfettered administrative discretion to depart from published policy whenever he thought that it was appropriate to do so&#8221;.

And now we learn that Tony and David want to relieve themselves of the inconvenience of some parts of the Human Rights Act

The Observer (14 May) gave an excellent analysis of the Human Right Act furore by commenting on Tony Blair's plans to overhaul the legislation to put the rights of the people ahead of those of criminals. As I am not a specialist in matters of Human Rights law, I am delighted to quote from the Observer.

" Anthony Lester, the human rights lawyer and Liberal Democrat peer, was particularly scathing about Blair's response to the Afghan ruling: 'The Human Rights Act was one of the first constitutional reforms of this government, but the Prime Minister persists in undermining public confidence in the rule of law and the protection of human rights by the senior judiciary,'

and.. The Observer's own leader expresses, far better than I could hope to, the need for us to watch what Blair is attempting to do.

http://www.spr-consilio.com/charonblawg.html

 

[HopeandGlory]

Aside from the appalling mess of the Human Rights Act - I rather liked the 'Talk like a Pirate Day' part of the blog . . . :happy2:

Far more soothing and grown-up than our Tone's arrant stupidity!

 

[Matrixx8]

None in Europe, sadly.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/taki.html

Nice try, but there's a piece of the free-speech puzzle missing in the article you quote -- and in your comment on the article.

I seriously doubt that free speech is any less evident in Europe (at least in "Old Europe") than it is anywhere else in the world. For example, as an American living in the Netherlands, I can assure you that in many ways Dutch residents have much more freedom of speech than do American residents.

Why do you suppose that Theo van Gogh was murdered or Hirshi Ali received death threats? It is because they chose to use their right of free speech to insult and debase an entire culture, rather than individuals within that culture who believe in medieval magic and supernatural interventions.

Dutch television does not censor nudity or vulgar language. Nor is it legal for companies who have advertising contracts to put pressure on TV broadcasters to cancel programs because they do not like the content (something that happens everyday in the USA).

Is this situation different in other European countries? Some, like Germany and Austria, have hate-speech legislation that bans calls for the extermination of Jews or Muslims. Aren't death threats banned in the U.S.?

The U.S. is certainly no exception to the censorship rule -- not in its long history and despite the First Amendment.

The historical examples read like a hit list of free speech issues -- from the Alien and Sedition Acts to suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, from the Espionage Act of 1917 to the Smith Act during the Second World War and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s.

More recently, the Bush Administration has tried to revive a law that went into effect under the Clinton Administration:

"Indecent" Speech Could Land You In Prison. Under Section 223 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), indecent speech via telephone, fax, or e-mail is punishable by up to 2 years in prison and a $100,000 fine. Under this law, an explicit love note e-mailed to your spouse, discussions of abortion, or even using one of the "seven dirty words" banned by the FCC could land you in prison. Fortunately, this section of the CDA was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998. But virulent attempts to pass similar laws to censor the Internet and other electronic communications continue.
Under the Child On Line Protection Act any materials deemed "harmful to minors" would be banned from cyber-space, effectively re-instituting the CDA. Similar provisions are also contained in the 1999 Juvenile Justice Bill passed by both houses of Congress and now in conference committee to reconcile differing Senate and House versions.

Besides this, there are many other free speech issues in the U.S., including patent laws, campus codes and free speech in the workplace (protecting employees' rights to criticize their bosses or their companies without being fired).

So, while every country has its up and downside, the U.S. is certainly no better off than any other constitutional democracy when it comes to free speech.

But, hey, I agree with your take on the issue.