Can you say Police State?

[MoROmeTe]

Cause it seems that's where we are all going.

1) Restrain of public liberties because of terror alerts all over the world (Australia, UK, France, basically all Europe except the North, SUA)

2) Police granted powers to combat civil unrest (Emergency situation in France, extra powers for police in Austrialia, basically similar powers would be granted in states that experience problems like those in France)

3) Continued manipulation of the masses through media (I'm strching this one a bit, but all media is biased and all out manipulation is just a step away)

Are democracies on a path that might lead, given some conditions, towards a Police State?

Police State = not necesarilly a dystopia like 1984 or Brand New World but rather a modern state in which you are only free when you do not try and challenge the establishment, while challenging the establishment leads to reprisal, not necesarilly in force but through more subtle means.

[Erik]

We should at least be very carefull.
The political right sees recent development as a way to finalize their age old dream of strong government involvement in personal issues.

Europe is about as safe as it has ever been.
Crime is going down.
No country is threatening to invade (except the US with their "the Hague invation act").

But the right spin it to make us beleive we live in danger and need a police state for safety.

[LordSaradain]

The political right sees recent development as a way to finalize their age old dream of strong government involvement in personal issues.

In a liberal society the government should have as little influence over the peple as possible, they should only controll law and order. Its the left wing, ie socialists, that want to controll our personal lives.

sry for double post.

[Erik]

In a liberal society the government should have as little influence over the peple as possible, they should only controll law and order. Its the left wing, ie socialists, that want to controll our personal lives.

Socialists (generally) want big government involvement in the economy and social issues, but little government involvement in persinal issues.
The right generally wants the exact opposite in both issues. (but there are many mixes possible, like libertarians)

Our right-wing government for example wants to make it against the law to extress an opinion that condones terrorism.
If I would for example say "9/11 was a good act" I could be locked up for that.
Lucky the left wing parties, and part of the right-wing coalition are against this law.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Is the US becoming a police state. Well hell yes it is and I for one am sick of it. The America I live in now pales in its freedoms compared to what we had when I was younger. That is unless your a minority. Far too many police and government budding into every little facet of life.

[abaris]

It isn't just the right. 9/11 was in some way the fulfillment of the wet dreams of all the law and order politicians - right or left. Germany had that debate for some time now and until now, they had a left government. Law and order can be very popular among the majority of the people. And it has one desirable side effect. Politicians can show how concerned they are about people's safety, thereby casting a shadow over unemployment and other social problems.

I for one am less concerned about being hit by a terrorist bomb than being hit by some police action running the wrong way. If we give up our civil liberties we can give up on democracy as well.

[Homi]

Erik, you seem to miss the point of this law. Everyone will still be free to say ''9/11 was a good thing''. What this law is for is to prevent religious extremists, be they muslim, christian or jew, to spread hatred amongst other people. So you can still call 9/11 a good thing but no more ''all muslims are evil and have to die because of that, so kill them'' or vice versa. And no, we are nowhere near becoming a police state.

[Pra]

Is the US becoming a police state. Well hell yes it is and I for one am sick of it. The America I live in now pales in its freedoms compared to what we had when I was younger. That is unless your a minority. Far too many police and government budding into every little facet of life.

Woah, again I agree with you Rush; whats happening to the world?

[Carach]

Socialists (generally) want big government involvement in the economy and social issues, but little government involvement in persinal issues.
The right generally wants the exact opposite in both issues. (but there are many mixes possible, like libertarians)

Our right-wing government for example wants to make it against the law to extress an opinion that condones terrorism.
If I would for example say "9/11 was a good act" I could be locked up for that.
Lucky the left wing parties, and part of the right-wing coalition are against this law.

lucky?

i know it may infringe on the right to express opinion. but it sickens me that extremists living in my country can speak out and say how great the terrorist attacks were. and how people should rise up against the west without punishment.

Of course they are happy to come and live here, off our benefits etc etc...but they still hate us and want to see our society crumble..

That is pretty much treason.

[First Crusader]

Our right-wing government for example wants to make it against the law to extress an opinion that condones terrorism.
If I would for example say "9/11 was a good act" I could be locked up for that.
Lucky the left wing parties, and part of the right-wing coalition are against this law.

When we say come up with a good example for your argument... we meant a real example. You're free to express any opinion you want.

Actually, the opposite is true. It is actually religious speech in Europe that is being regulated.

If a pastor expresses Biblical revulsion at fags, he can be prosecuted. Lol:

2004-JUN: Sweden: Pentecostal pastor convicted of hate speech: Sweden passed a constitutional amendment in 2002 which included sexual orientation in a list of groups protected from "unfavorable speech." The law protects heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Sometime in 2003, Pastor Ake Green delivered a sermon at his Pentecostal church in Borgholk, Sweden. He allegedly described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." He described them as "perverts, whose sexual drive the Devil has used as his strongest weapon against God." He was charged with inciting hatred against a group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

A liberal site that actually encourages speech regulation, by the way.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_news_04c.htm

So the pastor stated fact - the Bible says perversion is a sin. And he was jailed for it.

So much for "tolerant liberalism".

You can't just go around imprisoning everyone that you disagree with.

You are probably going to accuse me of wanting to discriminate against Muslims. Not true. They can say whatever they want in their sermons too.

[Carach]

When we say come up with a good example for your argument... we meant a real example. You're free to express any opinion you want.

Actually, the opposite is true. It is actually religious speech in Europe that is being regulated.

If a pastor expresses Biblical revulsion at fags, he can be prosecuted. Lol:



A liberal site that actually encourages speech regulation, by the way.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_news_04c.htm

So the pastor stated fact - the Bible says perversion is a sin. And he was jailed for it.

So much for "tolerant liberalism".

roflmao? but a muslim can tell people to rise up against the west etc etc..without **** being done to him..

now thats EQUAL RIGHTS!

[First Crusader]

Very true. While both parties in the U.S. disagree on various issues, they both agree on one serious issue: the government should have more power.

Regardless of political affiliation, each president expands the power of the government in some way.

Erik's ridiculous attempt to blame it all on "the right" was funny. :laughing:

[MoROmeTe]

I ain't blaming it on the right, but rather on the government, be it how it wants aligned...

It seems that those in power, the establishment, want to conserve the status quo no matter wehat. Power for the sake of power.

[First Crusader]

I ain't blaming it on the right, but rather on the government, be it how it wants aligned...

It seems that those in power, the establishment, want to conserve the status quo no matter wehat. Power for the sake of power.

Yeah, thats about it too.

I was actually referring to Erik. I knew you weren't blaming it on the right.

The political right sees recent development as a way to finalize their age old dream of strong government involvement in personal issues.

[DougyM]

"Police state" is a phrase used all too commonly by drama queens.

There realy isnt anything more that needs to be said.

[First Crusader]

"Police state" is a phrase used all too commonly by drama queens.

There realy isnt anything more that needs to be said.

I think Britain, and many places in the U.S., are becoming police states.

Have you noticed that cops are starting to look less like bobbies and more like faceless stormtroopers from an evil sci-fi empire?

In New Zealand, cops don't even feel the need to wear guns, let alone body armor. They have figured out how to keep crime down without taking away anybody's rights.

[Francisco Montana]

"Police state" is a phrase used all too commonly by drama queens.

There realy isnt anything more that needs to be said.

That about sums up how I feel, well said Knight_Yellow.

In New Zealand, cops don't even feel the need to wear guns, let alone body armor. They have figured out how to keep crime down without taking away anybody's rights.

It's alot easier to keep a lid on crime when there are only 12 people involved. (OK, exaggeration, but still).


And 1stC, some of us actually consider this struggle between the West and Radical Islam to be a war. Some liberties are 'suspended' in time of war. It happened to a much larger degree during WW2, but then our generation will never be able to imagine just how hard things were back then. We've lost our historical perspective, unfortunately.

[Trey]

Very true. While both parties in the U.S. disagree on various issues, they both agree on one serious issue: the government should have more power.

Regardless of political affiliation, each president expands the power of the government in some way.

Erik's ridiculous attempt to blame it all on "the right" was funny. :laughing:

even funnier was that hate america bs.

[First Crusader]

even funnier was that hate america bs.

What "hate America bs"?

[LordSaradain]

I think it is inevitable. As criminals get more advanced, the police have to counter this by becoming more advanced in preventing and fighting criminals and terrorists, ie we get a police state, otherwise we would have anarchy.